Take a random political issue with two sides A and B. Suppose that exactly one of the following would be true for me given my moral framework and unlimited time to process all public information about the issue:
A is undoubtedly correct and (in a manner proportional to its importance) I should expend time/money/energy supporting A.
A is probably correct, but it’s not so clear that it’s worth doing more than just voting in the direction of A.
It’s unclear whether A or B is correct and anyone who claims otherwise is either not doing good epistemics or taking a moral framework that isn’t acceptable to me.
B is probably correct, but it’s not so clear that it’s worth doing more than just voting in the direction of B.
B is undoubtedly correct and (in a manner proportional to its importance) I should expend time/money/energy supporting B.
Let’s also say that:
Foreign actors will attempt to push people on twitter/reddit/etc. towards either (1) or (5), even if the answer is really (3) for them. Everyone I interact with is either partially influenced by these actors or discusses their opinions with people who are influenced by these actors.
I have limited time to seriously explore a given issue.
I would like to err on the side of approaching the center, but not drastically so.
The major issue to me here is (1), which might only get worse over time. I am aware of the post on epistemic learned helplessness by Scott Alexander, but I have become a little wary of certain academic fields. I have generally liked using Wikipedia to quickly explore issues, even though there are occasional biases (which have hurt this website in the past). I have also enjoyed reading blogs and opinions from people who appear highly educated and intelligent, but there are natural biases there as well.
[Question] What are some good ways to form opinions on controversial subjects in the current and upcoming era?
Take a random political issue with two sides A and B. Suppose that exactly one of the following would be true for me given my moral framework and unlimited time to process all public information about the issue:
A is undoubtedly correct and (in a manner proportional to its importance) I should expend time/money/energy supporting A.
A is probably correct, but it’s not so clear that it’s worth doing more than just voting in the direction of A.
It’s unclear whether A or B is correct and anyone who claims otherwise is either not doing good epistemics or taking a moral framework that isn’t acceptable to me.
B is probably correct, but it’s not so clear that it’s worth doing more than just voting in the direction of B.
B is undoubtedly correct and (in a manner proportional to its importance) I should expend time/money/energy supporting B.
Let’s also say that:
Foreign actors will attempt to push people on twitter/reddit/etc. towards either (1) or (5), even if the answer is really (3) for them. Everyone I interact with is either partially influenced by these actors or discusses their opinions with people who are influenced by these actors.
I have limited time to seriously explore a given issue.
I would like to err on the side of approaching the center, but not drastically so.
The major issue to me here is (1), which might only get worse over time. I am aware of the post on epistemic learned helplessness by Scott Alexander, but I have become a little wary of certain academic fields. I have generally liked using Wikipedia to quickly explore issues, even though there are occasional biases (which have hurt this website in the past). I have also enjoyed reading blogs and opinions from people who appear highly educated and intelligent, but there are natural biases there as well.