6 ms·

This kind of thinking is so common I often wonder how the hell we manage to progress as a species. People seem to only ever look at the evidence that supports p

This kind of thinking is so common I often wonder how the hell we manage to progress as a species. People seem to only ever look at the evidence that supports positions they originally adopted for bad reasons. I can't remember the last time I talked to anyone who could recall to me a single time they changed their mind based on seriously weighing evidence for & against their positions. People Google to find out why they're right and that's the end of it.

satellite2 6y ago
Maybe because we are not really made to adapt as individuals, only as a specie? And that we reached this level of collaboration and specialization, while usual at a cellular level is unknown at the individual level?
- MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
  I think thats going into the right direction. Rationalism is a dead end on the individual level. Some thoughts in this direction: https://alexkaschuta.substack.com/p/trad-the-final-frontier https://alexkaschuta.substack.com/p/trad-the-final-frontier
  - QuadmasterXLII 6y ago
    The issue with the trad philosophy is that these cute blog posts never clarify what to do when the “haha quirky” traditions passed down have real life victims. It’s one thing to stick to “let the cassava rest” or “don’t eat shellfish” but I’ll be damned before I go along with “stone the rape victims” or “enslave anyone with skin darker than a manilla folder”
    - MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
      This is more about a change in perspective. Its about giving a voice to the generations that existed before us, and what they have to tell us about how societies function and how to optimize for human happiness. The alternative is making up the rules of how civilisation works from first principles using a rationalist blank slate, which went horribly wrong when the communists did it, and goes completely off the rails right now [0]. The idea that we are rational decision-making machines, where all you have to do is to allow maximum freedom of decision making on an individual level, and you will automatically arrive at a happiness maximum, turns out not to be true. Communities are important, (shared) values are important, the right norms are important. There is much of value to be learned. It is not about accepting all the old ideas, because norms are evolving for good reasons, but instead take a hard look and evaluate which ones actually made a lot of sense. [0] https://twitter.com/swipewright/status/1340199529891549184?s=21 https://twitter.com/swipewright/status/1340199529891549184?s...
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  So, not much better than insects? All of our fitness is due to memetic evolution, that is supposed to run on a time not comparable to genetic one. If it takes a generation to clean the memetic noise, that doesn't work at all. Given that we are a quite successful species, I doubt those observations generalize well.
  - vagrantJin 6y ago
    > Given that we are a quite successful species I'm given to think we're 'successful' mostly by blind luck COVID gave us a reality check and I doubt most people recognised it as such. If it had Ebola mortality rate, any delusions of progress would be washed away with exacting precision. We are here by grace it seems, unscientific as that sounds, and have been resting on our heels giving generous valuations to meaningless companies. Heres a quote: The people of old knew and drew maps with 'here be the dragon', now they don't. Doesnt mean the dragons aren't there.
    - bspammer 6y ago
      If the virus had ebola mortality rates I genuinely think it would have done less damage than covid has. When people are genuinely afraid for their lives they're more likely to follow lockdowns.
  - jpttsn 6y ago
    Yes: Much human progress is faster than generational speed. We didn’t have to wait for Oppenheimer’s kids to start believing neutrons existed. This points to some memetic evolution, which can be behind important changes. Still: average people seem to change their minds very slowly and reluctantly, if at all.
ReactiveJelly 6y ago
I remember exactly one big change. A couple years ago I was convinced [1] to move from being vaguely libertarian to being vaguely liberal. I used to be either against welfare, or mixed on it, to now firmly supporting it. I also gave up on hating web apps. [1] By reading blogs I found interesting, and talking to a friend who was not especially trying to convince me but does hold my current position.
- noxer 6y ago
  welfare is kinda a broad description for a lot of ideas but in general I would say if someone has extreme views on this is most probably due to a lack of understanding the effect it has. I cant imagine that someone who would serious dig into this topic to come out of it on either extreme side. Kinda sounds like the middle ground fallacy but its really just accepting that both extreme sides are utopic.
disconcision 6y ago
'as a species' is the key phrase. luckily, societal change needn't depend on individuals ever changing their minds.
leafmeal 6y ago
What's fascinating is that I believe it's this exact trait that has allowed us to advance as a species. Humans are excellent copycats, we follow traditions and practices often without question. Call this "culture". Culture can change, but often only slowly. Successful survival strategies are passed down via culture. Since culture is mostly preserved, but may change gradually, it experiences evolution in exactly the same way species do. The result is that we are empowered with cultural knowledge that is far greater than we could ever devise in a single lifetime. It's allowed humans to inhabit almost everywhere on earth. A human without local, cultural knowledge would not survive, regardless of where on earth you place them. These aren't my thoughts. Joseph Henrich first made this argument in his book The Secret of Our Success (https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691178431/the-secret-of-our-success https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691178431/th...) though I haven't read it.
- leafmeal 6y ago
  I was about to post about the cassava example which is often used to explain the role of blind faith in cultural evolution, but then I found this fascinating article that argues against it: http://cognitionandculture.net/blogs/hugo-mercier/a-matter-of-taste/ http://cognitionandculture.net/blogs/hugo-mercier/a-matter-o...
momokoko 6y ago
The reason for that is because most insightful people do not have an externally visible firm position on most things. There is bias in your experience because the people you see with these highly visible entrenched beliefs are a subset of all people. A separate subset of people focus more often on the interesting and unique aspects of the issue. They tend to outwardly express their insights about the situation as opposed to their opinions.
phkahler 6y ago
It is hard enough for me to remember where I read something. Never mind keeping a full history of my beliefs if they change. There are some exceptions though.
DoreenMichele 6y ago
