6 ms·

I remember reading an article on one of the classic rationalist blogs (but they write SO MUCH I can't possibly find it) describing something like "rational epis

I remember reading an article on one of the classic rationalist blogs (but they write SO MUCH I can't possibly find it) describing something like "rational epistemic skepticism" – or maybe a better term I can't recall either. (As noted below: "Epistemic learned helplessness") The basic idea: an average person can easily be intellectually overwhelmed by a clever person (maybe the person is smarter, or more educated, or maybe they just studied up on a subject a lot). They basically know this... and also know that it's not because the clever person is always right. Because there's lots of these people, and not every clever person thinks the same thing, so they obviously can't all be right. But the average person (average with respect to whatever subject) is still rational and isn't going to let their beliefs bounce around. So they develop a defensive stance, a resistance to being convinced. And it's right that they do! If someone confronts you with the PERFECT ARGUMENT, is it because the argument is true and revelatory? Or does it involve some slight of hand? The latter is much more likely

ayoubd 1y ago
Was it this one? “Epistemic learned helplessness” https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learned-helplessness/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learn...
- ianbicking 1y ago
  Yes, that's the one, thank you!
mpyne 1y ago
Was it this one? https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learned-helplessness/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learn...
TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
The problem isn't the PERFECT ARGUMENT, it's the argument that doesn't look like an argument at all. Take anti-vaxxers. If you try to argue with the science, you've already lost, because anti-vaxxers have been propagandised into believing they're protecting their kids. How? By being told that vaccinations are promoted by people who are trying to harm their kids and exploit the public for cash. And who tells them? People like them. Not scientists. Not those smart people who look down on you for being stupid. No, it's influencers who are just like them, part of the same tribe. Someone you could socialise with. Someone like you. Someone who only has your best interests at heart. And that's how it works. That's why the anti-vax and climate denial campaigns run huge bot farms with vast social media holdings which insert, amplify, and reinforce the "These people are evil and not like us and want to make you poor and harm your kids" messaging, combined with "But believe this and you will keep your kids safe". Far-right messaging doesn't argue rationally at all. It's deliberate and cynically calculated to trigger fear, disgust, outrage, and protectiveness. Consider how many far-right hot button topics centre on protecting kids from "weird, different, not like us" people - foreigners, intellectuals, scientists, unorthodox creatives and entertainers, people with unusual sexualities, outgroup politicians. And so on. So when someone tries to argue with it rationally, they get nowhere. The "argument" is over before it starts. It's not even about rhetoric or cleverness - both of which are overrated. It's about emotional conditioning using emotional triggers, tribal framing, and simple moral narratives, embedded with constant repetition and aggressive reinforcement.
- webnrrd2k 1y ago
  Just to add a little to the discussion, I suspect that the "not like us" messaging is mostly a right-wing thing, while there's more of a "don't contaminate my fluids" argument from the far-left. Neither is a rational argument, and still trigger the same disgust and fear, but tend to have different implications for outgroups.
  - e12e 1y ago
    > "don't contaminate my fluids" argument from the far-left What does this refer to? I assume it has nothing to do with Flint, Michigan ;-)
    - dmwood 1y ago
      Probably from one of the crazies in Dr. Strangelove (the movie)
- prometheus76 1y ago
  Ah yes. People who think like you and agree with you are rational, not prone to fear, disgust outrage, or protectiveness. But people who disagree with you are obviously irrational and can't be reasoned with. You are "educated" and they are "fear-mongers".
  - bsder 1y ago
    > But people who disagree with you are obviously irrational and can't be reasoned with. You are saying this with sarcasm, but it is a tautology. If I am factually correct, by definition, everyone who disagrees with me is irrational and can't be reasoned with. Anti-vax is a great example of this. We have loads and loads and loads of evidence of the harm that not being vaccinated can do (now including dead children thanks to measles) and very scant evidence to the contrary (there is some for specific vaccines for specific diseases like Polio). However, until it hits an anti-vaxxer personally, they simply will refuse to believe it. Of course, once an anti-vaxxer personally gets a disease, NOW the anti-vaxxers want the vaccine. Thus, demonstrating simultaneously that they actually don't understand a single damn thing about vaccines and that their "anti-vaxx belief" was irrational as well.
mistermann 1y ago
[dead]
nudgeOrnurture 1y ago
repetition breeds rationalism. variety of phrasing breeds facts. it's how the brain works. the more cognitive and perceptive angles agree on the observed, the more likely it is, that the observed is really / actually observed. polysemous language (ambiguity) makes it easy to manipulate the observed. reinterpretation, mere exposure and thus coopted, portfolio communist media and journalism, optimize, while using AI for everything will make it as efficient as it gets. keep adding new real angles and they'll start to sweat or throw towels and tantrums and aim for the weak.
marcosdumay 1y ago
It's usually dumb people that have so many facts and different arguments that one can't keep up with. And they usually have so many of those because they were convinced to pay disproportionate attention to it and don't see the need to check anything or reject bad sources.
- scotty79 1y ago
  I noticed something similar. People who believe in absolute garbage tend to be the ones that don't have robust bs filter that would let them quickly reject absolute garbage. And it's surprisingly orthogonal to person's intelligence. There's correlation but even very intelligent people can have very weak bs filter and their intelligence post-rationalizes the absolute garbage they were unable to reject.
  - globalnode 1y ago
    Robust bs detectors may also leave a person susceptible to rejecting novel or unorthodox ideas. Theres a balance somewhere between not being overwhelmed by the sea of crazy and still being open to a good idea when it comes along. Edit: This thread is amazing. 12 years of pre-uni schooling and no mention of any of this stuff... Also fair criticism of IRA too in the article. Still, seems a little ironic that the people crying foul benefited from the status quo of an uneducated populace.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - scotty79 1y ago
      I don't think you can have too strong bs detector. After it rejects something it's not forever. When the thing you rejected occurs in new contexts or produces new results you will reevaluate and either reject it again or withdraw your rejection. That's the point where intelligence comes in so that you won't withdraw your rejection too soon or reject a valid thing too persistently. But from what I noticed evaluation made at this stage are rarely a problem. The bulk of the problem is not strong enough bs filter for the initial rejection to happen. And once someone believes in something it's very hard for him to lose that belief. Garbage sticks.
tunesmith 1y ago
I tend to like the ethos/logos/pathos model. Arguments from clever people can sound convincing because ethos gets mixed in. And anyone can temporarily confuse someone by using pathos. This is why it's better to have arguments externalized in a form that can be reviewed on their own, logos only. It's the only style that can stand on its own without that ephemeral effect (aside from facts changing), and it's also the only one that can be adopted and owned by any listener that reviews it and proves it true to themselves.

