I agree that generally raising someone’s sanity waterline and getting them to think more rationally in everyday situations is a better approach to bringing them around to the naturalistic point of view than trying to force it on them.
Note that in everyday situations (often involving social interaction), she beats me, and her advice in that domain is often significant bayesian evidence to me.
Closing the gap is harder, because she explicitly says that “logical” reasoning does not apply to everything. (I’d agree that we can’t apply it to everything, but in principle, if we had the computing power, we could.)
I agree that generally raising someone’s sanity waterline and getting them to think more rationally in everyday situations is a better approach to bringing them around to the naturalistic point of view than trying to force it on them.
Note that in everyday situations (often involving social interaction), she beats me, and her advice in that domain is often significant bayesian evidence to me.
Closing the gap is harder, because she explicitly says that “logical” reasoning does not apply to everything. (I’d agree that we can’t apply it to everything, but in principle, if we had the computing power, we could.)
It might be worth talking with her about how she thinks about the things she’s good at.