4 ms·

As is often said you cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. It also goes to show the immense danger in allowing authorities

As is often said you cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. It also goes to show the immense danger in allowing authorities to lie and build a straw man because this leads to permenant damage to the thinking of the people who believed it even when they know later it was a lie. Adopting scientific thinking and evidence is significantly harder work which combined with the bias of prior experience makes it very hard indeed for new evidence to change existing minds. We know this as science progressing one dead person at a time, even scientists can not adopt new thinking we have to wait until they die while training all new people with the new understanding. We have deep flaws as a species.

rgbswan 2y ago
[dead]
horeszko 2y ago
>"We know this as science progressing one dead person at a time, even scientists can not adopt new thinking we have to wait until they die while training all new people with the new understanding. We have deep flaws as a species." I've always considered this an advantage. The previous generation provides stability by sticking to what it knows and believes and the next generation adapts society to new understanding and circumstances. On aggregate this provides a measured response to changes in society and understanding.
- nine_k 2y ago
  It may also be painful to watch and experience if this paradigm shift has real-world implications aka if it matters at all. It took a long time before the community of doctors accepted the experimentally proven concept of washing hands and instruments before doing something to a patient, e.g. a surgery. While it may have provided some nice stability, it also prolonged and produced quite some suffering.
  - PaulKeeble 2y ago
    Even now its a problem getting healthcare workers to wash their hands, its a constant task of enforcement. We have had good and increasing evidence for the air borne spread of diseases since the early 20th century and yet even now airborne spread of viruses via aerosol is rejected by most. We have experiments showing that Covid and other viruses spread airborne in small 1-3 micrometre aerosoles and confirmed transit over quite large distances on the wind. We also have experimental evidence that it can survive in the air for many hours. Yet the WHO still has not accepted that viruses spread this way and indeed many governments are rejecting it as well. This is a Semmelweis moment happening currently and its not just one scientist being rejected its hundreds all coming at the problem from different directions finding the same thing.
    - sokoloff 2y ago
      Are health officials rejecting the idea that viruses can spread airborne? Or merely rejecting the idea that we should have some common, widespread intervention to prevent it? It seems like there’s not much room to disbelieve the former, but plenty of sensible people could have different opinions on the latter.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    You don't see this sort of "holding onto bad ideas" in low margin industries. The margins literally can't support it. There's probably some older small retail businesses out there who are still using almost wholly paper records but they're a rounding error.
- intended 2y ago
  Based on what the article said, this is a side effect of social cohesion. If we actually did reason better, society would not need to wait out till enough people passed away.
- madaxe_again 2y ago
  This worked well when the biggest technical advance that would happen across two generations would be a new style of beer tankard, and when the biggest social change was the old king dying and the new king being throned. When the pace of change outstrips this, you develop Problems. The entirety of 20th century history has comprised us wrestling with this.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
n2d4 2y ago
> As is often said you cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. But the point here is that you also cannot reason someone out of a position that they did reason themselves into. In the first study with the suicide notes, students had decent reasons to believe they were good/bad at the task; yet even after they learned that those reasons were false, they kept believing it.
- whamlastxmas 2y ago
  The problem, as someone who feels this way, is that you’re always bad at anything relative to someone else. If that’s how your mind sees it then being in the top 5% doesn’t help because there’s still a million people you see all the time doing incredibly better
intended 2y ago
I have to agree with the second comment as well - this shows that you cannot reason someone out a position they reasoned themselves into. Let’s try what the article said - perhaps I am not understanding your use of words, could you show me how they are linked? The reasoning (article) - not reasoning (your statement) part seems to be moving in different direction.
verisimi 2y ago
> We know this as science progressing one dead person at a time > We have deep flaws as a species. Speak for yourself. 'We' doesn't know anything or have anything. The perceived collective consensus view on whatever, is actually just a projection - it is not really there. 'Facts' are consensus opinion, deferral to expert opinion - the term (defined by the royal society) has authority and hierarchy baked in. https://www.etymonline.com/word/fact https://www.etymonline.com/word/fact With regards to science, the scientific method applied personally, should count with oneself - if one understands oneself to be a rational thinker the method is great. If one is rational, able to change one's mind as one verifies (or fails to verify) this-or-that then great. If one prefers to read articles on science sites and believes one now 'knows' something (without personal verification) one is choosing to believe one knows. This is not actual knowing - to call a 'belief' -> 'knowledge' is a subversion of the meaning of the term. Ultimately knowing facts is a subjective endeavour, objectivity is not possible. One cannot take oneself out of the experience, no matter how hard one pretends to be objective. One can pretend one is a 'we' (psychotic behaviour) and that 'we know this or that' when we merely read an article or watch a video somewhere. If you ask me, this is to be so deluded and disassociated from reality, that it is like being in the middle of the ocean and thinking one is climbing a hill as one is lifted by a wave.
- foxglacier 2y ago
  The collective consensus which you call "not really there" is actually the belief of the people who have the power to influence the society. I think that's why people are so interested in it - because it matters for government policy, who people vote for, etc. which affects everyone. When the collective consensus said that infant formula was as good as breast milk, it led to a lot of babies being fed that. Then the collective consensus reversed and a lot of babies got breast milk instead. Those babies grew up to be people like you and me with all the possible lifelong good or harm that might have come from whatever the collective consensus at the time was. People like mothers and nurses who implemented it did so even if they didn't really believe it. That's the power of collective consensus - to influence just about everyone. Denial is punished socially so people conform rather than act on their own beliefs, however well informed.
raxxorraxor 2y ago
Depends on how you look at it. I believe this "perfect" species would be quite moronic. You can never think entirely rational as that would be quite horrible. At least until you come to the the point where you cannot find a rational reason to continue your existence/eat chocolate/drink alcohol/..., because you likely will not find one. And different people have different ideas what they deem important or not and that is completely fine. That said, it is important to deliver rational explanations to the largest degree possible. The recent trend to "curate" free information is quite destructive. Even if that information is just nonsense. We also have some form of "endorsed" nonsense authorities would like us to believe and you probably should not. The panic about "those other people might believe something wrong and that is a problem" is a disease that should be overcome and you should adapt accordingly.
tim333 2y ago
>science progressing one dead person at a time, even scientists can not adopt new thinking I saw an interesting theory on this the other day that it's not about challenges thinking but about politics and power. Scenario: Young researcher has no power, does short term research contracts for low money. Randomly gets lucky and makes a cool discovery, gets promoted, permanent position on the faculty. Spends rest of career milking that and getting promoted. Hence the attacks on their theory (string/amyloid etc is rubbish) are attacked back as a political attack on their position and salary, rather than their being incapable of seeing what's what. It's like if you go to a communist country and try saying this is no good, switch to markets and democracy. You get arrested not because they can't see that but because they can.

