I don’t know. That’s a good question. Is it because you think that I get paid to drive traffic to my blog? Or, do you think that I get more money when more people visit my blog? If so, how much money do you think that I get? And, how exactly do you think that I’m getting it?
There no reason to make up a new abbreviation for it. Especially one that isn’t opaque to other people.
For me it’s very hard to judge individual beliefs changes by those categories.
Replacing belief in God by replacing it with belief in evolution isn’t real progress. It sometimes leads to annoying people who think that evolution should dictate their moral choices. It’s quite okay for a 11 year old to have a simple view on the world and “believe” in evolution, but developing a rational way of dealing with the subject takes more.
Real progress is more structural. You don’t listen to evolution instead of God for moral guidance, but you stop having a single external source of moral guidance.
Most of the major things I believe today that I didn’t two years ago are in a form where I couldn’t express the belief in the language that I used two years ago.
Zero, I think. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
What stands out to me about “epic changes of mind” is that the very scale of the event casts doubt on both sides of the change. By definition, you think whatever you currently believe is true, and the more wrenching the change, the more it will feel as if you have escaped from dreadful error into the pure light of truth. But a belief is not evidence of its own correctness, and the intensity of the feelings casts doubt wherever they are directed.
There is an excellent example in the case of John C. Wright, the science fiction writer, who was a staunch materialist atheist, and employed all his reason in arguing that philosophy. Then he had a heart attack, surgery, and a religious vision, following which he employs his reason in arguing with equal verve for Catholicism. Rationalists will say that something broke in his brain and led him to a state of inescapable error and delusion. He and his co-religionists say that God performed a miracle in saving him from error and delusion, that he might be a soldier of reason for the Christian faith.
If reason can be so readily practised in diametrically opposite directions by the same person, should we accept a conclusion merely because of a formidable argument? Should we believe our beliefs? If not, what should we do about them anyway?
Rationalists will say that something broke in his brain and led him to a state of inescapable error and delusion.
I don’t something in the brain needs to break to have a religious vision. The problem seems rather that the person completely overrates a single experience. It’s very worthwhile to rest your beliefs on many distinct strings of evidence.
I would observe that, in general, the circumstances which lead people to change their mind from believing in God to not, are not similar circumstances that lead them to change from not believing to believing. So even if the size of the change is the same, they may not happen for similar reasons.
0 could be a bad thing if either one of the following is true...
It reflects the fact that you haven’t considered a lot of evidence.
You ignored/rationalized substantial evidence that contradicted your fundamental beliefs.
If somebody has had one or more true linvoids, then I can’t accuse them of always ignoring evidence that contradicts their fundamental beliefs.
Very generally speaking… I’m guessing that people with higher linvoids consider a lot of evidence and have a tendency to adjust their beliefs to fit the evidence and not the other way around.
That being said, if I had been raised as a pragmatarian atheist rather than a liberal christian… then perhaps my LQ would be 0 as well. The available evidence would have confirmed, rather than contradicted, my beliefs.
Your example is funny in how it mirrors a comment that I recently posted on this blog entry… Davis on AI capability and motivation. I don’t know if your example counts as a linvoid. Neither of my linvoids were caused by any single event. They were the result of a lot of digging. They sure weren’t epiphanies. This doesn’t mean that a significant event can’t provide a preponderance of evidence… it just means that I’d be a bit hesitant to label any resulting shift in belief as a linvoid.
Anyways, this is my first real attempt at analysis. It just seems like a truism that the more evidence somebody considers… the more likely they are to encounter evidence that contradicts their fundamental beliefs. It also seems like a truism that no two people are going to be equally able to adjust their fundamental beliefs accordingly.
One thing I notice about myself is that I always endeavor to “consume” evidence that my “opponents” throw at me. This is how I became just as familiar with the best anarcho-capitalist arguments for eliminating government as I am with the best liberal arguments for not eliminating governments. If I had only consumed evidence that supported my belief in limited government libertarianism… then I never would have had my second linvoid. So it’s not just the quantity of evidence considered… it’s the quality of evidence that one considers. And by “quality” I mean evidence that challenges your belief.
I posted this survey in a few different forums and the results have been disappointing. You’re really the only person who actually responded in a way that I had hoped for! Most other people either didn’t grasp what I was after… or they did grasp it but preferred not to provide it. In retrospect… perhaps a large part of the problem stems from how I worded it. No surprise there!
I’d be really interested to see how people on this forum would respond to a much better worded survey. Unfortunately… I’m not so great with words and my karma is too low to post articles. If you’d be interested in the results as well… please feel free to improve on my attempt. I’d of course be happy to provide any feedback on any drafts.
