5 ms·

Neither of the psychological tendencies noted by the author are “bugs” or failings of the human psyche. They are adaptations to primarily social environments. T

Neither of the psychological tendencies noted by the author are “bugs” or failings of the human psyche. They are adaptations to primarily social environments. They are useful heuristics that are right more often than wrong. Neither of them is an explanation for the author’s perceived vilification of his worldview. Tendencies like these don’t rule absolutely over human thought, they influence it but any amount of examination or second thought is enough to balance their contribution. If we want to psychologize then I would add that the author seems to be in the throes of a persecution complex typical of certain stages of life. Generally this will resolve with more experience and interaction with a broader range of ideas and people. It stems from an erroneous belief in both the certitude of one’s own conclusions and the impossibility of anyone coming to a contrary opinion based on sound reasoning.

mandmandam 2y ago
Dear lord, there are many people missing the point of the article but this entire comment is egregious. > Neither of the psychological tendencies noted by the author are “bugs” or failings of the human psyche. They can be, and those situations were what was described. The author never claimed that these failings are not sometimes or even often a useful heuristic - in fact, they linked to a research article which shows that these processes are even separate from our evaluations of people (the evil bananas study). > They are useful heuristics that are right more often than wrong Maybe - but knowing they're there so you can understand and prevent the wrongness is important, not just in your life but to the future of our species. > Tendencies like these don’t rule absolutely over human thought Author never claimed they do. > If we want to psychologize What? > the author seems to be in the throes of a persecution complex typical of certain stages of life. What the fuck? > It stems from an erroneous belief in both the certitude of one’s own conclusions and the impossibility of anyone coming to a contrary opinion based on sound reasoning. The author linked to important and interesting research, and wrote about it in a very engaging way. At no point anywhere did they make logical leaps, or insist that one conclusion or another was the only right way to think. The stone cold fact is that this phenomenon, which shows up in multiple studies, explains a lot about our biggest current problems, from corrupt politicians to alarming climate research. Attacking the messenger and even pathologizing them is completely unwarranted, actively unhelpful, and a perfect example of the author's point.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
> they influence it but any amount of examination or second thought is enough to balance their contribution. That's sadly in short supply these days. distractions from entertainment or wearing down from unsustanable workloads to survive. Take your pick. >Generally this will resolve with more experience and interaction with a broader range of ideas and people. funnily enough it only makes me more cynical. It does make me realize a lot of people are living normally. It also makes me realize a lot of people are being crushed by society through no fault of their own.

mandmandam 2y ago

Dear lord, there are many people missing the point of the article but this entire comment is egregious. > Neither of the psychological tendencies noted by the author are “bugs” or failings of the human psyche. They can be, and those situations were what was described. The author never claimed that these failings are not sometimes or even often a useful heuristic - in fact, they linked to a research article which shows that these processes are even separate from our evaluations of people (the evil bananas study). > They are useful heuristics that are right more often than wrong Maybe - but knowing they're there so you can understand and prevent the wrongness is important, not just in your life but to the future of our species. > Tendencies like these don’t rule absolutely over human thought Author never claimed they do. > If we want to psychologize What? > the author seems to be in the throes of a persecution complex typical of certain stages of life. What the fuck? > It stems from an erroneous belief in both the certitude of one’s own conclusions and the impossibility of anyone coming to a contrary opinion based on sound reasoning. The author linked to important and interesting research, and wrote about it in a very engaging way. At no point anywhere did they make logical leaps, or insist that one conclusion or another was the only right way to think. The stone cold fact is that this phenomenon, which shows up in multiple studies, explains a lot about our biggest current problems, from corrupt politicians to alarming climate research. Attacking the messenger and even pathologizing them is completely unwarranted, actively unhelpful, and a perfect example of the author's point.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

> they influence it but any amount of examination or second thought is enough to balance their contribution. That's sadly in short supply these days. distractions from entertainment or wearing down from unsustanable workloads to survive. Take your pick. >Generally this will resolve with more experience and interaction with a broader range of ideas and people. funnily enough it only makes me more cynical. It does make me realize a lot of people are living normally. It also makes me realize a lot of people are being crushed by society through no fault of their own.