4 ms·
That's a funny example you give. It started falling apart when you said: "...He really is a serial killer! So your initial, "uninformed" vote was correct, and m
by doc_gunthrop 10y ago
That's a funny example you give. It started falling apart when you said:
"...He really is a serial killer! So your initial, "uninformed" vote was correct, and moreover correct for the right reasons..."
How is it correct for the right reasons? If I were to follow this "logic", then what you're saying is I should go with my first instinct, which has been molded and influenced by my own life experiences and by the people/community that I've interacted with.
What if that person was a radical xenophobe? will he be correct for the right reasons?
- dTal 10y agoThe assumption is that in the hypothetical universe in which my admittedly silly example takes place, "looking like a serial killer" is weakly correlated with actually being a serial killer, and presumably other negative traits as well. Therefore, in the absence of other information, harbouring a negative bias is entirely rational. It doesn't follow that you should simply trust your first impression; definitely seek out more information, if you can. What I'm saying is further information can degrade the accuracy of your opinion as well as enhance it, particularly if it is cherry picked. Incidentally, I'm not sure what else you can base your opinions on, other than some weighted average of your life experiences and the opinions of those around you. Whether a radical xenophobe is correct for the "right reasons" or not depends on whether they came to that perspective by rational observation, and for a functioning democracy we have to assume on good faith that's the case, as distasteful as it may seem. The alternative is declaring their opinions wrong and forbidding them from voting.