4 ms·
>Hardly! I know plenty of conspiracy believing nutjobs who could teach me a thing or two about cooking or even philosophy. So they simultaneously hold delusion
by Frummy 3y ago
>Hardly! I know plenty of conspiracy believing nutjobs who could teach me a thing or two about cooking or even philosophy.
So they simultaneously hold delusions and reality-close beliefs/thoughts etc, as is common, but you describe them as conspiracy believing nutjobs. What I construe the article as saying is that we ascribe a negative tint to delusions, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt that there is a meaningful reason that they have this belief and not just that they're nutjobs, it could be evolutionarily advantageous or cognitively economical or just the best explanation at hand in a short time-frame for their unique life-experience. What I mean is, since you're calling them nutjobs you're agreeing that calling beliefs delusional is not a neutral description. But I also get that you mean that they still have the capacity to produce and share knowledge, with the multidimensional example of some nonrigorous beliefs and some more reality-grounded beliefs or skills.
Vetting others beliefs is great, especially from crowds and people with authority.
Who knows if you're rational by saying those with least agency are those who care more about truth than clout, but I found this article inspiring because of the hopeful message of influencing reality, for example with the optimism-bias example, and so to try it out, maybe try challenging your belief that crowds are unconvinced by articles and that truth pursuers have less agency. Good journalism, if you can find it, does exist and meets these beliefs head-on. I admit that it could go the other way, your life experience could give you excellent reasons to have these beliefs and they could serve you well, but I don't have the lens to see it immediately.
I've had my fair share of delusions that turned out to be long term positive, because the world is complex and our minds small, if we push far enough we will discover more elaborate reasonings for good hunches that epistemologically initially were on unsure foundation.
- sublinear 3y ago> I found this article inspiring because of the hopeful message of influencing reality [...] your life experience could give you excellent reasons to have these beliefs and they could serve you well, but I don't have the lens to see it immediately. >> Filling that void by becoming that icon is how most con artists operate, and great artists steal. We have too many con artists in this world and I feel like this article is encouraging people to ignore rational thought. I'm not going to take anyone as a leader. That's for the ignorant and insecure. We should all lead ourselves. Ideas are more important than people. Just because I agree with a few things someone says doesn't mean I'm going to let them walk all over me.
- Frummy 3y agoThat's fantastic and I agree with it, my initial view of the article was individualistic e g I don't have to second guess my own beliefs as unsound but rather trust my intuition and blaze a trail. Your view is more external and collective i e someone else imposing their world on yours, and you don't want to trust and assimilate into epistemically unsound systems of thought which is completely reasonable. Perhaps you can lead yourself with even more confidence using this idea, meaning that unrigorous beliefs can still be fruitful and behaviourally beneficial, perhaps amplifying the speed and intensity of thought in your life allowing a slightly higher "delusion"-ratio. An epistemically sound suggestion, or another con artist imposing their will on you, you decide haha :)