To me, stupidity can apply to both types of thoughtlessness as well, but I feel, a moral difference between these two types of stupidity (“stupid” vs. “unreflective”):
If people were being stupid, but knew that their stupidity was causing problems you could condemn them for not being willing to learn more. When people accuse others of being racist, they frequently say “that’s ignorant”. In this case, ignorance is considered inexcusable. The offender hasn’t done their due diligence.
On the other hand, if people aren’t even aware that they have some shortcoming that they should be alleviating, i.e. by being unreflective, it’s harder to hold them morally accountable. It seems to be normal and perfectly acceptable in modern society not to have ever considered the reasons for your values in the cases that lionhearted brings up (such as junk food, drinking and sleeping).
A good policy for Less Wrong folk (and ‘nerds’ generally) might be to think of all stupidity as the latter, i.e. something like lack of reflectivity caused by a combination of boundedness and near-total absence of affordances. In fact, I would argue that allowing oneself to condemn others for ignorance (as you put it) is mostly a harmful policy also caused by a combination of boundedness and near-total absence of affordances, in roughly the same manner as the ignorance one condemns. Considering the fact that I just went meta everyone should now upvote me. ;P
It might be useful to spend some time thinking about how we and others use the word “stupid”.
Creationism is stupid. Believing creationism is stupid. Teaching it, or advocating for teaching it, is stupid. Why would anyone ever be so stupid? Well … I’m not sure, but I think it has a lot to do with: ① inferential distance: evolution is a bit of a counterintuitive idea, like recursion or quantum theory; and ② loyalty: many people are systematically taught that evolution is an idea of the Enemy, so they have a presumption against it.
But here’s the thing. “Inferential distance” is an exterior view on a cognitive process. From the inside, an idea that’s too far away from your knowledge looks a lot like a nonsense idea, an unproven idea, a wild conjecture, a “how could you ever know that‽” idea. Evolution must look to creationists the way claims of paranormal abilities look to me: “How could that ever work? You don’t have any good evidence of that. That’s not the way I was taught the world works! Your experiments can’t be trusted; it’s more likely you’re playing some sort of tricks with the data. Besides, my fellow skeptics have thought of a bunch of challenges you need to meet to prove you’re not just making it all up.”
Creationists think I am stupid because I believe in evolution. They think I have fallen for a hoax put together by atheistic scientists under the influence of the Devil. I think that they are stupid. I think they have fallen for a hoax put together by preachers under the influence of the memetic evolution of religious beliefs.
It seems likely that someone has been fooled. If human intelligence arose from protohumans’ differences in ability to fool one another about life-critical subjects … or if human doubt arose from protohumans’ inability to distinguish between the promises of God and those of the Devil … then whether you are being fooled is pretty much the most important thing to know.
And this sums up why I feel that respect for the silly beliefs of others is important: it sets the stage for the acceptable treatment of things that are confusing or silly.
It’s not that you take the belief seriously, but rather that you take seriously the epistemic position that makes that belief seem sensible.
To me, stupidity can apply to both types of thoughtlessness as well, but I feel, a moral difference between these two types of stupidity (“stupid” vs. “unreflective”):
If people were being stupid, but knew that their stupidity was causing problems you could condemn them for not being willing to learn more. When people accuse others of being racist, they frequently say “that’s ignorant”. In this case, ignorance is considered inexcusable. The offender hasn’t done their due diligence.
On the other hand, if people aren’t even aware that they have some shortcoming that they should be alleviating, i.e. by being unreflective, it’s harder to hold them morally accountable. It seems to be normal and perfectly acceptable in modern society not to have ever considered the reasons for your values in the cases that lionhearted brings up (such as junk food, drinking and sleeping).
Voted up.
A good policy for Less Wrong folk (and ‘nerds’ generally) might be to think of all stupidity as the latter, i.e. something like lack of reflectivity caused by a combination of boundedness and near-total absence of affordances. In fact, I would argue that allowing oneself to condemn others for ignorance (as you put it) is mostly a harmful policy also caused by a combination of boundedness and near-total absence of affordances, in roughly the same manner as the ignorance one condemns. Considering the fact that I just went meta everyone should now upvote me. ;P
It might be useful to spend some time thinking about how we and others use the word “stupid”.
Creationism is stupid. Believing creationism is stupid. Teaching it, or advocating for teaching it, is stupid. Why would anyone ever be so stupid? Well … I’m not sure, but I think it has a lot to do with: ① inferential distance: evolution is a bit of a counterintuitive idea, like recursion or quantum theory; and ② loyalty: many people are systematically taught that evolution is an idea of the Enemy, so they have a presumption against it.
But here’s the thing. “Inferential distance” is an exterior view on a cognitive process. From the inside, an idea that’s too far away from your knowledge looks a lot like a nonsense idea, an unproven idea, a wild conjecture, a “how could you ever know that‽” idea. Evolution must look to creationists the way claims of paranormal abilities look to me: “How could that ever work? You don’t have any good evidence of that. That’s not the way I was taught the world works! Your experiments can’t be trusted; it’s more likely you’re playing some sort of tricks with the data. Besides, my fellow skeptics have thought of a bunch of challenges you need to meet to prove you’re not just making it all up.”
Creationists think I am stupid because I believe in evolution. They think I have fallen for a hoax put together by atheistic scientists under the influence of the Devil. I think that they are stupid. I think they have fallen for a hoax put together by preachers under the influence of the memetic evolution of religious beliefs.
It seems likely that someone has been fooled. If human intelligence arose from protohumans’ differences in ability to fool one another about life-critical subjects … or if human doubt arose from protohumans’ inability to distinguish between the promises of God and those of the Devil … then whether you are being fooled is pretty much the most important thing to know.
And this sums up why I feel that respect for the silly beliefs of others is important: it sets the stage for the acceptable treatment of things that are confusing or silly.
It’s not that you take the belief seriously, but rather that you take seriously the epistemic position that makes that belief seem sensible.
Beautifully put.
...I think you just successfully reduced stupidity into non-stupid parts. You should do a top-level post.