rgbswan 2y ago

[dead]

horeszko 2y ago

>"We know this as science progressing one dead person at a time, even scientists can not adopt new thinking we have to wait until they die while training all new people with the new understanding. We have deep flaws as a species." I've always considered this an advantage. The previous generation provides stability by sticking to what it knows and believes and the next generation adapts society to new understanding and circumstances. On aggregate this provides a measured response to changes in society and understanding.

nine_k 2y ago
It may also be painful to watch and experience if this paradigm shift has real-world implications aka if it matters at all. It took a long time before the community of doctors accepted the experimentally proven concept of washing hands and instruments before doing something to a patient, e.g. a surgery. While it may have provided some nice stability, it also prolonged and produced quite some suffering.
- PaulKeeble 2y ago
  Even now its a problem getting healthcare workers to wash their hands, its a constant task of enforcement. We have had good and increasing evidence for the air borne spread of diseases since the early 20th century and yet even now airborne spread of viruses via aerosol is rejected by most. We have experiments showing that Covid and other viruses spread airborne in small 1-3 micrometre aerosoles and confirmed transit over quite large distances on the wind. We also have experimental evidence that it can survive in the air for many hours. Yet the WHO still has not accepted that viruses spread this way and indeed many governments are rejecting it as well. This is a Semmelweis moment happening currently and its not just one scientist being rejected its hundreds all coming at the problem from different directions finding the same thing.
  - sokoloff 2y ago
    Are health officials rejecting the idea that viruses can spread airborne? Or merely rejecting the idea that we should have some common, widespread intervention to prevent it? It seems like there’s not much room to disbelieve the former, but plenty of sensible people could have different opinions on the latter.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  You don't see this sort of "holding onto bad ideas" in low margin industries. The margins literally can't support it. There's probably some older small retail businesses out there who are still using almost wholly paper records but they're a rounding error.
intended 2y ago
Based on what the article said, this is a side effect of social cohesion. If we actually did reason better, society would not need to wait out till enough people passed away.
madaxe_again 2y ago
This worked well when the biggest technical advance that would happen across two generations would be a new style of beer tankard, and when the biggest social change was the old king dying and the new king being throned. When the pace of change outstrips this, you develop Problems. The entirety of 20th century history has comprised us wrestling with this.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

n2d4 2y ago

> As is often said you cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. But the point here is that you also cannot reason someone out of a position that they did reason themselves into. In the first study with the suicide notes, students had decent reasons to believe they were good/bad at the task; yet even after they learned that those reasons were false, they kept believing it.