That's not how I handle things. As just one example: I used to think video games would rot your brains. I've done an about face on that position. It's not something I talk that much about in part because everyone just insists that no one operates that way, in part because it encourages abusive behavior from closed minded bullies and in part because it just doesn't typically come up in a natural way.
Terr_ 6y ago
> This kind of thinking is so common I often wonder how the hell we manage to progress as a species. Well, your universe is an experiment with a sample-size of n=1. Sure, taking risks might help other humans or other species' civilizations, but...
empiricus 6y ago
After thinking about this, I am in fact happy that we leave in a world where there is enough "slack": even if we make grave judgement errors, this will only lead to slightly worse outcomes, not to extinction. It is not good that we make so many mistakes, but it is good that there is room for error.
- symlinkk 6y ago
  Until nuclear weapons. Now one mistake ends humanity forever.
  - rhn_mk1 6y ago
    I haven't seen any support for the argument that nuclear mistakes would cause extinction of the human species outside of fiction. Arguably, we've already had at least two mistakes of the nuclear weapons kind in history already.
matsemann 6y ago
> I can't remember the last time I talked to anyone who could recall to me a single time they changed their mind If I gave you an example, would you change your mind or still be of the same impression that no one changes their mind the next time this discussion comes up? ;)
- tartoran 6y ago
  Probablty thats the point, even if you give evidence to the person who asked, they would soon forget about it and move on with their convictions.
topkai22 6y ago
As the famous saying goes "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." People look out for thier own interests, and will work to craft narratives that support themselves until they compeletly fall apart. Thats the bad news. The good news is that many people don't have vested interests in any given subject (or have crafted an outsider narrative for themselves). Outsiders get to compete with the vested players in both the marketplace and marketplace of ideas. Competition ensures progress.
baby 6y ago
I've noticed that in myself, it's really hard to change my way of living with facts, Like I know I should exercise more, and eat more healthy, and create habits, etc. What I found works: emotions. Reading a good book will change the way you think deeply, watching a good documentary or movie can motive you for months, and so on. BTW I recommend The Minimalist on Netflix.
rdsubhas 6y ago
* Progress within a generation is not mandatory for progress across generations. We progress as a species across generations. You don't need to find people changing opinions within your circle. Our sample set is far, far bigger. * Data/Evidence itself is a living thing. It changes, new data comes in, old data is discarded, or scientific consensus on the "interpretation" changes and evolves like an organism. Whether you like it or not, entities who interpret and report the data operate on and are influenced by political, social, financial and many other factors. Sometimes they believe they are "doing the right thing" while changing the interpretation. To give you some examples: * For more than 40 years, there was super strong evidence and scientific consensus that neutering dogs early reduces cancer risk. Now, it has already come to light that this consensus was largely driven by moral dilemma to prevent the stray litters epidemic. Last 5 years, the opposite scientific consensus is building up: Neutering dogs early increases cancer and health risk [1] * The complete international goof up on wearing masks, where everyone including WHO and CDC unanimously publicised consensus that masks do not help wearers — was driven by unquantified fears of masks running out of supply for frontline workers, and not by data. There were many ways they could have tackled that fear, e.g. by recommending governments to split retail and emergency stocks. But no, they decided to tackle it by changing the consensus instead, huge confusion and endless debates followed (like how do masks work for workers but does not work for regular people), lives were lost. Now that interpretation consensus has taken a U turn, except it's not new data, data was already scientifically present in the SARS and various other past epidemics. Just new consensus. In many cases, you see that data was politicised not by politicians, but by the scientific community itself — because they are still learning how to cope with moral, social and practical dilemmas when interpreting data, and they do not have accountability for their interpretations. Their interpretations are just recommendations and the final decision making falls on authorities who are only held accountable. Within one generation, you can have one huge mess up with the data or consensus, and have the whole species die off. It could have very well happened already, had COVID not been less fatal to younger population. It's too early to root for within generation progress, but we definitely do progress as a species. That's how it's intended to work. 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6070019/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6070019/
dvirsky 6y ago
I started out believing that COVID is blown way out of proportion for the first couple of weeks, seeking evidence that mortality rates are lower than people thought, etc (not that it's a conspiracy or whatever, just that we're overreacting). But reading papers about it looking for data to support this, then hearing accounts of medical staff, and discussing it with friends made me do a 180 pretty quickly. It could also be the social atmosphere around me, I'm not sure, but I do remember totally flipping my position and understanding what an idiot I was, it wasn't a very gradual process.
- ergocoder 6y ago
  Sometimes it only gets difficult when you materialize your belief and are passionate about it. Say we believed officials and advocated for not wearing masks in the beginning and called out everyone who wore masks anti-science. Then, officials turned out to be completely wrong. With that, we would have a very hard time reverse our position.
Siira 6y ago
Where is the puzzle? We have a lot of obvious inefficiencies that are there just because of politics. We still make progress, because evidence does make one’s political agenda slightly stronger.
tasuki 6y ago
I used to think homeopathy was unethical fraudulent quackery to get rich off the sick. Now that I learn about the efficacy of placebo, I start thinking homeopathy is fraudulent quackery to help the sick (and get rich in the process?). Not sure if this counts as changing my mind.
- tim333 6y ago
  A lot of the practitioners seem to believe in the stuff and I guess if it makes them and their patients feel better that's OK? I mean we all peg out in the end so if it helps you feel better during the process that's something. Of course it's a problem if you then skip chemo or some such to do it.
calvano915 6y ago
Perhaps beliefs are evolving over time, and how one navigates information and contemplation (or lack thereof) determines the direction and magnitude of changes in those beliefs.

