I agree with your model, but without the nerd-exception.
The lack of nerd focus on epistemology and meta-ethics implies that nerds don’t have beliefs either.
They do have pressures to appear rational. Either external (peer pressure) or internal (intelligence/rationality being part of the core identity because of reasons).
The same model you mention has been useful for me in understanding why nerdy people don’t actually care about the epistemic soundness of their argument, and only about sounding rational. It made me understand why many were angered when I pointed the lack of sound definition of the words used or the use of countless fallacies : it’s perceived as an attack against their rationality.
I agree with your model, but without the nerd-exception.
This exception might sound not very elegant, but it’s crucial. Either you model the world and people inside this world and you have beliefs. Either you just try to fit in. Most people do both. But a minority do modeling when things are complicated. Which is almost always. This minority you can call nerds or geeks or professors or whatever. You have to steal the name somewhere. Or even some day invent a new one.
Those models nerds make may be often wrong, but it was a try to really understand things and not just to fit in.
It’s possible that LW people are the “nerds” I mean here, and normal nerds don’t have beliefs either, as you say...It’s hard for me to distinguish between how much I owe to LW and how much is instinctive.
But, since well before LW, I was always explicitly willing to sacrifice any belief, like my God belief, if there was no reason to hold it. There’s that, at least; I think there are meaningful instinctive differences
Indeed, we were talking about rationalists (not only LW, but SlateStarCodex too for instance).
I think there are meaningful instinctive differences too, but that’s not the point, is it ? If it was, then we can assume that people holds beliefs too. Sometime they change their beliefs too because of reasons (or lack thereof).
I agree with your model, but without the nerd-exception.
The lack of nerd focus on epistemology and meta-ethics implies that nerds don’t have beliefs either.
They do have pressures to appear rational. Either external (peer pressure) or internal (intelligence/rationality being part of the core identity because of reasons).
The same model you mention has been useful for me in understanding why nerdy people don’t actually care about the epistemic soundness of their argument, and only about sounding rational. It made me understand why many were angered when I pointed the lack of sound definition of the words used or the use of countless fallacies : it’s perceived as an attack against their rationality.
This exception might sound not very elegant, but it’s crucial. Either you model the world and people inside this world and you have beliefs. Either you just try to fit in. Most people do both. But a minority do modeling when things are complicated. Which is almost always. This minority you can call nerds or geeks or professors or whatever. You have to steal the name somewhere. Or even some day invent a new one.
Those models nerds make may be often wrong, but it was a try to really understand things and not just to fit in.
It’s possible that LW people are the “nerds” I mean here, and normal nerds don’t have beliefs either, as you say...It’s hard for me to distinguish between how much I owe to LW and how much is instinctive.
But, since well before LW, I was always explicitly willing to sacrifice any belief, like my God belief, if there was no reason to hold it. There’s that, at least; I think there are meaningful instinctive differences
Indeed, we were talking about rationalists (not only LW, but SlateStarCodex too for instance).
I think there are meaningful instinctive differences too, but that’s not the point, is it ? If it was, then we can assume that people holds beliefs too. Sometime they change their beliefs too because of reasons (or lack thereof).