Are you saying then, that if we fully understood what other people were saying, there would be less irrationality?
I think I’m pointing the arrow in the other direction. A common mistake people make is to misunderstand each other and themselves; if they did not make that mistake, they wouldn’t necessarily be better at understanding each other or themselves, but they would at least be clearer about the boundaries of their knowledge. (This could lead them to behave in ways that do actually make them understand themselves and others better.)
I see what you mean; that makes sense. I think that’s something LW has certainly pointed out for me—by knowing one’s own boundaries of understanding, one can try to further one’s knowledge of the unknown.
I’m about to put child to bed so I haven’t time to read the link right now, but I’ll certainly be on it first thing in the morning!
He does actually say obstropolous, but he must have read obsteperous somewhere and mispronounced it. Thank you!
I have bookmarked it because I want to read pretty much every link but don’t currently have the time to do so.
Are you saying then, that if we fully understood what other people were saying, there would be less irrationality?
I think I’m pointing the arrow in the other direction. A common mistake people make is to misunderstand each other and themselves; if they did not make that mistake, they wouldn’t necessarily be better at understanding each other or themselves, but they would at least be clearer about the boundaries of their knowledge. (This could lead them to behave in ways that do actually make them understand themselves and others better.)
Consider the double illusion of transparency.
I see what you mean; that makes sense. I think that’s something LW has certainly pointed out for me—by knowing one’s own boundaries of understanding, one can try to further one’s knowledge of the unknown.
I’m about to put child to bed so I haven’t time to read the link right now, but I’ll certainly be on it first thing in the morning!