3 ms·

While this activity can be useful, I think it is simultaneously at the root of many of our social problems today. You cannot ask this question about literally

While this activity can be useful, I think it is simultaneously at the root of many of our social problems today. You cannot ask this question about literally everything. Well, you can, but you'll end up questioning things that are universally accepted (Which way is North? Is gasoline flammable?). So naturally you dial it back, and you ask questions only about things that seem wrong, or that you particularly care about. The corollary is that you are going to decide subjectively (and somewhat arbitrarily) that some things are not worth questioning. And just like that, everybody has made their own independent assumptions about the truth, and we can no longer have discussions about a common set of facts. The cure is not just questioning facts "more". The cure is actually aligning as a society about what we accept as true so that we can converse about the other things. But, that means less independent thinking, paradoxically.

toyg 6y ago
> that means less independent thinking, paradoxically. This is indeed the paradox of our times. An accelerated technology shift (the global computer network) has generated large amounts of people who are rationally self-reliant to a fault, since they are either the only ones in their social circles who understand the new tech or the only ones who can spend a lot of time reading stuff from the internet. This cult of "independent thinking" leads them down dark alleys for which they simply don't have the necessary preparation (conspiracies, flat earth, etc), but from which they cannot get out (because admitting your own reasoning is wrong is extremely difficult). How do you get out of flat-earth on your own, without re-living centuries of astronomic research? How do you get out of moonlanding negationism, without personally examining all the retrieved moon rocks? How do you get out of antivaxxing, without personally living through pestilence? (well, at least Covid19 should help with that...) I guess it's a balance. Society simply would not hold if we all were radical independent thinkers, since we'd be constantly questioning everything that we cannot individually and immediately determine as true. A degree of conformism is actually necessary for progress of any sort.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > How do you get out of flat-earth on your own, without re-living centuries of astronomic research? How do you get out of moonlanding negationism, without personally examining all the retrieved moon rocks? How do you get out of antivaxxing, without personally living through pestilence? (well, at least Covid19 should help with that...) Find a way to get rationalists out of believing that these examples are an accurate representation of the beliefs of the conspiracy world in general, and you may be well on your way to a universal solution. But watch out for that first step, it's a doozy. This essay provides a lot of the necessary advice to accomplish such a thing, but I suspect one must actually possess sufficient unconventionality to exercise it, not just perceive oneself to possess it.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I think you misunderstand the purpose of these examples. They're not meant to be typical representations; they're meant to be non-controversial representations, allowing us to discuss the thought processes involved without having the conversation derailed by people who honestly believe the example.
    - mistermann 6y ago
      Perhaps. If, for the sake of argument, we accept that as true...might it be also true that they are other things, simultaneously? Who knows what ideas (and communications of ideas) really are, how they really work, what influence they exert on the very fabric of the environment (this infinitely complex, magical soup that we refer to as reality) in which they (and we) are contained, and what the infinite, recursive downstream consequences are of this influence. At the end of the day, they "are what they are" and "do what they do", and the same applies to their (unseen, unrealized, misunderstood) systemic consequences. We can culturally deny such things (just as conspiracy theory culture collectively denies many things) all we want, but this does not stop