3 ms·

Ironically, some of the most irrational people I know are the ones who profess to hew to rationality, to the point where, in certain circles, "rationality" has

by lisper 5y ago

Ironically, some of the most irrational people I know are the ones who profess to hew to rationality, to the point where, in certain circles, "rationality" has become a sort of cult. This is particularly evident in militant anti-theism (whose adherents insist that the only possible explanation for someone believing in God is that they are idiots or otherwise mentally deficient), hard-core libertarians (who, ironically, end up politically aligned with hard-core fundamentalist Christians, at least in the U.S.) and a particularly weird strain of this disease that causes people to subscribe to (and actively proselytize!) the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. It's bizarre, and unendingly frustrating. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only rational creature in the universe because, of course, none of my beliefs are anything at all like theirs.

btilly 5y ago
How do you know that they are the ones who are being irrational here, and not you? This is a serious question. We should always challenge our preconceptions. To take your examples: 1. Traditional Judeo-Christian religions all claim we should believe because of claims made in holy books of questionable provenance, held by primitive people who believed things like (for example) disease being caused by demons. What rational reason is there for believing these holy books to be particularly truthful? (I was careful to not include Buddhism, whose basis is in experiences that people have while in altered states of consciousness from meditation.) 2. The shortcomings of libertarianism involve various tragedies of the commons. (My favorite book on this being, The Logic of Collective Action.) However the evidence in favor of most government interventions is rather weak. And the evidence is very strong that well-intended government interventions predictably will, after regulatory capture, wind creating severe problems of their own. How do you know that the interventions which you like will actually lead to good results? (Note, both major US parties are uneasy coalitions of convenience kept together through the only electoral realities of winner takes all. On the left, big labor and environmentalism are also uncomfortable bedfellows.) 3. To the extent that the observer is described by quantum mechanics, many-worlds is provably a correct description of the process of observation. In the absence of concrete evidence that quantum mechanics breaks down for observers like us, what rational reason is there to advocate for any other interpretation? (The fact that it completely violates our preconceptions about how the world should work is an emotional argument, not a rational one.)
- lisper 5y ago
  I kind of intended that comment to be ironic self-deprecating humor because, of course, I have no way of knowing whether or not I'm being irrational. Irrational people think they're rational, and so the fact that I think I'm rational does not mean that I am. But it's likewise for everyone. The real point is that everyone ought to have a little more humility about their own rationality (especially all the idiots who are downvoting my original comments. Now they are being totally irrational!)
  - lisper 5y ago
    To late to edit the above comment, but just for the record, this is my actual response to the many-worlders: http://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-wor...
    - btilly 5y ago
      I read it, but from it you seem to be making three points. 1. Many worlds is indeed what QM predicts should happen. 2. Popular descriptions are oversimplified and the full explanation is very complicated. 3. Even if many worlds is true, it doesn't change my experience and should not rationally change how I act when faced with quantum uncertainty. If I am correct, then I'm in violent agreement with all three points. And am left with, "So until more data, I will provisionally accept many worlds as the best explanation." My impression is that you seem to be left with, "If it is true, then it is irrelevant to my life, and so I don't care about whether it might be true."
      - lisper 5y ago
        > Many worlds is indeed what QM predicts should happen. No. Many-worlds is what the SE predicts should happen. But the SE != QM. MW does not explain the Born rule, which is part of QM's predictions. MW is also violently at odds with subjective experience. So MW is not a good explanation of what is observed.
hindsightbias 5y ago
Watching the SSC and NYTimes drama was pretty eye opening about rationlists rational discourse. Even when SA himself eventually started questioning his response/allegations, few of the mob (there really is no other word for it) would not have it. All absolutist and conspiracy laden. PG said keep your identity small. I’ve found few rationalist or libertarians of any bent who meet that criteria.

by lisper 5y ago

btilly 5y ago

How do you know that they are the ones who are being irrational here, and not you? This is a serious question. We should always challenge our preconceptions. To take your examples: 1. Traditional Judeo-Christian religions all claim we should believe because of claims made in holy books of questionable provenance, held by primitive people who believed things like (for example) disease being caused by demons. What rational reason is there for believing these holy books to be particularly truthful? (I was careful to not include Buddhism, whose basis is in experiences that people have while in altered states of consciousness from meditation.) 2. The shortcomings of libertarianism involve various tragedies of the commons. (My favorite book on this being, The Logic of Collective Action.) However the evidence in favor of most government interventions is rather weak. And the evidence is very strong that well-intended government interventions predictably will, after regulatory capture, wind creating severe problems of their own. How do you know that the interventions which you like will actually lead to good results? (Note, both major US parties are uneasy coalitions of convenience kept together through the only electoral realities of winner takes all. On the left, big labor and environmentalism are also uncomfortable bedfellows.) 3. To the extent that the observer is described by quantum mechanics, many-worlds is provably a correct description of the process of observation. In the absence of concrete evidence that quantum mechanics breaks down for observers like us, what rational reason is there to advocate for any other interpretation? (The fact that it completely violates our preconceptions about how the world should work is an emotional argument, not a rational one.)

lisper 5y ago
I kind of intended that comment to be ironic self-deprecating humor because, of course, I have no way of knowing whether or not I'm being irrational. Irrational people think they're rational, and so the fact that I think I'm rational does not mean that I am. But it's likewise for everyone. The real point is that everyone ought to have a little more humility about their own rationality (especially all the idiots who are downvoting my original comments. Now they are being totally irrational!)
- lisper 5y ago
  To late to edit the above comment, but just for the record, this is my actual response to the many-worlders: http://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-wor...
  - btilly 5y ago
    I read it, but from it you seem to be making three points. 1. Many worlds is indeed what QM predicts should happen. 2. Popular descriptions are oversimplified and the full explanation is very complicated. 3. Even if many worlds is true, it doesn't change my experience and should not rationally change how I act when faced with quantum uncertainty. If I am correct, then I'm in violent agreement with all three points. And am left with, "So until more data, I will provisionally accept many worlds as the best explanation." My impression is that you seem to be left with, "If it is true, then it is irrelevant to my life, and so I don't care about whether it might be true."
    - lisper 5y ago
      > Many worlds is indeed what QM predicts should happen. No. Many-worlds is what the SE predicts should happen. But the SE != QM. MW does not explain the Born rule, which is part of QM's predictions. MW is also violently at odds with subjective experience. So MW is not a good explanation of what is observed.

hindsightbias 5y ago

Watching the SSC and NYTimes drama was pretty eye opening about rationlists rational discourse. Even when SA himself eventually started questioning his response/allegations, few of the mob (there really is no other word for it) would not have it. All absolutist and conspiracy laden. PG said keep your identity small. I’ve found few rationalist or libertarians of any bent who meet that criteria.