ayoubd 1y ago

Was it this one? “Epistemic learned helplessness” https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learned-helplessness/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learn...

ianbicking 1y ago
Yes, that's the one, thank you!

mpyne 1y ago

Was it this one? https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learned-helplessness/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learn...

TheOtherHobbes 1y ago

The problem isn't the PERFECT ARGUMENT, it's the argument that doesn't look like an argument at all. Take anti-vaxxers. If you try to argue with the science, you've already lost, because anti-vaxxers have been propagandised into believing they're protecting their kids. How? By being told that vaccinations are promoted by people who are trying to harm their kids and exploit the public for cash. And who tells them? People like them. Not scientists. Not those smart people who look down on you for being stupid. No, it's influencers who are just like them, part of the same tribe. Someone you could socialise with. Someone like you. Someone who only has your best interests at heart. And that's how it works. That's why the anti-vax and climate denial campaigns run huge bot farms with vast social media holdings which insert, amplify, and reinforce the "These people are evil and not like us and want to make you poor and harm your kids" messaging, combined with "But believe this and you will keep your kids safe". Far-right messaging doesn't argue rationally at all. It's deliberate and cynically calculated to trigger fear, disgust, outrage, and protectiveness. Consider how many far-right hot button topics centre on protecting kids from "weird, different, not like us" people - foreigners, intellectuals, scientists, unorthodox creatives and entertainers, people with unusual sexualities, outgroup politicians. And so on. So when someone tries to argue with it rationally, they get nowhere. The "argument" is over before it starts. It's not even about rhetoric or cleverness - both of which are overrated. It's about emotional conditioning using emotional triggers, tribal framing, and simple moral narratives, embedded with constant repetition and aggressive reinforcement.