it from being actually true. Mother Nature does not require our agreement when organizing the structure and affairs of the universe, but we may mind a great deal when the system she has designed (that we rarely try to truly understand) serves up the consequences of any wilful ignorance that we may be guilty of (see: Planet Earth, 2020). An extremely large number of people confidently (and sincerely) make claims that seem to suggest they have a deep, accurate understanding of all this complexity. My intuition suggests that these people may not actually be as correct as they perceive themselves to be. >> Find a way to get rationalists out of believing that these examples are an accurate representation of the beliefs of the conspiracy world in general, and you may be well on your way to a universal solution. This is but one instance of a much larger problem. But solve this one, and you may have unknowingly solved many others. FTA: You can also take more explicit measures to prevent yourself from automatically adopting conventional opinions. The most general is to cultivate an attitude of skepticism. When you hear someone say something, stop and ask yourself "Is that true?" Don't say it out loud. I'm not suggesting that you impose on everyone who talks to you the burden of proving what they say, but rather that you take upon yourself the burden of evaluating what they say. "Saying things out loud" certainly has consequences (which come in many forms....loss of friends, ostracization, downvotes, etc). I wonder...might there also be some downstream systemic consequences to not "saying things out loud"...like for example when some of the things that are not said out loud are ~unpopular/unpleasant to ponder, but also true and extremely important.
- jackcosgrove 6y ago
  Shared culture and norms are necessary for social harmony, and reduce the costs of law enforcement. Social harmony generally makes people happier as long as they are included in the mainstream, while internalized law enforcement frees up money for other uses. I see those as the main advantages of conformity. I think however that it's generally true that conformity diminishes progress and positive change. Whether that's worth the loss of a shared culture depends. I think the current state in the US where there are two cultures which divide the population into two modes is harmful, since it makes society fractious and hostile. We could do for more conformity, now. However if that were to shift back to a mass culture with various countercultures chafing against it, I think then more independent thinking would be good. I think mass cultures are the rule rather than the exception now, and most other places could do for more independent thinkers.
mewpmewp2 6y ago
You ask when it actually matters and let the instinct go in most other situations.
closeparen 6y ago
What’s happening in our culture seems more like a case of several competing conventions, split on tribal lines, rather than individuals thinking their way to unique positions.
- darkerside 6y ago
  Seems like a combination of the two to me
- onecommentman 6y ago
  Do you think this is only uniquely happening now? I can’t think of a time on earth that hasn’t happened, implicitly or explicitly. (Depending on your definition of “tribe”...tribe of one?). The exceptions don’t last long: Nazi Germany, Mao’s China (Xi’s?), Stalin’s Soviet Union... Never has it been easier to see this clearly, though, than in the current era of instant access and sharing of information and opinion. But in the US, individuals thinking on their own is almost a core cultural value. Although more honor'd in the breach than in the observance in some circles. Not just because the founding of the US was based upon a break with convention of colonization and an hereditary royalist system. Most immigrants (at least before the age of air travel) made a radical permanent individual decision to leave the Old World and come to the Americas, when most around them were staying. So it is in the DNA, so to speak. Still a core value to most in the US, I would venture to say. We honor self-reliance and unconventionality when we read Emerson, Thoreau and Whitman for example. Might be a more significant core value for the heartland of the US than the coastals. Farming will do that to a person. You folks are still reading Emerson and the like, right?

