I hate people

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:00 am

Friend of multiple friends on FB: *shares video about how just because someone is white doesn't mean they're privileged because lots of them are really poor*

Me: *explains that this is a misconception of what white privilege is, and how someone with white privilege can still be overall very unprivileged*

Person: and you are also working off of many misconceptions as well. Listening to the MSM which is lying to you. Which 90% is owned by 6 corporations. Which means 6 people telling you what to believe, what to wear, what to listen to, what is right and wrong. You need to find many sources of information to get a well rounded opinion. You need to understand what is not being said to you on the MSM. There is no reporting on the MSM only misinformation. I like Trump Voted him as well, it was him or either a 100% chance of nuclear war with Killary. But that was from TONS of research. You need for find your truth not be fed what "should" be said by propaganda.
...*links to Alex Jones interviews*

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:16 am

Welcome to my Facebook feed.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:35 am

One of the most disturbing things about Trump's America is the number of people decrying 'MSM' in favour of Breitbart and InfoWars. Sure, mainstream news do have their biases, but most of them are professionals who do their best to do proper research and report objectively on things, and while I'm willing to believe that there are better, more unbiased news sources out there, Alex Jones' rantings is the opposite of it.

...perhaps I should start directing all the educated stupid to Time Cube.

Raxivace · Post by **Raxivace** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:24 am

Yeah its one of those things where they're not wrong to be skeptical of the big news stations but advocating for Alex Jones is like a thousand times worse than the flaws of CNN and the like.

I don't think unbiased news really exists- reporters are always going to have to interpret facts and organize them into a digestible story. There's always going to be judgement calls etc. Personally I'd rather it be as obvious as possible that people are coming from a perspective as opposed to people pretending that they're somehow neutral.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:29 am

Yeah; it helps to know how the big news sources skew. I don't really have a problem with news being biased - as you say, it's unavoidable, and it's useful to see opinions from both sides - but I have a big problem with active misinformation campaigns, misleading headlines and ridiculous conspiracy theories being passed off as fact.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:33 pm

^ well that pretty accurately describes all "news"

Eva Yojimbo · Post by **Eva Yojimbo** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:07 pm

Ever since the whole "fake news" became a known thing, I get this feeling that far too many are making false equivalencies like "if CNN is flawed, then there's no reason to prefer them to anything else, including Alex Jones." It's like people don't understand the difference between chipping paint on the Sistine Chapel and a smoldering pile of an ex-building.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 2:42 am

ugh someone responded to a pile of peer-reviewed scientific studies with "why would i read all that fake news?"

How can we function in a world where science is considered fake news? How can anything get done? How can we prove for instance that climate change is a real issue that needs urgent attention if people dismiss the scientific proof of such as 'fake'?

not rhetorical, I am very concerned about this.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 2:50 am

My only suggestion would be to stop trying to have serious discussions with imbeciles. However I readily admit I have failed to heed my own advice too many times to count. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from a discussion with someone so delusional and uneducated that they would dismiss peer-reviewed science. They don't actually think it's fake news, they realize they are too stupid to comprehend it.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 5:19 am

That was good advice until such people started running the US and indirectly affecting the rest of the world as well.

phe_de · Post by **phe_de** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:27 am

Anakin McFly wrote:Yeah; it helps to know how the big news sources skew. I don't really have a problem with news being biased - as you say, it's unavoidable, and it's useful to see opinions from both sides - but I have a big problem with active misinformation campaigns, misleading headlines and ridiculous conspiracy theories being passed off as fact.

It seems to be happening on this board as well.

Edit: Link removed; the poster in question acknowledged a mistake.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:27 am

Seriously phe de? DA admitted he made a mistake and it's not like people will have a hard time finding the thread. It's the second thread on the board after this one.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:05 pm

Well, to be fair, phe_de posted this before DA replied.

phe_de · Post by **phe_de** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:56 pm

Anakin McFly wrote:Well, to be fair, phe_de posted this before DA replied.

Correct. I can't read minds and don't know if people will apologize for making a mistake.

But I will remove the link.
EDIT: Done.

Eva Yojimbo · Post by **Eva Yojimbo** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:59 pm

Anakin McFly wrote:How can we function in a world where science is considered fake news? How can anything get done? How can we prove for instance that climate change is a real issue that needs urgent attention if people dismiss the scientific proof of such as 'fake'?

not rhetorical, I am very concerned about this.

It's a serious question and my answer would have to do with a fundamental change to education policy in the US. One reason I yabber on so much about rationality is because I find it appalling that we focus so much on teaching kids what to think without ever bothering to teach them HOW to think and how the thinking of humans goes wrong so frequently and regularly. The entire rise of "fake news," people believing, the anti-intellectualism, devaluing of science, conspiracy theorists, Dunning-Kruger, etc. all relate back to fundamental flaws in human reasoning that we should be endeavoring to correct from... well, as early as possible. I'm not saying this would 100% fix the problem, but it would HAVE to be better than the miasma we find ourselves in now. I don't think there IS anyway to fix those out there that already think like this. As the saying goes, you can't use reason to get someone out of something they didn't use reason to get into.

