4 ms·

I disagree that the more labels someone has the dumber they make you. And I strongly disagree in that. I know people that believe in almost nothing. Not in a re

by tobib 18y ago

I disagree that the more labels someone has the dumber they make you. And I strongly disagree in that. I know people that believe in almost nothing. Not in a religion, not a programming language. Sure there won't ever be a religious argument. But also probably no discussion at all because there is nothing to talk about with them. I have a lot of believes and disbelieves but I still consider myself able to talk about those things without ending in a fight.

yters 18y ago
Yes, and pg also doesn't observe that a person's identity tends to be strongly tied to things that provide for their welfare. For the common person, religion and politics do this. For the elite, not so much. But, say if they are programmers, they can have a strong identity tie to their editor (vi vs emacs) or language, since they depend on these things to prosper in life. This is not merely an unthinking thing on their part. Considering other points of view and trying new things can take up a person's time. Claiming that the basis of their welfare is incorrect implies it is taking away from their welfare and they should try something else. If a person reacts "irrationally" on such an issue this may be because they do not judge their resources sufficient to change course. I think "irrationality" should be addressed on these grounds instead of merely labelling a person's opinion as irrational/bad, along with the social estrangement this entails.
- GHFigs 18y ago
  The problem is not the belief, but that strongly identifying with something can render you blind to (among other things) whether it really is providing for your welfare or not. (Historical examples abound, but pg's example of someone who died over an argument about two brands of pickup truck is apt. What benefits might be experienced by the belief are outweighed by the evident risks involved in identifying with it so closely.) This is how persuasion works--appeal to a person's identity and you can convince the mind of almost anything. If your interest lies in thinking as freely as possible, then "keeping your identity small" is a good strategy. If a person reacts "irrationally" on such an issue this may be because they do not judge their resources sufficient to change course. Example? I wasn't aware that changing one's mind required any resources.
  - billswift 18y ago
    I think he is confusing beliefs with identity. I think identity requires both the internaliztion of a belief and an emotional commitment to its truth. It is easier to establish the commitment for shared, socially approved beliefs that are regularly being reinforced by others - the main reason religion is accepted.
GHFigs 18y ago
I don't see how you've concluded that belief is a precondition to discussion. Do you only ever discuss subjects that you have a deeply-held opinion on?

by tobib 18y ago

yters 18y ago

Yes, and pg also doesn't observe that a person's identity tends to be strongly tied to things that provide for their welfare. For the common person, religion and politics do this. For the elite, not so much. But, say if they are programmers, they can have a strong identity tie to their editor (vi vs emacs) or language, since they depend on these things to prosper in life. This is not merely an unthinking thing on their part. Considering other points of view and trying new things can take up a person's time. Claiming that the basis of their welfare is incorrect implies it is taking away from their welfare and they should try something else. If a person reacts "irrationally" on such an issue this may be because they do not judge their resources sufficient to change course. I think "irrationality" should be addressed on these grounds instead of merely labelling a person's opinion as irrational/bad, along with the social estrangement this entails.

GHFigs 18y ago
The problem is not the belief, but that strongly identifying with something can render you blind to (among other things) whether it really is providing for your welfare or not. (Historical examples abound, but pg's example of someone who died over an argument about two brands of pickup truck is apt. What benefits might be experienced by the belief are outweighed by the evident risks involved in identifying with it so closely.) This is how persuasion works--appeal to a person's identity and you can convince the mind of almost anything. If your interest lies in thinking as freely as possible, then "keeping your identity small" is a good strategy. If a person reacts "irrationally" on such an issue this may be because they do not judge their resources sufficient to change course. Example? I wasn't aware that changing one's mind required any resources.
- billswift 18y ago
  I think he is confusing beliefs with identity. I think identity requires both the internaliztion of a belief and an emotional commitment to its truth. It is easier to establish the commitment for shared, socially approved beliefs that are regularly being reinforced by others - the main reason religion is accepted.

GHFigs 18y ago

I don't see how you've concluded that belief is a precondition to discussion. Do you only ever discuss subjects that you have a deeply-held opinion on?