What’s your LQ?
Why do I get the sense that you’re using LW solely as a marketing vehicle for your website?
I don’t know. That’s a good question. Is it because you think that I get paid to drive traffic to my blog? Or, do you think that I get more money when more people visit my blog? If so, how much money do you think that I get? And, how exactly do you think that I’m getting it?
There no reason to make up a new abbreviation for it. Especially one that isn’t opaque to other people.
For me it’s very hard to judge individual beliefs changes by those categories.
Replacing belief in God by replacing it with belief in evolution isn’t real progress. It sometimes leads to annoying people who think that evolution should dictate their moral choices. It’s quite okay for a 11 year old to have a simple view on the world and “believe” in evolution, but developing a rational way of dealing with the subject takes more.
Real progress is more structural. You don’t listen to evolution instead of God for moral guidance, but you stop having a single external source of moral guidance.
Most of the major things I believe today that I didn’t two years ago are in a form where I couldn’t express the belief in the language that I used two years ago.
Zero, I think. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
What stands out to me about “epic changes of mind” is that the very scale of the event casts doubt on both sides of the change. By definition, you think whatever you currently believe is true, and the more wrenching the change, the more it will feel as if you have escaped from dreadful error into the pure light of truth. But a belief is not evidence of its own correctness, and the intensity of the feelings casts doubt wherever they are directed.
There is an excellent example in the case of John C. Wright, the science fiction writer, who was a staunch materialist atheist, and employed all his reason in arguing that philosophy. Then he had a heart attack, surgery, and a religious vision, following which he employs his reason in arguing with equal verve for Catholicism. Rationalists will say that something broke in his brain and led him to a state of inescapable error and delusion. He and his co-religionists say that God performed a miracle in saving him from error and delusion, that he might be a soldier of reason for the Christian faith.
If reason can be so readily practised in diametrically opposite directions by the same person, should we accept a conclusion merely because of a formidable argument? Should we believe our beliefs? If not, what should we do about them anyway?
I don’t something in the brain needs to break to have a religious vision. The problem seems rather that the person completely overrates a single experience. It’s very worthwhile to rest your beliefs on many distinct strings of evidence.
I would observe that, in general, the circumstances which lead people to change their mind from believing in God to not, are not similar circumstances that lead them to change from not believing to believing. So even if the size of the change is the same, they may not happen for similar reasons.
0 could be a bad thing if either one of the following is true...
It reflects the fact that you haven’t considered a lot of evidence.
You ignored/rationalized substantial evidence that contradicted your fundamental beliefs.
If somebody has had one or more true linvoids, then I can’t accuse them of always ignoring evidence that contradicts their fundamental beliefs.
Very generally speaking… I’m guessing that people with higher linvoids consider a lot of evidence and have a tendency to adjust their beliefs to fit the evidence and not the other way around.
That being said, if I had been raised as a pragmatarian atheist rather than a liberal christian… then perhaps my LQ would be 0 as well. The available evidence would have confirmed, rather than contradicted, my beliefs.
Your example is funny in how it mirrors a comment that I recently posted on this blog entry… Davis on AI capability and motivation. I don’t know if your example counts as a linvoid. Neither of my linvoids were caused by any single event. They were the result of a lot of digging. They sure weren’t epiphanies. This doesn’t mean that a significant event can’t provide a preponderance of evidence… it just means that I’d be a bit hesitant to label any resulting shift in belief as a linvoid.
Anyways, this is my first real attempt at analysis. It just seems like a truism that the more evidence somebody considers… the more likely they are to encounter evidence that contradicts their fundamental beliefs. It also seems like a truism that no two people are going to be equally able to adjust their fundamental beliefs accordingly.
One thing I notice about myself is that I always endeavor to “consume” evidence that my “opponents” throw at me. This is how I became just as familiar with the best anarcho-capitalist arguments for eliminating government as I am with the best liberal arguments for not eliminating governments. If I had only consumed evidence that supported my belief in limited government libertarianism… then I never would have had my second linvoid. So it’s not just the quantity of evidence considered… it’s the quality of evidence that one considers. And by “quality” I mean evidence that challenges your belief.
I posted this survey in a few different forums and the results have been disappointing. You’re really the only person who actually responded in a way that I had hoped for! Most other people either didn’t grasp what I was after… or they did grasp it but preferred not to provide it. In retrospect… perhaps a large part of the problem stems from how I worded it. No surprise there!
I’d be really interested to see how people on this forum would respond to a much better worded survey. Unfortunately… I’m not so great with words and my karma is too low to post articles. If you’d be interested in the results as well… please feel free to improve on my attempt. I’d of course be happy to provide any feedback on any drafts.