3 ms·
> Are you suggesting it's dangerous that SSC writes good, convincing essays, despite the fact that he's not some well-known figure? Of course not. What did I
by zepto 6y ago
> Are you suggesting it's dangerous that SSC writes good, convincing essays, despite the fact that he's not some well-known figure?
Of course not. What did I write that would suggest that?
> cult, getting convinced by their writing seems to be more about getting convinced by bad arguments than it is about attempting to consider arguments directly.
Your criterion for a ‘good’ essay was that it is convincing in the absence of knowledge of who the author is.
For someone who is persuaded, both SSC and the cult leader’s writings both meet this criterion.
How would you modify your criterion to distinguish the two?
- alecbz 6y ago> Of course not. What did I write that would suggest that? > being persuaded by an essay is ... a red flag that we may be being manipulated by someone we wouldn’t choose to be manipulated by I was persuaded by SSC essays, despite not knowing much about the author. Was that a red flag? Was it bad that I remained convinced by them despite not finding out much about what experiences in his background have shaped his perspective? > How would you modify your criterion to distinguish the two? The distinguishing factor is in what you should be persuaded by. If a "cult leader" is able to convince you of something by presenting you with good arguments, maybe they aren't a cult leader/it's not crazy to believe whatever they're selling. If someone's convinced of cultish notions because they were persuaded by bad arguments, I'd say the primary remediation is "don't be persuaded by bad arguments", not "don't listen to people unless you know who they are". I wouldn't say the second statement is terrible advice, but it's not the primary problem.