4 ms·

> So I tried to read the tripe, but the arguments are not persuasive unless you already believe what they are trying to convince you of. What the gp describes

> So I tried to read the tripe, but the arguments are not persuasive unless you already believe what they are trying to convince you of. What the gp describes only works if you are tolerant of other people's errors to some extent. You can't let a few things like you describe derail you. Remember your own beliefs, it may be the case that you are right and the inaccuracy you discovered is a linchpin in their incorrect system of ideas. Or it might be some little piece of information that is accepted as a truism in their bubble so people throw it around when it seems appropriate, but its not an essential part of their argument. The main thing is that you want to understand the author's perspective. why did they consider the bell curve to be overtly racist? perhaps they are defining racism differently than you (this is almost certainly the case [0]). It does you no good to read books by people you disagree with in order to understand them better if you're gonna get derailed when they say something that seems obviously false to you. [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/

bonoboTP 6y ago
The more I read such works and try to abstract away from their exaggetared use of words, the more I find it to be like those inflatable air "houses" or potemkin villages. Once you take away the punch, the urgency and the strength of the words themselves, there's little left. The thing is, you can try to project something sensible onto them, ie steelman them, but you will end up with something the authors would disagree with. You may just as well say you should read Scientology, and you will surely find common points to agree on etc. I mean, it's perhaps still useful to try that, I've read some Scientology materials myself and left with more knowledge about the specifics of Scientology, but I didn't get closer to believing it. Perhaps I can empathize with why it can hook people, we could call that understanding in a sense.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > The thing is, you can try to project something sensible onto them, ie steelman them, but you will end up with something the authors would disagree with. I agree with this. However you have then arrived at the basic truth that underlies the distorted version you were originally exposed to. So then you can discuss the issue with the person using a set of shared assumptions and perhaps bring them around to the steel manned version. Now you have changed their mind. If they then say "what about this <more preferred, less supportable version> that I started out with" they are more open to your summarized dismissal "that doesn't work because of w, x, y, and z" > The more I read such works You're not justified in labeling a work as this kind of work until the process here has been done. You may have been exposed to a weaker version and dismissed that because of fallacies, while a stronger version exists. You can't dismiss the stronger version without examination merely because it reaches the same conclusions as the weaker version you were exposed to. > You may just as well say you should read Scientology, and you will surely find common points to agree on etc. I mean, it's perhaps still useful to try that, I've read some Scientology materials myself and left with more knowledge about the specifics of Scientology, but I didn't get closer to believing it. Perhaps I can empathize with why it can hook people, we could call that understanding in a sense. I think my independent study of scientology was fruitful for my understanding of how someone becomes possessed by ideology. Studying scientology under the supervision of scientologists is dangerous because they prevent you from critically examining the ideas.

bonoboTP 6y ago

The more I read such works and try to abstract away from their exaggetared use of words, the more I find it to be like those inflatable air "houses" or potemkin villages. Once you take away the punch, the urgency and the strength of the words themselves, there's little left. The thing is, you can try to project something sensible onto them, ie steelman them, but you will end up with something the authors would disagree with. You may just as well say you should read Scientology, and you will surely find common points to agree on etc. I mean, it's perhaps still useful to try that, I've read some Scientology materials myself and left with more knowledge about the specifics of Scientology, but I didn't get closer to believing it. Perhaps I can empathize with why it can hook people, we could call that understanding in a sense.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> The thing is, you can try to project something sensible onto them, ie steelman them, but you will end up with something the authors would disagree with. I agree with this. However you have then arrived at the basic truth that underlies the distorted version you were originally exposed to. So then you can discuss the issue with the person using a set of shared assumptions and perhaps bring them around to the steel manned version. Now you have changed their mind. If they then say "what about this <more preferred, less supportable version> that I started out with" they are more open to your summarized dismissal "that doesn't work because of w, x, y, and z" > The more I read such works You're not justified in labeling a work as this kind of work until the process here has been done. You may have been exposed to a weaker version and dismissed that because of fallacies, while a stronger version exists. You can't dismiss the stronger version without examination merely because it reaches the same conclusions as the weaker version you were exposed to. > You may just as well say you should read Scientology, and you will surely find common points to agree on etc. I mean, it's perhaps still useful to try that, I've read some Scientology materials myself and left with more knowledge about the specifics of Scientology, but I didn't get closer to believing it. Perhaps I can empathize with why it can hook people, we could call that understanding in a sense. I think my independent study of scientology was fruitful for my understanding of how someone becomes possessed by ideology. Studying scientology under the supervision of scientologists is dangerous because they prevent you from critically examining the ideas.