In this context, I think of “rational” as being open to questioning your assumptions. (I adore Simulacra’s first step described as “separation of ideas from the self”.) I agree with the general view here that being rational is a result of cognitive dissonance—if your map doesn’t fit the landscape then you’re motivated to find a new map. The amount of cognitive dissonance throughout my life has been really extraordinary. I suspect that this is true for most people here.
I think I am rational enough, in the sense of being open to new ideas, as I have somewhat fewer assumptions than I need to get by comfortably already. As a small kid scaring myself with extreme philosophical views, I happily observed that afterwards I could just go downstairs and have a turkey sandwich.
I don’t feel very well adapted to the real world. I often feel like everyone got a rule book and I didn’t. (I recall once in elementary school that some kids said that when God was passing out brains I was hold holding the door open. I had a reputation for asking stupid (obvious) questions and, bewilderingly, I was holding the door open.) So from my point of view, LW is an amazing social micro-niche where it is OK to ask about the rulebook. In fact, you guys are analyzing the rulebook.
That’s the over-arching (hopeful) goal for being here. On a local level, I really enjoy debating and learning about stuff. Regarding learning, I don’t think we are pooling our resources in the most efficient way to get to the bottom of things. I think it would be cool to develop some kind of group strategy to effectively answer questions that should have answers:
“Given a controversial question in which there are good and bad arguments on both sides, how do you determine the answer when you’re not yourself an expert in the subject?”
(I recall once in elementary school that some kids said that when God was passing out brains I was hold holding the door open. I had a reputation for asking stupid (obvious) questions and, bewilderingly, I was holding the door open.)
I’ve notice time and time again that, if you ask a teacher a lot of questions, most people will assume you’re incompetent.
I’ve notice time and time again that, if you ask a teacher a lot of questions, most people will assume you’re incompetent.
Interesting—my experience was that they (the class, but sometimes also the teacher) found me annoying, instead.
During my (brief) venture in college, taking a beginning calculus class, I tended to run way behind the teacher, trying to figure out why he’d done some particular step, and would finally give in and ask about it.
Invariably, he would glance at that step, and go, “Oh, you’re right. That’s wrong, I should have done...” And trailing off, he would erase nearly half the blackboard, back to the place where I was, and start over from there. About half the class would then glare at me, for having made them have to get rid of all the notes they just took.
Apparently, they were copying everything down whether they understood it or not, whereas I was only writing down what I could actually do. Craziest damn thing I ever saw. (But then, I didn’t spend very many years in school, either before or after that point.)
Really?
I’d expect that (1) most teachers would like lots of questions; (2) the teacher’s opinion would be visible to the class; and (3) the class would trust the opinion of the teacher.
1) is true for good teachers, and increasingly as one progresses through education, but not always. My physics teacher imposed a 5 question/day limit on me, albeit somewhat in jest.
2) is probably true, but may harm the student before they’re saved by college/ banding by ability, as 3) becomes increasing true with time.
I’d slightly rephrase that as ”...in which both sides have arguments that a non-expert might be convinced by...”—there’s no barrier to such a problem arising even where there are no inherently good arguments at all on one side, such as the MMR-autism scare.
Handle: byrnema
My Rationalist Origin Story
In this context, I think of “rational” as being open to questioning your assumptions. (I adore Simulacra’s first step described as “separation of ideas from the self”.) I agree with the general view here that being rational is a result of cognitive dissonance—if your map doesn’t fit the landscape then you’re motivated to find a new map. The amount of cognitive dissonance throughout my life has been really extraordinary. I suspect that this is true for most people here.
I think I am rational enough, in the sense of being open to new ideas, as I have somewhat fewer assumptions than I need to get by comfortably already. As a small kid scaring myself with extreme philosophical views, I happily observed that afterwards I could just go downstairs and have a turkey sandwich.
I don’t feel very well adapted to the real world. I often feel like everyone got a rule book and I didn’t. (I recall once in elementary school that some kids said that when God was passing out brains I was hold holding the door open. I had a reputation for asking stupid (obvious) questions and, bewilderingly, I was holding the door open.) So from my point of view, LW is an amazing social micro-niche where it is OK to ask about the rulebook. In fact, you guys are analyzing the rulebook.
That’s the over-arching (hopeful) goal for being here. On a local level, I really enjoy debating and learning about stuff. Regarding learning, I don’t think we are pooling our resources in the most efficient way to get to the bottom of things. I think it would be cool to develop some kind of group strategy to effectively answer questions that should have answers:
“Given a controversial question in which there are good and bad arguments on both sides, how do you determine the answer when you’re not yourself an expert in the subject?”
I’ve notice time and time again that, if you ask a teacher a lot of questions, most people will assume you’re incompetent.
Interesting—my experience was that they (the class, but sometimes also the teacher) found me annoying, instead.
During my (brief) venture in college, taking a beginning calculus class, I tended to run way behind the teacher, trying to figure out why he’d done some particular step, and would finally give in and ask about it.
Invariably, he would glance at that step, and go, “Oh, you’re right. That’s wrong, I should have done...” And trailing off, he would erase nearly half the blackboard, back to the place where I was, and start over from there. About half the class would then glare at me, for having made them have to get rid of all the notes they just took.
Apparently, they were copying everything down whether they understood it or not, whereas I was only writing down what I could actually do. Craziest damn thing I ever saw. (But then, I didn’t spend very many years in school, either before or after that point.)
Really? I’d expect that (1) most teachers would like lots of questions; (2) the teacher’s opinion would be visible to the class; and (3) the class would trust the opinion of the teacher.
Where am I going wrong?
1) is true for good teachers, and increasingly as one progresses through education, but not always. My physics teacher imposed a 5 question/day limit on me, albeit somewhat in jest.
2) is probably true, but may harm the student before they’re saved by college/ banding by ability, as 3) becomes increasing true with time.
Your last question is of towering importance.
I’d slightly rephrase that as ”...in which both sides have arguments that a non-expert might be convinced by...”—there’s no barrier to such a problem arising even where there are no inherently good arguments at all on one side, such as the MMR-autism scare.
This was exactly the issue that originally motivated this question for me.