whamlastxmas 2y ago
The problem, as someone who feels this way, is that you’re always bad at anything relative to someone else. If that’s how your mind sees it then being in the top 5% doesn’t help because there’s still a million people you see all the time doing incredibly better

intended 2y ago

I have to agree with the second comment as well - this shows that you cannot reason someone out a position they reasoned themselves into. Let’s try what the article said - perhaps I am not understanding your use of words, could you show me how they are linked? The reasoning (article) - not reasoning (your statement) part seems to be moving in different direction.

verisimi 2y ago

> We know this as science progressing one dead person at a time > We have deep flaws as a species. Speak for yourself. 'We' doesn't know anything or have anything. The perceived collective consensus view on whatever, is actually just a projection - it is not really there. 'Facts' are consensus opinion, deferral to expert opinion - the term (defined by the royal society) has authority and hierarchy baked in. https://www.etymonline.com/word/fact https://www.etymonline.com/word/fact With regards to science, the scientific method applied personally, should count with oneself - if one understands oneself to be a rational thinker the method is great. If one is rational, able to change one's mind as one verifies (or fails to verify) this-or-that then great. If one prefers to read articles on science sites and believes one now 'knows' something (without personal verification) one is choosing to believe one knows. This is not actual knowing - to call a 'belief' -> 'knowledge' is a subversion of the meaning of the term. Ultimately knowing facts is a subjective endeavour, objectivity is not possible. One cannot take oneself out of the experience, no matter how hard one pretends to be objective. One can pretend one is a 'we' (psychotic behaviour) and that 'we know this or that' when we merely read an article or watch a video somewhere. If you ask me, this is to be so deluded and disassociated from reality, that it is like being in the middle of the ocean and thinking one is climbing a hill as one is lifted by a wave.

foxglacier 2y ago
The collective consensus which you call "not really there" is actually the belief of the people who have the power to influence the society. I think that's why people are so interested in it - because it matters for government policy, who people vote for, etc. which affects everyone. When the collective consensus said that infant formula was as good as breast milk, it led to a lot of babies being fed that. Then the collective consensus reversed and a lot of babies got breast milk instead. Those babies grew up to be people like you and me with all the possible lifelong good or harm that might have come from whatever the collective consensus at the time was. People like mothers and nurses who implemented it did so even if they didn't really believe it. That's the power of collective consensus - to influence just about everyone. Denial is punished socially so people conform rather than act on their own beliefs, however well informed.

raxxorraxor 2y ago

Depends on how you look at it. I believe this "perfect" species would be quite moronic. You can never think entirely rational as that would be quite horrible. At least until you come to the the point where you cannot find a rational reason to continue your existence/eat chocolate/drink alcohol/..., because you likely will not find one. And different people have different ideas what they deem important or not and that is completely fine. That said, it is important to deliver rational explanations to the largest degree possible. The recent trend to "curate" free information is quite destructive. Even if that information is just nonsense. We also have some form of "endorsed" nonsense authorities would like us to believe and you probably should not. The panic about "those other people might believe something wrong and that is a problem" is a disease that should be overcome and you should adapt accordingly.

tim333 2y ago

>science progressing one dead person at a time, even scientists can not adopt new thinking I saw an interesting theory on this the other day that it's not about challenges thinking but about politics and power. Scenario: Young researcher has no power, does short term research contracts for low money. Randomly gets lucky and makes a cool discovery, gets promoted, permanent position on the faculty. Spends rest of career milking that and getting promoted. Hence the attacks on their theory (string/amyloid etc is rubbish) are attacked back as a political attack on their position and salary, rather than their being incapable of seeing what's what. It's like if you go to a communist country and try saying this is no good, switch to markets and democracy. You get arrested not because they can't see that but because they can.