I’m very much in favor of what you wrote there. I’ve been thinking to start a separate thread about this some time. Though feel free to beat me to it, I won’t be ready to do so very soon anyway. But here’s a stab at what I’m thinking.
A note for theists: you will find LW overtly atheist. We are happy to have you participating, but please be aware that other commenters are likely to treat religion as an open-and-shut case. This isn’t groupthink; we really, truly have given full consideration to theistic claims and found them to be false.
This is fair. I could, in principle, sit down and discuss rationality with a group having such a disclaimer, except in favor of religion, assuming they got promoted to my attention for some unrelated good reason (like I’ve been linked to an article and read that one and two more and I found them all impressive). Not going to happen in practice, probably, but you get my drift.
Except that’s not the vibe of what Less Wrong is actually like, IMO, that we’re “happy to have” these people. Atheism strikes me as a belief that’s necessary for acceptance to the tribe. This is not a Good Thing, for many reasons, the simplest of which is that atheism is not rationality. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence; people can be atheists for stupid reasons, too. So seeing that atheism seems to be necessary here in order to follow our arguments and see our point, people will be suspicious of those arguments and points. If you can’t make your case about something that in principle isn’t about religion, without using religion in the reasoning, it’s probably not a good case.
What I’d advocate would be not using religion as examples of obvious inanity, in support of some other point, like in this, otherwise great, post:
Now I’m not in favor of censoring religion out and pretending we’re not 99% atheists here or whatever the figure is. If the topic of some article is tied to religion, then sure, anything goes—you’ll need good arguments anyway or you won’t have a post and people will call you on using applause lights instead of argumentation.
But, more subtly: if the topic is some bias or rationality tool, and religion is a good example of how that bias operates/tool fails to be applied, then go ahead and show that example after the bias/tool has already been convincingly established in more neutral terms. It’s one of the reasons why we explain Bayes’ theorem in terms of mammographies, not religion.
However, in some areas, it is particularly difficult to keep things separate. The two cultures are simply very different; discussions have a way of finding the largest differences.
To be more specific: a recent conversation about rationalism came to the point of whether we could depend on the universe not to kill us. (To put it as it was in the conversation: there must be justice in the universe.)
Well, I think you’re absolutely right except, perhaps, regarding the claim that “Atheism strikes me as a belief that’s necessary for acceptance to the tribe.” I’m not an atheist, and while when I mention this fact I get mobbed by people asking me to refute arguments I’ve heard a thousand times before, I’ve never found myself or seen others be rejected as members of the tribe for admitting to religious beliefs.
I can think of another 3 reasons to explain Bayes theorem in terms of mammograms (or “mammographies” if you prefer) - boobs, torture and the mathematical ignorance of physicians.
Tolerance is over-rated (although it’s a Masonic virtue so I’m supposed to like it): to me, the word has supercilious connotations—kind of “I’m going to permit you to persist in error, unmolested, coz I’m just that awesome”.
I prefer acceptance: after you have harangued someone with everything that’s wrong with their view of the problem, give up and accept that they’re idiots.
Tolerance is over-rated (although it’s a Masonic virtue so I’m supposed to like it): to me, the word has supercilious connotations—kind of “I’m going to permit you to persist in error, unmolested, coz I’m just that awesome”.
I prefer acceptance: after you have harangued someone with everything that’s wrong with their view of the problem, give up and accept that they’re idiots.
Firstly, that is the most blatant derailing of a thread I have ever seen.
Secondly, the main advantage of “tolerance” is that most people cannot, by definition, be in a better position to judge on certain issues than most other people—and indeed will almost certainly be wrong about at least some of their beliefs. Thus, it is irrational to impose your beliefs on others if you have no reason to think you are more rational then they are (see also Auman’s Agreement Theorem.) Of course, it is also irrational to believe you are right in this situation, but at least it’s not harming people.
The most extreme example of this principle would be someone programming in their beliefs regarding morality directly into a Seed AI. Since they are almost certainly wrong about something, the AI will then proceed to destroy the world and tile the universe with orgasmium or whatever.
What was the title of the post? Something about tolerance, if I’m not mistaken.
As to your ‘secondly’ point… I absolutely agree with the statement that “most people cannot, by definition, be in a better position to judge on certain issues than most other people” (emphasis mine—in fact I would extend that to say on most issues of more than minimal complexity).
Absolutely key point to bear in mind is that if you harangue someone about a problem when you’re not in a better position to judge on that particular issue, you’re being an asshat. That’s why I tend to limit my haranguing to matters of (deep breath)...
Economics (in which I have a double-major First, with firsts in Public Finance, Macro, Micro, Quantitative Economic Policy, International Economics, Econometric Theory and Applied Econometrics) and
Econometrics (and the statistical theory underpinning it) for which I took straight Firsts at Masters;
Quantitative analysis of economic policy (and economic modelling generally). which I did for a living for half a decade and taught to undergraduates (3rd year and Honours).
I babble with muted authority on
expectations (having published on, and having been asked to advise my nation’s Treasury on, modelling them in financial markets within macroeconometric models), and
the modelling paradigm in general (having worked for almost a decade at one of the world’s premier economic modelling think tanks, and having dabbled in a [still-incomplete] PhD in stochastic simulation using a computable general-equilibrium model).
And yet I constantly find myself being told things about economics, utility maximisation, agency problems, and so forth, by autodidacts who think persentio ergo rectum is a research methodology.
What was the title of the post? Something about tolerance, if I’m not mistaken.
So why not comment on the post, hmm?
