4 ms·

But how do we know that the scout's belief is right? Seems like the author has already come to the conclusion that its always going to be right. Doesn't that

But how do we know that the scout's belief is right? Seems like the author has already come to the conclusion that its always going to be right. Doesn't that just bring us back to the mindset of the soldier? Maybe we just have to accept that part of the experiment of living in a democratic and free society is allowing people to create their own values, and accepting that people are going to get it wrong. Their values are going to conflict with ours, and that's good because we need to be sure our values are actually worth holding.

dahart 8y ago
> But how do we know that the scout's belief is right? I feel like the assumption in the article is that neither is right, but that the scout is searching for right, and the solider is defending right. > Seems like the author has already come to the conclusion that its always going to be right. Doesn't that just bring us back to the mindset of the soldier? I don't think so. The mindset distinction isn't between right and wrong, both types prefer to be right. The distinction is whether you're a motivated defender of an idea in spite of the evidence, or whether you're searching for truth and willing to change your position. If you think about this in just pure statistical probabilities, who's more likely to be right at any given time, the person who is certain they're right, or the person who has changed their mind to favor the evidence? It feels like this might even be related to the Monty Hall problem to me; once you have some evidence that something's wrong, there's a distinct statistical advantage to changing your mind, even when you don't know and you're choosing randomly.
- jumpman500 8y ago
  I like this. I think you have a better interpretation than my initial one. If it is sort of probability based than it can't be right or wrong, just sort of incomplete until we observe the consequences of the action. More often than not the scout will probably be right, and I can concede that. But that doesn't imply that the soldier will always be wrong either.
  - dahart 8y ago
    > But that doesn't imply that the soldier will always be wrong either. Completely agree! I maybe implied too strongly that soldiers claim to be right against contrary evidence, which isn't what Julia said. Not only are soldiers often right, people often defend their stance and stop looking for the right answer precisely because they are right and know it. The risk is just that sometimes that decision is made prematurely. Personally, I probably revert to soldier when I think I'm being a scout more often than I want to admit.
undecisive 8y ago
No, I think the point is that both are right for different circumstances. If the foot soldier cannot be trusted to place the Drayfus in prison without having to look through all the evidence himself, he's a useless soldier. Similarly, if the Scout is told to believe there's always a bridge if you need it, and is gone for months trying to find a bridge over the river, he's a useless scout. Often, the best leaders have a bit of both - open mindedness to find the best solution until they've made the decision, then steadfastness to defend that decision.
jmcqk6 8y ago
>Maybe we just have to accept that part of the experiment of living in a democratic and free society is allowing people to create their own values, and accepting that people are going to get it wrong. There is a difference between choosing your values and choosing your facts. We have a big problem in not being able to distinguish the difference between our opinions and facts - and values are more akin to opinions than facts. There isn't a problem with people coming up with different values. The problems start to arise when you're not willing to be wrong about those values, especially when you start ignoring facts that contradict those values.
- jumpman500 8y ago
  I don't think values and facts can be so easily separated from each other. You have to value the scientific method to actually believe its facts are true. To me the problem isn't that people mix up fact and opinion, it's more that a lot of people don't value the scientific method, its institutions and its accomplishments. We need people to value the methods that got us to where we are today. In the age of the internet when you can find a community online that values almost any non-sense this is going to be increasingly hard. I can agree with that. And I can agree that we do need to come together and agree on some base minimum values, but we have to accept that we need some people in society challenging them. If there's one thing that human history has shown it's we sometimes don't realize when we hold toxic values. We need people challenging them to be sure that the values we hold are actually good.

dahart 8y ago

> But how do we know that the scout's belief is right? I feel like the assumption in the article is that neither is right, but that the scout is searching for right, and the solider is defending right. > Seems like the author has already come to the conclusion that its always going to be right. Doesn't that just bring us back to the mindset of the soldier? I don't think so. The mindset distinction isn't between right and wrong, both types prefer to be right. The distinction is whether you're a motivated defender of an idea in spite of the evidence, or whether you're searching for truth and willing to change your position. If you think about this in just pure statistical probabilities, who's more likely to be right at any given time, the person who is certain they're right, or the person who has changed their mind to favor the evidence? It feels like this might even be related to the Monty Hall problem to me; once you have some evidence that something's wrong, there's a distinct statistical advantage to changing your mind, even when you don't know and you're choosing randomly.

jumpman500 8y ago
I like this. I think you have a better interpretation than my initial one. If it is sort of probability based than it can't be right or wrong, just sort of incomplete until we observe the consequences of the action. More often than not the scout will probably be right, and I can concede that. But that doesn't imply that the soldier will always be wrong either.
- dahart 8y ago
  > But that doesn't imply that the soldier will always be wrong either. Completely agree! I maybe implied too strongly that soldiers claim to be right against contrary evidence, which isn't what Julia said. Not only are soldiers often right, people often defend their stance and stop looking for the right answer precisely because they are right and know it. The risk is just that sometimes that decision is made prematurely. Personally, I probably revert to soldier when I think I'm being a scout more often than I want to admit.

undecisive 8y ago

No, I think the point is that both are right for different circumstances. If the foot soldier cannot be trusted to place the Drayfus in prison without having to look through all the evidence himself, he's a useless soldier. Similarly, if the Scout is told to believe there's always a bridge if you need it, and is gone for months trying to find a bridge over the river, he's a useless scout. Often, the best leaders have a bit of both - open mindedness to find the best solution until they've made the decision, then steadfastness to defend that decision.

jmcqk6 8y ago

>Maybe we just have to accept that part of the experiment of living in a democratic and free society is allowing people to create their own values, and accepting that people are going to get it wrong. There is a difference between choosing your values and choosing your facts. We have a big problem in not being able to distinguish the difference between our opinions and facts - and values are more akin to opinions than facts. There isn't a problem with people coming up with different values. The problems start to arise when you're not willing to be wrong about those values, especially when you start ignoring facts that contradict those values.

jumpman500 8y ago
I don't think values and facts can be so easily separated from each other. You have to value the scientific method to actually believe its facts are true. To me the problem isn't that people mix up fact and opinion, it's more that a lot of people don't value the scientific method, its institutions and its accomplishments. We need people to value the methods that got us to where we are today. In the age of the internet when you can find a community online that values almost any non-sense this is going to be increasingly hard. I can agree with that. And I can agree that we do need to come together and agree on some base minimum values, but we have to accept that we need some people in society challenging them. If there's one thing that human history has shown it's we sometimes don't realize when we hold toxic values. We need people challenging them to be sure that the values we hold are actually good.