Post by **OpiateOfTheMasses** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 7:11 pm

Maths is the answer.

It teaches logic and is useful in so many other disciplines.

Really focus on teaching kids maths.

Eva Yojimbo · Post by **Eva Yojimbo** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:23 pm

Math is certainly part of it. You can boil correct reasoning down to a mathematical formula (Bayes' Theorem), but humans aren't walking computers, so there'd still be the need to learn the practical applications of such things.

Post by **OpiateOfTheMasses** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:43 pm

True, but it's a very good introduction to logical reasoning and (despite what many say) maths has a huge number of practical applications so it's a tremendously useful life skill. You can't teach kids too much maths.

But a lot of it is also about how you teach them them subject. If you just get them to memorise things parrot fashion without really understanding it - just so they can pass a test - that's far from ideal. But given time teachers can get the children to figure out why much of maths works the way it does using logical deductions. And that same deductive reasoning can be applied elsewhere. Within school it will help them in any sciences they take too. And once they leave school well...

Given that the economic future of the West largely relies on us producing more and more highly skilled jobs, I'll go back to "you can't have too much maths" - cos it's going to be useful for all those kids in the future... Cut back on the music, art and definitely the religious education classes to squeeze in more maths!

Eva Yojimbo · Post by **Eva Yojimbo** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:04 pm

No denying there are tons of practical applications for math (I would certainly know; I use it in my profession everyday), but in terms of what Anakin is talking about--who/what to believe, eg--it's very difficult to boil such subjects down mathematically. Sure, you can express perfect reasoning mathematically, but try to apply that math to difficult-to-reduce subjects like politics or morality and see how difficult it is: this is one of the barriers in designing Friendly A.I.s that would be better at making these decisions than we are.

Certainly the method of teaching such subjects matters as well, and what you say echoes my own point about teaching children how to think rather than what to think. Rote memorization doesn't mean much if you don't understand how to apply it.

That said, I'm not entirely with you on cutting art and music. Both have been correlated with better performances in other subjects, especially music with math.

Post by **OpiateOfTheMasses** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:33 pm

Well it'd be interesting to see Critical Reasoning/Thinking classes, but they would be massively open to abuse and for the teacher to promote their personal political/theological positions (whether deliberately or not). So teaching them logic and how to achieve that logic (and at the same time in a useful way) seems like a very satisfactory compromise to me.

I was kinda joking about the music and art. I just never much liked music and art at school.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 12:37 am

I'd say the issue has more to do with values than reasoning skills.

Post by **OpiateOfTheMasses** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:32 am

Teaching values opens a very dangerous area. Who decides which values should be taught? Do you want a hard line Republican government in charge of dictating the values that are to be taught?

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:30 pm

Those are usually beliefs rather than values, whereas values = things like kindness, respect, generosity, fairness, compassion, etc, which are politically neutral.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 5:48 pm

Just because a problem doesn't have an easy solution doesn't mean it's not the problem. If the problem is fundamentally about values, the solution can't be simply teaching...it takes standing up and fighting for your values. But that takes getting messy and libs don't like to get messy. They try so hard to take the intellectual high ground - trying to be "objective" and diplomatic to the point of impotence and paralysis. That's why they keep bringing knives to gunfights.

You can't force-feed things like values and character; they have to be chosen. They come from social circles, life experience and self-awareness. I believe in the power of social pressure to either suppress deplorables or make them take a hard look at themselves.

And I don't believe values are all politically neutral in practice.

Eva Yojimbo · Post by **Eva Yojimbo** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:37 pm

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:Well it'd be interesting to see Critical Reasoning/Thinking classes, but they would be massively open to abuse and for the teacher to promote their personal political/theological positions (whether deliberately or not). So teaching them logic and how to achieve that logic (and at the same time in a useful way) seems like a very satisfactory compromise to me.

What I'm talking about isn't really Critical Reasoning/Thinking. It would be closer to what you're describing as "logic," but not logic in the purely "Ancient Greek" conception of it. EG, I think Daniel Kahneman and his work on cognitive biases should be standard in textbooks by high school. You can't achieve any kind of rational/logical thinking as long as you remain a victim of such biases. I guess it would really all fall under the general label of "cognitive science."

Cassius Clay wrote:I'd say the issue has more to do with values than reasoning skills.

Ideally, values shouldn't distort your perception of reality. As Yudkowsky said, "facts don't know what side they're on." Unfortunately this happens all the time in practice. My post about reasoning was directed mostly at this: "How can we function in a world where science is considered fake news?" Science is our best method for studying how reality is. Understanding why that is would be part of teaching reasoning skills. If your "values" are biasing you to such a degree that you're considering science fake news, then, yes, that's a problem with reasoning.

There will always be differences in values regardless of how perfect/imperfect people's reasoning is, and it goes back to Hume's Is/Ought problem. However, my central point that no matter what you think "ought" to be (your values), this shouldn't affect your judgment of what "is."