Absolutely key point to bear in mind is that if you harangue someone about a problem when you’re not in a better position to judge on that particular issue, you’re being an asshat.
Oh, of course. If you genuinely have good reason to believe you know better than (group) beyond the evidence you have that you are right then it is perfectly reasonable to act on it. But since most of the time you’re probably not in that position, it seems to me that cultivating tolerance is a good idea.
I’m very much in favor of what you wrote there. I’ve been thinking to start a separate thread about this some time. Though feel free to beat me to it, I won’t be ready to do so very soon anyway. But here’s a stab at what I’m thinking.
This is from the welcome thread:
This is fair. I could, in principle, sit down and discuss rationality with a group having such a disclaimer, except in favor of religion, assuming they got promoted to my attention for some unrelated good reason (like I’ve been linked to an article and read that one and two more and I found them all impressive). Not going to happen in practice, probably, but you get my drift.
Except that’s not the vibe of what Less Wrong is actually like, IMO, that we’re “happy to have” these people. Atheism strikes me as a belief that’s necessary for acceptance to the tribe. This is not a Good Thing, for many reasons, the simplest of which is that atheism is not rationality. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence; people can be atheists for stupid reasons, too. So seeing that atheism seems to be necessary here in order to follow our arguments and see our point, people will be suspicious of those arguments and points. If you can’t make your case about something that in principle isn’t about religion, without using religion in the reasoning, it’s probably not a good case.
What I’d advocate would be not using religion as examples of obvious inanity, in support of some other point, like in this, otherwise great, post:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1j7/the_amanda_knox_test_how_an_hour_on_the_internet/
Now I’m not in favor of censoring religion out and pretending we’re not 99% atheists here or whatever the figure is. If the topic of some article is tied to religion, then sure, anything goes—you’ll need good arguments anyway or you won’t have a post and people will call you on using applause lights instead of argumentation.
But, more subtly: if the topic is some bias or rationality tool, and religion is a good example of how that bias operates/tool fails to be applied, then go ahead and show that example after the bias/tool has already been convincingly established in more neutral terms. It’s one of the reasons why we explain Bayes’ theorem in terms of mammographies, not religion.
Feedback would be welcome.
I think this is a good analysis.
However, in some areas, it is particularly difficult to keep things separate. The two cultures are simply very different; discussions have a way of finding the largest differences.
To be more specific: a recent conversation about rationalism came to the point of whether we could depend on the universe not to kill us. (To put it as it was in the conversation: there must be justice in the universe.)
Well, I think you’re absolutely right except, perhaps, regarding the claim that “Atheism strikes me as a belief that’s necessary for acceptance to the tribe.” I’m not an atheist, and while when I mention this fact I get mobbed by people asking me to refute arguments I’ve heard a thousand times before, I’ve never found myself or seen others be rejected as members of the tribe for admitting to religious beliefs.
I can think of another 3 reasons to explain Bayes theorem in terms of mammograms (or “mammographies” if you prefer) - boobs, torture and the mathematical ignorance of physicians.
Tolerance is over-rated (although it’s a Masonic virtue so I’m supposed to like it): to me, the word has supercilious connotations—kind of “I’m going to permit you to persist in error, unmolested, coz I’m just that awesome”.
I prefer acceptance: after you have harangued someone with everything that’s wrong with their view of the problem, give up and accept that they’re idiots.
Firstly, that is the most blatant derailing of a thread I have ever seen.
Secondly, the main advantage of “tolerance” is that most people cannot, by definition, be in a better position to judge on certain issues than most other people—and indeed will almost certainly be wrong about at least some of their beliefs. Thus, it is irrational to impose your beliefs on others if you have no reason to think you are more rational then they are (see also Auman’s Agreement Theorem.) Of course, it is also irrational to believe you are right in this situation, but at least it’s not harming people.
The most extreme example of this principle would be someone programming in their beliefs regarding morality directly into a Seed AI. Since they are almost certainly wrong about something, the AI will then proceed to destroy the world and tile the universe with orgasmium or whatever.
What was the title of the post? Something about tolerance, if I’m not mistaken.
As to your ‘secondly’ point… I absolutely agree with the statement that “most people cannot, by definition, be in a better position to judge on certain issues than most other people” (emphasis mine—in fact I would extend that to say on most issues of more than minimal complexity).
Absolutely key point to bear in mind is that if you harangue someone about a problem when you’re not in a better position to judge on that particular issue, you’re being an asshat. That’s why I tend to limit my haranguing to matters of (deep breath)...
Economics (in which I have a double-major First, with firsts in Public Finance, Macro, Micro, Quantitative Economic Policy, International Economics, Econometric Theory and Applied Econometrics) and
Econometrics (and the statistical theory underpinning it) for which I took straight Firsts at Masters;
Quantitative analysis of economic policy (and economic modelling generally). which I did for a living for half a decade and taught to undergraduates (3rd year and Honours).
I babble with muted authority on
expectations (having published on, and having been asked to advise my nation’s Treasury on, modelling them in financial markets within macroeconometric models), and
the modelling paradigm in general (having worked for almost a decade at one of the world’s premier economic modelling think tanks, and having dabbled in a [still-incomplete] PhD in stochastic simulation using a computable general-equilibrium model).
And yet I constantly find myself being told things about economics, utility maximisation, agency problems, and so forth, by autodidacts who think persentio ergo rectum is a research methodology.
So why not comment on the post, hmm?
Oh, of course. If you genuinely have good reason to believe you know better than (group) beyond the evidence you have that you are right then it is perfectly reasonable to act on it. But since most of the time you’re probably not in that position, it seems to me that cultivating tolerance is a good idea.