I find it is more likely that the times it degenerates into a fight is due to the lack of ability on one of the debaters. The alternative is to believe that people like ourselves are somehow special. It is anecdotal but I used to be incredibly stubborn until i met some good teachers and mentors. Now i think the burden of proof lies on the claim that, despite our apparent similarities, a large portion of humans are incapable of being reasoned with no matter how good the teacher or delivery.
Of course i expect some people physically cannot reason due to brain damage or whatever. But these are a far smaller group than what i imagine you are suggesting.
I would claim their main goal is not fitting in but achieving happiness which they do by fitting in (albeit this may not be the most optimum path). And i claim this is your goal as well. If you can accept that premise, we again have to ask if you are special in some way for valuing the truth so highly? Do you not aim to be happy? I think you and i also have the same core goal we just realize that its easier to navigate to happiness with a map that closely matches reality.
Everybody benefits from a good map. That is why a good teacher can convert bull headed people like i used to be by starting with providing tools for mapping reality such education in fallacies and biases. When packaged in an easy to digest manner, tools that help improve reality maps are so useful that very few will reject them just like very few people reject how to add and subtract.
It is anecdotal but I used to be incredibly stubborn until i met some good teachers and mentors.
I guess when you say stubborn you mean that you tried to be independent and didn’t listen to other people. That’s not the issue with the person who’s religious because most of his friends are religious.
Now i think the burden of proof lies on the claim that, despite our apparent similarities, a large portion of humans are incapable of being reasoned with no matter how good the teacher or delivery.
A good teacher who teaches well can get a lot of people to adopt a specific belief but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the students get the belief through “reasoning”. If the teacher would teach a different belief on the concept he would also get that accross.
Now i think the burden of proof lies on the claim that, despite our apparent similarities, a large portion of humans are incapable of being reasoned with no matter how good the teacher or delivery.
What evidence do you have that education in fallicies or biases helps people think better?
There seem to be many people who want to believe that’s true but as far as I know the decision science literature doesn’t consider that belief to be true.
You seem to be proposing a simplistic theory of goals, much like the simplistic theory of goals that leads Eliezer to the mistaken conclusion that AI will want to take over the world.
In particular, happiness is not one unified thing that everyone is aiming at, that is the same for them and me. If I admit that I do what I do in order to be happy, then a big part of that happiness would be “knowing the truth,” while for them, that would be only a small part, or no part at all (although perhaps “claiming to possess the truth” would be a part of it for them—but it is really not the same to value claiming to possess the truth, and to value the truth.)
Additionally, using “happiness” as it is typically used, I am in fact less happy on account of valuing the truth more, and there is no guarantee that this will ever be otherwise.
I find it is more likely that the times it degenerates into a fight is due to the lack of ability on one of the debaters. The alternative is to believe that people like ourselves are somehow special. It is anecdotal but I used to be incredibly stubborn until i met some good teachers and mentors. Now i think the burden of proof lies on the claim that, despite our apparent similarities, a large portion of humans are incapable of being reasoned with no matter how good the teacher or delivery. Of course i expect some people physically cannot reason due to brain damage or whatever. But these are a far smaller group than what i imagine you are suggesting.
I would claim their main goal is not fitting in but achieving happiness which they do by fitting in (albeit this may not be the most optimum path). And i claim this is your goal as well. If you can accept that premise, we again have to ask if you are special in some way for valuing the truth so highly? Do you not aim to be happy? I think you and i also have the same core goal we just realize that its easier to navigate to happiness with a map that closely matches reality. Everybody benefits from a good map. That is why a good teacher can convert bull headed people like i used to be by starting with providing tools for mapping reality such education in fallacies and biases. When packaged in an easy to digest manner, tools that help improve reality maps are so useful that very few will reject them just like very few people reject how to add and subtract.
I guess when you say stubborn you mean that you tried to be independent and didn’t listen to other people. That’s not the issue with the person who’s religious because most of his friends are religious.
A good teacher who teaches well can get a lot of people to adopt a specific belief but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the students get the belief through “reasoning”. If the teacher would teach a different belief on the concept he would also get that accross.
What evidence do you have that education in fallicies or biases helps people think better? There seem to be many people who want to believe that’s true but as far as I know the decision science literature doesn’t consider that belief to be true.
You seem to be proposing a simplistic theory of goals, much like the simplistic theory of goals that leads Eliezer to the mistaken conclusion that AI will want to take over the world.
In particular, happiness is not one unified thing that everyone is aiming at, that is the same for them and me. If I admit that I do what I do in order to be happy, then a big part of that happiness would be “knowing the truth,” while for them, that would be only a small part, or no part at all (although perhaps “claiming to possess the truth” would be a part of it for them—but it is really not the same to value claiming to possess the truth, and to value the truth.)
Additionally, using “happiness” as it is typically used, I am in fact less happy on account of valuing the truth more, and there is no guarantee that this will ever be otherwise.