satellite2 6y ago

Maybe because we are not really made to adapt as individuals, only as a specie? And that we reached this level of collaboration and specialization, while usual at a cellular level is unknown at the individual level?

MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
I think thats going into the right direction. Rationalism is a dead end on the individual level. Some thoughts in this direction: https://alexkaschuta.substack.com/p/trad-the-final-frontier https://alexkaschuta.substack.com/p/trad-the-final-frontier
- QuadmasterXLII 6y ago
  The issue with the trad philosophy is that these cute blog posts never clarify what to do when the “haha quirky” traditions passed down have real life victims. It’s one thing to stick to “let the cassava rest” or “don’t eat shellfish” but I’ll be damned before I go along with “stone the rape victims” or “enslave anyone with skin darker than a manilla folder”
  - MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
    This is more about a change in perspective. Its about giving a voice to the generations that existed before us, and what they have to tell us about how societies function and how to optimize for human happiness. The alternative is making up the rules of how civilisation works from first principles using a rationalist blank slate, which went horribly wrong when the communists did it, and goes completely off the rails right now [0]. The idea that we are rational decision-making machines, where all you have to do is to allow maximum freedom of decision making on an individual level, and you will automatically arrive at a happiness maximum, turns out not to be true. Communities are important, (shared) values are important, the right norms are important. There is much of value to be learned. It is not about accepting all the old ideas, because norms are evolving for good reasons, but instead take a hard look and evaluate which ones actually made a lot of sense. [0] https://twitter.com/swipewright/status/1340199529891549184?s=21 https://twitter.com/swipewright/status/1340199529891549184?s...
marcosdumay 6y ago
So, not much better than insects? All of our fitness is due to memetic evolution, that is supposed to run on a time not comparable to genetic one. If it takes a generation to clean the memetic noise, that doesn't work at all. Given that we are a quite successful species, I doubt those observations generalize well.
- vagrantJin 6y ago
  > Given that we are a quite successful species I'm given to think we're 'successful' mostly by blind luck COVID gave us a reality check and I doubt most people recognised it as such. If it had Ebola mortality rate, any delusions of progress would be washed away with exacting precision. We are here by grace it seems, unscientific as that sounds, and have been resting on our heels giving generous valuations to meaningless companies. Heres a quote: The people of old knew and drew maps with 'here be the dragon', now they don't. Doesnt mean the dragons aren't there.
  - bspammer 6y ago
    If the virus had ebola mortality rates I genuinely think it would have done less damage than covid has. When people are genuinely afraid for their lives they're more likely to follow lockdowns.
- jpttsn 6y ago
  Yes: Much human progress is faster than generational speed. We didn’t have to wait for Oppenheimer’s kids to start believing neutrons existed. This points to some memetic evolution, which can be behind important changes. Still: average people seem to change their minds very slowly and reluctantly, if at all.

