Paul Graham’s essay on What You Can’t Say is very practical. The tests/exercises he recommends for learning true, controversial things were useful to me.
Even if trying the following tests yields statements that aren’t immediately useful, I think the act of noticing where you disagree with someone or something more powerful is good practice. I think similar mental muscles get used when noticing when you disagree or are confused about a commonly-held assumption in a research field or when noticing important ideas that others are neglecting.
The different exercises he suggests (copied or paraphrased according to how I internalised them):
The conformist test: asking yourself the classic “Do I have any opinions that I would be reluctant to express in front of a group of my peers?”
What do people get in trouble for: look out for what things other people say that get them in trouble. Ask yourself if you think that thing or some version of it is true.
Heresy: Take a label (eg: “sexist”) and try to think of some ideas that would be called that. This is useful because ideas wouldn’t come to mind in random order but the plausible ones will (plausibly) come to mind first. Then for each one, ask if it might be true.
Time and space: compare present ideas against those of different past cultures and see what you get. Also, look at ideas from other present-day cultures that differ from your own.
Prigs: The exercise is to picture someone who has seen a lot (“Imagine a kind of latter-day Conrad character who has worked for a time as a mercenary in Africa, for a time as a doctor in Nepal, for a time as the manager of a nightclub in Miami”). Imagine comparing what’s inside this guy’s head with what’s inside the head of a well-behaved sixteen-year-old girl from the suburbs. What does he think that would shock her?
Look at the mechanisms: look at how taboos are created. How do moral fashions arise and why are they adopted? What groups are powerful but nervous, and what ideas would they like to suppress? What ideas were tarnished by association when they ended up on the losing side of a recent struggle? If a self-consciously cool person wanted to differentiate himself from preceding fashions, which of their ideas would he tend to reject? What are conventional-minded people afraid of saying?
I also liked the tip that if something is being attacked at “x-ist” or “y-ic” rather than being criticised for being incorrect or false, that is a red flag. And this is the case for many things that are heretical but true.
Lastly, I think the advice on being strategic and not very openly saying things that might get you into trouble is good.
Paul Graham’s essay on What You Can’t Say is very practical. The tests/exercises he recommends for learning true, controversial things were useful to me.
Even if trying the following tests yields statements that aren’t immediately useful, I think the act of noticing where you disagree with someone or something more powerful is good practice. I think similar mental muscles get used when noticing when you disagree or are confused about a commonly-held assumption in a research field or when noticing important ideas that others are neglecting.
The different exercises he suggests (copied or paraphrased according to how I internalised them):
The conformist test: asking yourself the classic “Do I have any opinions that I would be reluctant to express in front of a group of my peers?”
What do people get in trouble for: look out for what things other people say that get them in trouble. Ask yourself if you think that thing or some version of it is true.
Heresy: Take a label (eg: “sexist”) and try to think of some ideas that would be called that. This is useful because ideas wouldn’t come to mind in random order but the plausible ones will (plausibly) come to mind first. Then for each one, ask if it might be true.
Time and space: compare present ideas against those of different past cultures and see what you get. Also, look at ideas from other present-day cultures that differ from your own.
Prigs: The exercise is to picture someone who has seen a lot (“Imagine a kind of latter-day Conrad character who has worked for a time as a mercenary in Africa, for a time as a doctor in Nepal, for a time as the manager of a nightclub in Miami”). Imagine comparing what’s inside this guy’s head with what’s inside the head of a well-behaved sixteen-year-old girl from the suburbs. What does he think that would shock her?
Look at the mechanisms: look at how taboos are created. How do moral fashions arise and why are they adopted? What groups are powerful but nervous, and what ideas would they like to suppress? What ideas were tarnished by association when they ended up on the losing side of a recent struggle? If a self-consciously cool person wanted to differentiate himself from preceding fashions, which of their ideas would he tend to reject? What are conventional-minded people afraid of saying?
I also liked the tip that if something is being attacked at “x-ist” or “y-ic” rather than being criticised for being incorrect or false, that is a red flag. And this is the case for many things that are heretical but true.
Lastly, I think the advice on being strategic and not very openly saying things that might get you into trouble is good.