So, what are your meta-arguments for going with one side or the other for any given controversial subject on which you have an opinion?
Don’t play the game!
My goal state of mind on subjects on which there truly is not a expert consensus is to acknowledge that there is no consensus and thus not choose one side or another.
If I have to make a concrete decision about one of these subjects (who or what to vote for, for example) I just choose a side while making a conscious effort to recognize that I picked a side for this one specific decision and that I did not just choose a tribe.
By “choose a side” I really mean I try to weigh all the evidence for a side as best as time and ability allow and I also try to account for the costs of choosing the wrong side for this specific decision.
By “choose a side” I really mean I try to weigh all the evidence for a side as best as time and ability allow
(I’m going to run with the hypothetical where someone meant this literally, even if you didn’t.)
This should be “evidence against the side”, if the choice is between primarily “for” and “against”. Once you’ve made a tentative decision, additional evidence selected to support that decision won’t change it, and so it does no useful work. There’s also confirmation bias working in this direction. If on the other hand you focus on looking primarily for the opposing evidence, you may oscillate between various positions too much, but at least you’d be learning something in the process.
There is also a mode of gathering evidence where you improve understanding of the arguments already used to form your position. This understanding doesn’t necessarily come with claims about how it’d sway your conclusions, it’s motivated by value of information. The process of examining confirming arguments may look like gathering of more confirmating evidence, even if the outcome may be the opposite.
Don’t play the game!
My goal state of mind on subjects on which there truly is not a expert consensus is to acknowledge that there is no consensus and thus not choose one side or another.
If I have to make a concrete decision about one of these subjects (who or what to vote for, for example) I just choose a side while making a conscious effort to recognize that I picked a side for this one specific decision and that I did not just choose a tribe.
By “choose a side” I really mean I try to weigh all the evidence for a side as best as time and ability allow and I also try to account for the costs of choosing the wrong side for this specific decision.
The important part is remembering the danger of incorporating a side into your identity. (See Graham’s essay on the idea: http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html)
I’m still not sure it’s possible to make a conscious, successful effort to not make these things a part of your identity, but it’s what I strive for.
(I’m going to run with the hypothetical where someone meant this literally, even if you didn’t.)
This should be “evidence against the side”, if the choice is between primarily “for” and “against”. Once you’ve made a tentative decision, additional evidence selected to support that decision won’t change it, and so it does no useful work. There’s also confirmation bias working in this direction. If on the other hand you focus on looking primarily for the opposing evidence, you may oscillate between various positions too much, but at least you’d be learning something in the process.
There is also a mode of gathering evidence where you improve understanding of the arguments already used to form your position. This understanding doesn’t necessarily come with claims about how it’d sway your conclusions, it’s motivated by value of information. The process of examining confirming arguments may look like gathering of more confirmating evidence, even if the outcome may be the opposite.
Good points.
(also I didn’t mean it literally, I was just too sloppy in my writing)