I support this ‘x is my invisible dragon’ turn of phrase!
I thought it would be a good figure of speech too, but I’m afraid if I used it outside the context of this thread, people would think of Sagan’s dragon, not mine. This parable would have to become a lot more famous for people to start to get it.
The two concepts could serve as a rhetorical crowbar:
Is this the kind of invisible dragon that isn’t really there but you’re in denial? …or the kind that IS really there but you’re in denial?
This in turn makes me think that there are some kinds of evidence that affect our behavior, and other kinds that affects our beliefs, and only partial overlap. (E.G. you know the dragon is there but you’re not evolved to be as afraid as you should be, because you can’t see, hear, or smell it.)
This in turn makes me think that there are some kinds of evidence that affect our behavior, and other kinds that affects our beliefs, and only partial overlap. (E.G. you know the dragon is there but you’re not evolved to be as afraid as you should be, because you can’t see, hear, or smell it.)
I thought it would be a good figure of speech too, but I’m afraid if I used it outside the context of this thread, people would think of Sagan’s dragon, not mine. This parable would have to become a lot more famous for people to start to get it.
This is the process I am trying to kickstart by throwing my support behind the phrase.
The two concepts could serve as a rhetorical crowbar:
Is this the kind of invisible dragon that isn’t really there but you’re in denial? …or the kind that IS really there but you’re in denial?
This in turn makes me think that there are some kinds of evidence that affect our behavior, and other kinds that affects our beliefs, and only partial overlap. (E.G. you know the dragon is there but you’re not evolved to be as afraid as you should be, because you can’t see, hear, or smell it.)
The standard LW terminology for this is near and far modes of thought.