So, the path of purposeful self-deception is not the road to higher rationality, no matter how well it happens to work.
Correct
To use the monkey riding on the tiger analogy for human cognition, I wonder which is more effective. The monkey putting the tiger in a pen and swinging through the trees alone...Or the monkey that ties a steak to a stick and rides the tiger.
I suspect the monkey is better off putting the tiger in a pen and swinging through the trees alone—with a steak and a stick it is just a matter of time before the monkey loses control of the situation and becomes a side dish to the steak. Similarly, trying to harness self-deception to lead one to truth/rationality is apt to backfire.
Taking the analogy further to a community of tiger riding monkeys...The monkey that waves the steak on a stick in front of some other monkey’s tiger probably has a future in marketing.
The monkeys who decide to pen their tigers may have a problem, the tigers are still present, may be unhappy about their confinement, and after a time, the monkeys may not watch them as closely as they should...
As a case in point, I give you the prevalence of polyamory in the rationalist community. Historically, polygyny has been a feature of insular communities that wanted to become more insular. Is polyamory serving its purpose as a strong social barrier to entry for the high table of the rationalist community, or is it really just pure rationality at work?
I don’t see how it can be very useful as a “strong social barrier to entry”. It’s not as if you have to be poly to be accepted as a rationalist, is it?
Correct
I suspect the monkey is better off putting the tiger in a pen and swinging through the trees alone—with a steak and a stick it is just a matter of time before the monkey loses control of the situation and becomes a side dish to the steak. Similarly, trying to harness self-deception to lead one to truth/rationality is apt to backfire.
Taking the analogy further to a community of tiger riding monkeys...The monkey that waves the steak on a stick in front of some other monkey’s tiger probably has a future in marketing.
The monkeys who decide to pen their tigers may have a problem, the tigers are still present, may be unhappy about their confinement, and after a time, the monkeys may not watch them as closely as they should...
As a case in point, I give you the prevalence of polyamory in the rationalist community. Historically, polygyny has been a feature of insular communities that wanted to become more insular. Is polyamory serving its purpose as a strong social barrier to entry for the high table of the rationalist community, or is it really just pure rationality at work?
I don’t see how it can be very useful as a “strong social barrier to entry”. It’s not as if you have to be poly to be accepted as a rationalist, is it?