Interesting essay—this is my favorite topic right now. I am very happy to see that you clearly say, “Shifting beliefs is not a concession that you make for the sake of others, expecting something in return; it is an advantage you take for your own benefit, to improve your own map of the world.” That is the key idea here. However I am not so happy about some other comments:
“if you want to persuade a rationalist to shift belief to match yours”
You should never want this, not if you are a truth-seeker! I hope you mean this to be a desire of con artists and other criminals. Persuasion is evil, is in direct opposition to the goal of overcoming bias and reaching the truth. Do you agree?
“the frame of mind of justification and having clear reasons to point to in front of others, is itself antithetical to the spirit of resolving disagreements”
Such an attitude is not merely opposed to the spirit of resolving disagreements, it is an overwhelming obstacle to your own truth seeking. You must seek out and overcome this frame of mind at all costs. Agreed?
And what do you think would happen if you were forced to resolve a disagreement without making any arguments, object-level or meta; but merely by taking turns reciting your quantitative estimates of likelihood? Do you think you could reach an agreement in that case, or would it be hopeless?
How about if it were an issue that you were not too heavily invested in—say, which of a couple of upcoming movies will have greater box office receipts? Suppose you and a rationalist-wannabe like Robin had a difference of opinion on this, and you merely recited your estimates. Remember your only goal is to reach the truth (perhaps you will be rewarded if you guess right). Do you think you would reach agreement, or fail?
Interesting essay—this is my favorite topic right now. I am very happy to see that you clearly say, “Shifting beliefs is not a concession that you make for the sake of others, expecting something in return; it is an advantage you take for your own benefit, to improve your own map of the world.” That is the key idea here. However I am not so happy about some other comments:
“if you want to persuade a rationalist to shift belief to match yours”
You should never want this, not if you are a truth-seeker! I hope you mean this to be a desire of con artists and other criminals. Persuasion is evil, is in direct opposition to the goal of overcoming bias and reaching the truth. Do you agree?
“the frame of mind of justification and having clear reasons to point to in front of others, is itself antithetical to the spirit of resolving disagreements”
Such an attitude is not merely opposed to the spirit of resolving disagreements, it is an overwhelming obstacle to your own truth seeking. You must seek out and overcome this frame of mind at all costs. Agreed?
And what do you think would happen if you were forced to resolve a disagreement without making any arguments, object-level or meta; but merely by taking turns reciting your quantitative estimates of likelihood? Do you think you could reach an agreement in that case, or would it be hopeless?
How about if it were an issue that you were not too heavily invested in—say, which of a couple of upcoming movies will have greater box office receipts? Suppose you and a rationalist-wannabe like Robin had a difference of opinion on this, and you merely recited your estimates. Remember your only goal is to reach the truth (perhaps you will be rewarded if you guess right). Do you think you would reach agreement, or fail?