[Previous] Submit Podcast Questions | Home | [Next] Example: Manipulating Audience Perceptions

Fallible Ideas Philosophy Overview Videos + Comments

I made new videos: Fallible Ideas Philosophy Overview (part 2).

My friend watched them and said:

I thought it all sounded good and reasonable. It's hard to understand why ppl disagree & get mad.

I replied:

they get mad b/c they think something is wrong (e.g. not doing induction or not punishing kids) or when they figure out it says something THEY DO (or their loved ones, e.g. their parents) is BAD

when they figure out i’m saying THEIR (or their friend’s) mental illness is not an illness and they are confused about its real nature

when i say they (or friend) is hurting ppl or doing bad things by being a teacher, a psychiatrist, or various sorts of govt worker

when they feel threatened that i want to take away some govt program they or a friend/family (or just poors they interacted with or imagine exist) benefits from

when they hear ideas like being selfish and “think” i’d destroy the world (giving the matter almost zero thot)

when they figure out i think their “love” for or from spouse or kid isn’t real and legitimate how they think it is

when they figure out i think they aren’t rational

when they figure out i think they are authoritarian in how they view their kids or how their parents viewed them

when they figure out i deny global warming is settled science and that the science implies massive government suppression of economic activity

when they figure out i’m “islamophobic” or pro-israel

when they figure out i like Trump OK

even if they agree with me on 90% of these they can STILL easily get REALLY MAD about JUST ONE

that makes it super hard when u have a lot of ideas

most popular ppl don’t talk about nearly as many things

it’s way easier to get an audience that matches ur beliefs if ur only dealing with 5 ideas than 50


Elliot Temple on January 1, 2019

Comments (14)

Why isn't your friend on FI?


Anonymous at 7:53 AM on January 2, 2019 | #11519 | reply | quote

They are on FI.


curi at 8:49 AM on January 2, 2019 | #11520 | reply | quote

In the transcript it says "irrational memes". I think it's supposed to be "anti-rational memes". Or do you not distinguish between irrationality and anti-rationality?


Anonymous at 2:19 AM on January 20, 2019 | #11654 | reply | quote

I don't distinguish.


curi at 10:32 AM on January 20, 2019 | #11655 | reply | quote

Deutsch makes a distinction e.g, thinks that irrationality is a form of ignorance - a lack of meta knowledge about rationality - and need not necessarily do harm whereas anti-rationality is having processes in your mind that actively prevent knowledge growth and that are always harmful. Hence "anti-rational" memes. Is there a substantive difference between Deutsch and yourself here?


Anonymous at 2:55 PM on January 20, 2019 | #11659 | reply | quote

Source on "thinks that irrationality is a form of ignorance - a lack of meta knowledge about rationality - and need not necessarily do harm"?

I understand the terminology of "ir" meaning "not" (not rational = lack of rationality) and "anti" meaning "against". But DD and I both mostly use "irrational", as does the rest of the world. He routinely says things incompatible with the terminology distinction and mostly just uses "anti" when talking about memes. He never attempted to make a big deal out of the terminology distinction.


curi at 3:08 PM on January 20, 2019 | #11660 | reply | quote

Check out TCS list on Jan 12, 1997. Looks like that was the first time he drew the distinction? He says he didn't want to belabor it - so that ties in with your reply - but he must have thought it worthwhile enough in the context of meme theory that he never used "irrational memes" but "anti-rational memes". The everyday meaning of "irrational" was not precise enough I guess.


Anonymous at 4:54 PM on January 20, 2019 | #11663 | reply | quote

Sorry I read the date wrong. Should be Dec 1, 1997.


Anonymous at 5:10 PM on January 20, 2019 | #11664 | reply | quote

I think you gave the wrong date. How about a subject line and searchable quote?


curi at 5:13 PM on January 20, 2019 | #11665 | reply | quote

Subject was "Re: Babies and Rationality".


Anonymous at 5:24 PM on January 20, 2019 | #11666 | reply | quote

DD:

> Let's call this lack: *irrationality*. E.g. it is irrational to use astrology, rather than engineering science, to judge the safety of tall buildings.

I think this is a bad example. When Americans today use astrology, there is "anti-rationality" involved!

Anyway DD also writes:

> I have made these definitions just for the purpose of this message

And then went on to write "irrational" many, many times instead of using the definitions. I'd advise using the phrase "lack of rationality" or similar, if you want to be understood that way.

A more interesting part of the post, IMO, is this:

> - Rationality, irrationality and anti-rationality are all *subject-specific*.

What!? No way! There are anti-rational memes with reach instead of being specific to one subject. Which is what I always understood DD to believe, too.


curi at 5:55 PM on January 20, 2019 | #11667 | reply | quote

> I have made these definitions just for the purpose of this message

What's he talking about? He used those terms in discussions on the TCS list before that. Like "Re: The Old Covenant" on DEC 21, 1996. He didn't just invent them on-the-fly.


Anonymous at 6:51 PM on January 20, 2019 | #11668 | reply | quote

I think he means that aren't standard terminology and he's warning people not to just use them in general, without explanation, and expect to be understood. And he doesn't always use that terminology.


Anonymous at 7:12 PM on January 20, 2019 | #11669 | reply | quote

(This is an unmoderated discussion forum. Discussion info.)