ReactiveJelly 6y ago

I remember exactly one big change. A couple years ago I was convinced [1] to move from being vaguely libertarian to being vaguely liberal. I used to be either against welfare, or mixed on it, to now firmly supporting it. I also gave up on hating web apps. [1] By reading blogs I found interesting, and talking to a friend who was not especially trying to convince me but does hold my current position.

noxer 6y ago
welfare is kinda a broad description for a lot of ideas but in general I would say if someone has extreme views on this is most probably due to a lack of understanding the effect it has. I cant imagine that someone who would serious dig into this topic to come out of it on either extreme side. Kinda sounds like the middle ground fallacy but its really just accepting that both extreme sides are utopic.

disconcision 6y ago

'as a species' is the key phrase. luckily, societal change needn't depend on individuals ever changing their minds.

leafmeal 6y ago

What's fascinating is that I believe it's this exact trait that has allowed us to advance as a species. Humans are excellent copycats, we follow traditions and practices often without question. Call this "culture". Culture can change, but often only slowly. Successful survival strategies are passed down via culture. Since culture is mostly preserved, but may change gradually, it experiences evolution in exactly the same way species do. The result is that we are empowered with cultural knowledge that is far greater than we could ever devise in a single lifetime. It's allowed humans to inhabit almost everywhere on earth. A human without local, cultural knowledge would not survive, regardless of where on earth you place them. These aren't my thoughts. Joseph Henrich first made this argument in his book The Secret of Our Success (https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691178431/the-secret-of-our-success https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691178431/th...) though I haven't read it.

leafmeal 6y ago
I was about to post about the cassava example which is often used to explain the role of blind faith in cultural evolution, but then I found this fascinating article that argues against it: http://cognitionandculture.net/blogs/hugo-mercier/a-matter-of-taste/ http://cognitionandculture.net/blogs/hugo-mercier/a-matter-o...

momokoko 6y ago

The reason for that is because most insightful people do not have an externally visible firm position on most things. There is bias in your experience because the people you see with these highly visible entrenched beliefs are a subset of all people. A separate subset of people focus more often on the interesting and unique aspects of the issue. They tend to outwardly express their insights about the situation as opposed to their opinions.

phkahler 6y ago

It is hard enough for me to remember where I read something. Never mind keeping a full history of my beliefs if they change. There are some exceptions though.

DoreenMichele 6y ago

That's not how I handle things. As just one example: I used to think video games would rot your brains. I've done an about face on that position. It's not something I talk that much about in part because everyone just insists that no one operates that way, in part because it encourages abusive behavior from closed minded bullies and in part because it just doesn't typically come up in a natural way.

Terr_ 6y ago

> This kind of thinking is so common I often wonder how the hell we manage to progress as a species. Well, your universe is an experiment with a sample-size of n=1. Sure, taking risks might help other humans or other species' civilizations, but...

empiricus 6y ago

After thinking about this, I am in fact happy that we leave in a world where there is enough "slack": even if we make grave judgement errors, this will only lead to slightly worse outcomes, not to extinction. It is not good that we make so many mistakes, but it is good that there is room for error.

symlinkk 6y ago
Until nuclear weapons. Now one mistake ends humanity forever.
- rhn_mk1 6y ago
  I haven't seen any support for the argument that nuclear mistakes would cause extinction of the human species outside of fiction. Arguably, we've already had at least two mistakes of the nuclear weapons kind in history already.

