3 ms·

(Note: I'm posting a new reply after you substantially edited your comment.) > it's an illustration of the perils of dismissing people you don't agree with as

by xpe 6y ago

(Note: I'm posting a new reply after you substantially edited your comment.) > it's an illustration of the perils of dismissing people you don't agree with as biased, and of using that as justification for censoring them. What do you mean by "dismissing"? In my view, Sunstein is not "dismissing" anyone. He is describing their behavior as being irrational. Yes, I understand that people can take offense to being called irrational. But in the field of behavioral economics, discussions of rationality are not meant to insult. They are meant to inform public policy and law. To be clear, Sunstein is not promoting censorship of people because they are biased.

amadeuspagel 6y ago
> In my view, Sunstein is not "dismissing" anyone. He is describing their behavior as being irrational. Yes, I understand that people can take offense to being called irrational. But in the field of behavioral economics, discussions of rationality are not meant to insult. They are meant to inform public policy and law. I'm sure Sunstein didn't mean to offend anyone. My problem is his pattern of thinking. He sees concern about the coronavirus, he doesn't understand it, and rather then asking himself whether the people who are concerned might be right, and he wrong, he asks himself what kind of bias these poor people suffer from. > To be clear, Sunstein is not promoting censorship of people because they are biased. He doesn't say that anyone who is biased should be censored, but part of his justification for censorship are "new findings in behavioural economics", which I interpreted to mean findings on human irrationality and bias. And this is why I think his writing on the coronavirus is relevant: It illustrates how easy such ideas are abused, not even maliciously, but just because it's easier to explain disagreement away with the irrationality and bias of the other guy, then to ask yourself whether the other guy is right.

by xpe 6y ago

amadeuspagel 6y ago

> In my view, Sunstein is not "dismissing" anyone. He is describing their behavior as being irrational. Yes, I understand that people can take offense to being called irrational. But in the field of behavioral economics, discussions of rationality are not meant to insult. They are meant to inform public policy and law. I'm sure Sunstein didn't mean to offend anyone. My problem is his pattern of thinking. He sees concern about the coronavirus, he doesn't understand it, and rather then asking himself whether the people who are concerned might be right, and he wrong, he asks himself what kind of bias these poor people suffer from. > To be clear, Sunstein is not promoting censorship of people because they are biased. He doesn't say that anyone who is biased should be censored, but part of his justification for censorship are "new findings in behavioural economics", which I interpreted to mean findings on human irrationality and bias. And this is why I think his writing on the coronavirus is relevant: It illustrates how easy such ideas are abused, not even maliciously, but just because it's easier to explain disagreement away with the irrationality and bias of the other guy, then to ask yourself whether the other guy is right.