toyg 6y ago

> that means less independent thinking, paradoxically. This is indeed the paradox of our times. An accelerated technology shift (the global computer network) has generated large amounts of people who are rationally self-reliant to a fault, since they are either the only ones in their social circles who understand the new tech or the only ones who can spend a lot of time reading stuff from the internet. This cult of "independent thinking" leads them down dark alleys for which they simply don't have the necessary preparation (conspiracies, flat earth, etc), but from which they cannot get out (because admitting your own reasoning is wrong is extremely difficult). How do you get out of flat-earth on your own, without re-living centuries of astronomic research? How do you get out of moonlanding negationism, without personally examining all the retrieved moon rocks? How do you get out of antivaxxing, without personally living through pestilence? (well, at least Covid19 should help with that...) I guess it's a balance. Society simply would not hold if we all were radical independent thinkers, since we'd be constantly questioning everything that we cannot individually and immediately determine as true. A degree of conformism is actually necessary for progress of any sort.

mistermann 6y ago
> How do you get out of flat-earth on your own, without re-living centuries of astronomic research? How do you get out of moonlanding negationism, without personally examining all the retrieved moon rocks? How do you get out of antivaxxing, without personally living through pestilence? (well, at least Covid19 should help with that...) Find a way to get rationalists out of believing that these examples are an accurate representation of the beliefs of the conspiracy world in general, and you may be well on your way to a universal solution. But watch out for that first step, it's a doozy. This essay provides a lot of the necessary advice to accomplish such a thing, but I suspect one must actually possess sufficient unconventionality to exercise it, not just perceive oneself to possess it.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I think you misunderstand the purpose of these examples. They're not meant to be typical representations; they're meant to be non-controversial representations, allowing us to discuss the thought processes involved without having the conversation derailed by people who honestly believe the example.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    Perhaps. If, for the sake of argument, we accept that as true...might it be also true that they are other things, simultaneously? Who knows what ideas (and communications of ideas) really are, how they really work, what influence they exert on the very fabric of the environment (this infinitely complex, magical soup that we refer to as reality) in which they (and we) are contained, and what the infinite, recursive downstream consequences are of this influence. At the end of the day, they "are what they are" and "do what they do", and the same applies to their (unseen, unrealized, misunderstood) systemic consequences. We can culturally deny such things (just as conspiracy theory culture collectively denies many things) all we want, but this does not stop it from being actually true. Mother Nature does not require our agreement when organizing the structure and affairs of the universe, but we may mind a great deal when the system she has designed (that we rarely try to truly understand) serves up the consequences of any wilful ignorance that we may be guilty of (see: Planet Earth, 2020). An extremely large number of people confidently (and sincerely) make claims that seem to suggest they have a deep, accurate understanding of all this complexity. My intuition suggests that these people may not actually be as correct as they perceive themselves to be. >> Find a way to get rationalists out of believing that these examples are an accurate representation of the beliefs of the conspiracy world in general, and you may be well on your way to a universal solution. This is but one instance of a much larger problem. But solve this one, and you may have unknowingly solved many others. FTA: You can also take more explicit measures to prevent yourself from automatically adopting conventional opinions. The most general is to cultivate an attitude of skepticism. When you hear someone say something, stop and ask yourself "Is that true?" Don't say it out loud. I'm not suggesting that you impose on everyone who talks to you the burden of proving what they say, but rather that you take upon yourself the burden of evaluating what they say. "Saying things out loud" certainly has consequences (which come in many forms....loss of friends, ostracization, downvotes, etc). I wonder...might there also be some downstream systemic consequences to not "saying things out loud"...like for example when some of the things that are not said out loud are ~unpopular/unpleasant to ponder, but also true and extremely important.
jackcosgrove 6y ago
Shared culture and norms are necessary for social harmony, and reduce the costs of law enforcement. Social harmony generally makes people happier as long as they are included in the mainstream, while internalized law enforcement frees up money for other uses. I see those as the main advantages of conformity. I think however that it's generally true that conformity diminishes progress and positive change. Whether that's worth the loss of a shared culture depends. I think the current state in the US where there are two cultures which divide the population into two modes is harmful, since it makes society fractious and hostile. We could do for more conformity, now. However if that were to shift back to a mass culture with various countercultures chafing against it, I think then more independent thinking would be good. I think mass cultures are the rule rather than the exception now, and most other places could do for more independent thinkers.

mewpmewp2 6y ago

You ask when it actually matters and let the instinct go in most other situations.

closeparen 6y ago

What’s happening in our culture seems more like a case of several competing conventions, split on tribal lines, rather than individuals thinking their way to unique positions.

darkerside 6y ago
Seems like a combination of the two to me
onecommentman 6y ago
Do you think this is only uniquely happening now? I can’t think of a time on earth that hasn’t happened, implicitly or explicitly. (Depending on your definition of “tribe”...tribe of one?). The exceptions don’t last long: Nazi Germany, Mao’s China (Xi’s?), Stalin’s Soviet Union... Never has it been easier to see this clearly, though, than in the current era of instant access and sharing of information and opinion. But in the US, individuals thinking on their own is almost a core cultural value. Although more honor'd in the breach than in the observance in some circles. Not just because the founding of the US was based upon a break with convention of colonization and an hereditary royalist system. Most immigrants (at least before the age of air travel) made a radical permanent individual decision to leave the Old World and come to the Americas, when most around them were staying. So it is in the DNA, so to speak. Still a core value to most in the US, I would venture to say. We honor self-reliance and unconventionality when we read Emerson, Thoreau and Whitman for example. Might be a more significant core value for the heartland of the US than the coastals. Farming will do that to a person. You folks are still reading Emerson and the like, right?