matsemann 6y ago

> I can't remember the last time I talked to anyone who could recall to me a single time they changed their mind If I gave you an example, would you change your mind or still be of the same impression that no one changes their mind the next time this discussion comes up? ;)

tartoran 6y ago
Probablty thats the point, even if you give evidence to the person who asked, they would soon forget about it and move on with their convictions.

topkai22 6y ago

As the famous saying goes "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." People look out for thier own interests, and will work to craft narratives that support themselves until they compeletly fall apart. Thats the bad news. The good news is that many people don't have vested interests in any given subject (or have crafted an outsider narrative for themselves). Outsiders get to compete with the vested players in both the marketplace and marketplace of ideas. Competition ensures progress.

baby 6y ago

I've noticed that in myself, it's really hard to change my way of living with facts, Like I know I should exercise more, and eat more healthy, and create habits, etc. What I found works: emotions. Reading a good book will change the way you think deeply, watching a good documentary or movie can motive you for months, and so on. BTW I recommend The Minimalist on Netflix.

rdsubhas 6y ago

* Progress within a generation is not mandatory for progress across generations. We progress as a species across generations. You don't need to find people changing opinions within your circle. Our sample set is far, far bigger. * Data/Evidence itself is a living thing. It changes, new data comes in, old data is discarded, or scientific consensus on the "interpretation" changes and evolves like an organism. Whether you like it or not, entities who interpret and report the data operate on and are influenced by political, social, financial and many other factors. Sometimes they believe they are "doing the right thing" while changing the interpretation. To give you some examples: * For more than 40 years, there was super strong evidence and scientific consensus that neutering dogs early reduces cancer risk. Now, it has already come to light that this consensus was largely driven by moral dilemma to prevent the stray litters epidemic. Last 5 years, the opposite scientific consensus is building up: Neutering dogs early increases cancer and health risk [1] * The complete international goof up on wearing masks, where everyone including WHO and CDC unanimously publicised consensus that masks do not help wearers — was driven by unquantified fears of masks running out of supply for frontline workers, and not by data. There were many ways they could have tackled that fear, e.g. by recommending governments to split retail and emergency stocks. But no, they decided to tackle it by changing the consensus instead, huge confusion and endless debates followed (like how do masks work for workers but does not work for regular people), lives were lost. Now that interpretation consensus has taken a U turn, except it's not new data, data was already scientifically present in the SARS and various other past epidemics. Just new consensus. In many cases, you see that data was politicised not by politicians, but by the scientific community itself — because they are still learning how to cope with moral, social and practical dilemmas when interpreting data, and they do not have accountability for their interpretations. Their interpretations are just recommendations and the final decision making falls on authorities who are only held accountable. Within one generation, you can have one huge mess up with the data or consensus, and have the whole species die off. It could have very well happened already, had COVID not been less fatal to younger population. It's too early to root for within generation progress, but we definitely do progress as a species. That's how it's intended to work. 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6070019/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6070019/

dvirsky 6y ago

I started out believing that COVID is blown way out of proportion for the first couple of weeks, seeking evidence that mortality rates are lower than people thought, etc (not that it's a conspiracy or whatever, just that we're overreacting). But reading papers about it looking for data to support this, then hearing accounts of medical staff, and discussing it with friends made me do a 180 pretty quickly. It could also be the social atmosphere around me, I'm not sure, but I do remember totally flipping my position and understanding what an idiot I was, it wasn't a very gradual process.

ergocoder 6y ago
Sometimes it only gets difficult when you materialize your belief and are passionate about it. Say we believed officials and advocated for not wearing masks in the beginning and called out everyone who wore masks anti-science. Then, officials turned out to be completely wrong. With that, we would have a very hard time reverse our position.

Siira 6y ago

Where is the puzzle? We have a lot of obvious inefficiencies that are there just because of politics. We still make progress, because evidence does make one’s political agenda slightly stronger.

tasuki 6y ago

I used to think homeopathy was unethical fraudulent quackery to get rich off the sick. Now that I learn about the efficacy of placebo, I start thinking homeopathy is fraudulent quackery to help the sick (and get rich in the process?). Not sure if this counts as changing my mind.

tim333 6y ago
A lot of the practitioners seem to believe in the stuff and I guess if it makes them and their patients feel better that's OK? I mean we all peg out in the end so if it helps you feel better during the process that's something. Of course it's a problem if you then skip chemo or some such to do it.

calvano915 6y ago

Perhaps beliefs are evolving over time, and how one navigates information and contemplation (or lack thereof) determines the direction and magnitude of changes in those beliefs.