webnrrd2k 1y ago
Just to add a little to the discussion, I suspect that the "not like us" messaging is mostly a right-wing thing, while there's more of a "don't contaminate my fluids" argument from the far-left. Neither is a rational argument, and still trigger the same disgust and fear, but tend to have different implications for outgroups.
- e12e 1y ago
  > "don't contaminate my fluids" argument from the far-left What does this refer to? I assume it has nothing to do with Flint, Michigan ;-)
  - dmwood 1y ago
    Probably from one of the crazies in Dr. Strangelove (the movie)
prometheus76 1y ago
Ah yes. People who think like you and agree with you are rational, not prone to fear, disgust outrage, or protectiveness. But people who disagree with you are obviously irrational and can't be reasoned with. You are "educated" and they are "fear-mongers".
- bsder 1y ago
  > But people who disagree with you are obviously irrational and can't be reasoned with. You are saying this with sarcasm, but it is a tautology. If I am factually correct, by definition, everyone who disagrees with me is irrational and can't be reasoned with. Anti-vax is a great example of this. We have loads and loads and loads of evidence of the harm that not being vaccinated can do (now including dead children thanks to measles) and very scant evidence to the contrary (there is some for specific vaccines for specific diseases like Polio). However, until it hits an anti-vaxxer personally, they simply will refuse to believe it. Of course, once an anti-vaxxer personally gets a disease, NOW the anti-vaxxers want the vaccine. Thus, demonstrating simultaneously that they actually don't understand a single damn thing about vaccines and that their "anti-vaxx belief" was irrational as well.

mistermann 1y ago

[dead]

nudgeOrnurture 1y ago

repetition breeds rationalism. variety of phrasing breeds facts. it's how the brain works. the more cognitive and perceptive angles agree on the observed, the more likely it is, that the observed is really / actually observed. polysemous language (ambiguity) makes it easy to manipulate the observed. reinterpretation, mere exposure and thus coopted, portfolio communist media and journalism, optimize, while using AI for everything will make it as efficient as it gets. keep adding new real angles and they'll start to sweat or throw towels and tantrums and aim for the weak.

marcosdumay 1y ago

It's usually dumb people that have so many facts and different arguments that one can't keep up with. And they usually have so many of those because they were convinced to pay disproportionate attention to it and don't see the need to check anything or reject bad sources.

scotty79 1y ago
I noticed something similar. People who believe in absolute garbage tend to be the ones that don't have robust bs filter that would let them quickly reject absolute garbage. And it's surprisingly orthogonal to person's intelligence. There's correlation but even very intelligent people can have very weak bs filter and their intelligence post-rationalizes the absolute garbage they were unable to reject.
- globalnode 1y ago
  Robust bs detectors may also leave a person susceptible to rejecting novel or unorthodox ideas. Theres a balance somewhere between not being overwhelmed by the sea of crazy and still being open to a good idea when it comes along. Edit: This thread is amazing. 12 years of pre-uni schooling and no mention of any of this stuff... Also fair criticism of IRA too in the article. Still, seems a little ironic that the people crying foul benefited from the status quo of an uneducated populace.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - scotty79 1y ago
    I don't think you can have too strong bs detector. After it rejects something it's not forever. When the thing you rejected occurs in new contexts or produces new results you will reevaluate and either reject it again or withdraw your rejection. That's the point where intelligence comes in so that you won't withdraw your rejection too soon or reject a valid thing too persistently. But from what I noticed evaluation made at this stage are rarely a problem. The bulk of the problem is not strong enough bs filter for the initial rejection to happen. And once someone believes in something it's very hard for him to lose that belief. Garbage sticks.

tunesmith 1y ago

I tend to like the ethos/logos/pathos model. Arguments from clever people can sound convincing because ethos gets mixed in. And anyone can temporarily confuse someone by using pathos. This is why it's better to have arguments externalized in a form that can be reviewed on their own, logos only. It's the only style that can stand on its own without that ephemeral effect (aside from facts changing), and it's also the only one that can be adopted and owned by any listener that reviews it and proves it true to themselves.