rationalists seem to gravitate towards a liberal, individualistic moral foundation, while the rest seem to automatically balance that with, or favor, group binding moral foundations
Unfortunately, once this effect becomes known, it is further exaggerated for signalling purposes. Reversing stupidity is not intelligence, but it is frequently used to signal intelligence or independence.
If most people agree with any group opinion, then I shall signal my intellectual superiority by disagreeing with the group even when the group suggests something useful (a smart person is able to find some error or at least an analogy with some error everywhere). If I agree with someone at 99%, it is an opportunity to gain karma points by pointing out the 1% of difference, even if the cost is ruining a good idea and starting a pattern of mutual defection (next time when I come with an idea the other person agrees at 99% and disagrees with 1%, what is the chance they would support me: epsilon? great, so now instead of two successful projects we have two failed plans).
Thus, we rationalists (and liberals in general) are seen as immoral because of our tendency to disregard others’ crucial moral foundations of ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, purity/sanctity. Thus, this has never been a disagreement over facts at all, but rather, a moral loathing of our very kind.
I guess even greater loathing is at the inability for cooperation and loyalty and basically efficient following of any values in general.
People with other moral foundations and loyalty to other groups can be percieved, in evolutionary terms, as enemies. But people with no moral foundations, no loyalty, no ability to cooperate, are simply… worthless. They are at the bottom of the pecking order. They are annoying, a waste of resources. With a reasonable enemy, you can sometimes have a truce, a cooperation based on game-theoretical mutual advantage. With a person who defects habitually, you can’t have even this.
If someone suggests: “let’s dance together, because it’s (scientifically proved to be) fun” is it really a rational thing to say: “no, that would be like Hitler or something”? Because some comments seem like a diplomatic way to express this.
On a more meta level: Perhaps human brains work differently in a “thinking mode” and “doing mode”. What helps you in one mode, may harm you in the other mode. Independent thinking is good for the thinking mode. (And even this has limits! You should study science instead of reinventing the wheel.) But in doing mode, ambition to do everything alone is detrimental. (Again, it depends. Some things are OK to be done by one person. But other things are too big for this. Yet other things are somewhere between; they can possibly be done by one person, but doing them by group is far more efficient.) It is good to rationally decide whether to join a group or not. It is also good to sometimes review this decision, alone. However if the group is supposed to ever do anything, we can’t all stay 24 hours a day in the paranoid mindset. No, it does not make us more rational, it just makes us losers, and in long-term it leads to sour-grapes philosophy about how the world is biased against intelligent people.
Unfortunately, once this effect becomes known, it is further exaggerated for signalling purposes. Reversing stupidity is not intelligence, but it is frequently used to signal intelligence or independence.
If most people agree with any group opinion, then I shall signal my intellectual superiority by disagreeing with the group even when the group suggests something useful (a smart person is able to find some error or at least an analogy with some error everywhere). If I agree with someone at 99%, it is an opportunity to gain karma points by pointing out the 1% of difference, even if the cost is ruining a good idea and starting a pattern of mutual defection (next time when I come with an idea the other person agrees at 99% and disagrees with 1%, what is the chance they would support me: epsilon? great, so now instead of two successful projects we have two failed plans).
I guess even greater loathing is at the inability for cooperation and loyalty and basically efficient following of any values in general.
People with other moral foundations and loyalty to other groups can be percieved, in evolutionary terms, as enemies. But people with no moral foundations, no loyalty, no ability to cooperate, are simply… worthless. They are at the bottom of the pecking order. They are annoying, a waste of resources. With a reasonable enemy, you can sometimes have a truce, a cooperation based on game-theoretical mutual advantage. With a person who defects habitually, you can’t have even this.
If someone suggests: “let’s dance together, because it’s (scientifically proved to be) fun” is it really a rational thing to say: “no, that would be like Hitler or something”? Because some comments seem like a diplomatic way to express this.
On a more meta level: Perhaps human brains work differently in a “thinking mode” and “doing mode”. What helps you in one mode, may harm you in the other mode. Independent thinking is good for the thinking mode. (And even this has limits! You should study science instead of reinventing the wheel.) But in doing mode, ambition to do everything alone is detrimental. (Again, it depends. Some things are OK to be done by one person. But other things are too big for this. Yet other things are somewhere between; they can possibly be done by one person, but doing them by group is far more efficient.) It is good to rationally decide whether to join a group or not. It is also good to sometimes review this decision, alone. However if the group is supposed to ever do anything, we can’t all stay 24 hours a day in the paranoid mindset. No, it does not make us more rational, it just makes us losers, and in long-term it leads to sour-grapes philosophy about how the world is biased against intelligent people.