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 8:26 pm

Eva, I can think of all kinds of ways values easily "distort" your perception of reality. The idea that they "shouldn't"(which is a value judgment) doesn't really address reality. Ironic.

If your "values" are biasing you to such a degree that you're considering science fake news, then, yes, that's a problem with reasoning.

That's a problem with your reasoning AND your values. If your values(or lack of) make you unreasonable, no amount of trying to reason with you will matter. Values need to be addressed in some way.

Eva Yojimbo · Post by **Eva Yojimbo** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:16 pm

I'm not denying that values distort reality; of course they do. THAT they do is a problem of reasoning, not of the values themselves. The only "value" in saying they shouldn't is the value of believing the truth. If people disagree with that value, then there's no way to fix the problem. It's certainly true that many people prefer their values to truth, though fewer than would readily admit it.

Cassius Clay wrote:If your values(or lack of) make you unreasonable, no amount of trying to reason with you will matter. Values need to be addressed in some way.

Values are not the root cause of making someone unreasonable. The root cause are cognitive biases, which can exist no matter what values you hold. Fixing cognitive biases won't necessarily change the values, but it would dismantle many of the reality-based arguments that often supposedly support those values.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:12 pm

I never said - with such broad and absolutist framing - that values are the root cause of being unreasonable. We're talking about a specific situation where I believe addressing values are more important than strict reasoning. You say people don't believe in science because they can't logic good; I say, no, they just don't care. They don't value truth, and they hold values that insulate them from reality. Good luck trying to reason with people who don't give a damn about reason.

Eva Yojimbo · Post by **Eva Yojimbo** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:26 pm

I don't think we're really disagreeing here. I agree that many people who've already reached adulthood and formed their values that they value more than truth are, essentially, lost causes. You can't completely re-educate them in the truth/rationality paradigm from the ground up. What I was really addressing above, though, was a public education policy that stressed the value of "truth" early on and in which cognitive sciences (including stuff like biases) were a key part of the curriculum. I think if you address this issue early then you end up with less cases that the OP describes: where an argument reaches a point of discussing how reality is, and someone is calling science "fake news" because it contradicts their distorted view of reality due to those values. If people's values have already distorted their perception of reality that badly, then I'm not sure discussing those values will do any more good than discussing the bad reasoning they rest on. Like I said: lost causes.

EDIT: I basically said all of this already in my first post on the subject: http://forum.pittersplace.com/forum/vie ... 654#p19654

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:10 am

I'm not sure discussing those values will do any more good than discussing the bad reasoning they rest on

Values aren't based on reasining. What I'm trying to stress is - as Anakin mentioned above - that values are not beliefs. Beliefs can be taught with reasoning....values cannot. Values are more like an orientation than a belief...which is why reasoning is irrelevant. Values can be encouraged or instilled in children, but not via intellect. I think you're not understanding that I'm talking about character ...something one doesn't get directly from reasoning or intellectual education.

Eva Yojimbo · Post by **Eva Yojimbo** » Sun Feb 12, 2017 9:48 pm

There are core values that aren't based on reasoning: on that we'd agree. However, more specific values may be based on beliefs about how reality is, and those beliefs will be based (partly) on reasoning. EG, you might have a core value that harming others is wrong. Terrorists harm others, so you think terrorists are bad people. You also notice many terrorists happen to be Muslim, so now you start to hate Muslims because of their link to terrorism. This is an example of how an acceptable core value ends up as unacceptable bigotry (a "value" of sorts) via bad reasoning.

phe_de · Post by **phe_de** » Sun Feb 12, 2017 11:00 pm

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:Teaching values opens a very dangerous area. Who decides which values should be taught?

^this.

Googling "values" gave links to the following sites:
http://jamesclear.com/core-values
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2004/1 ... of-values/

There is no objective truth, and there are no objective values.

Post by **OpiateOfTheMasses** » Sun Feb 12, 2017 11:12 pm

Cassius Clay wrote:
I'm not sure discussing those values will do any more good than discussing the bad reasoning they rest on
Values aren't based on reasining. What I'm trying to stress is - as Anakin mentioned above - that values are not beliefs. Beliefs can be taught with reasoning....values cannot. Values are more like an orientation than a belief...which is why reasoning is irrelevant. Values can be encouraged or instilled in children, but not via intellect. I think you're not understanding that I'm talking about character ...something one doesn't get directly from reasoning or intellectual education.

I think you may be struggling to get across to us what you're absolute and unquestionable/unarguable values are. Could you give us an example list of some of them please? Because even things like "don't kill people" need caveats when you come to teach absolute values - (it's okay to kill in self defence or if you're a soldier and you're in combat, isn't it? Or are you deciding unilaterally to teach absolute pacifism?)

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sun Feb 12, 2017 11:16 pm

There is no objective truth, and there are no objective values.

Which is why I said they have to be chosen, they can't be taught, and the only thing to do is to own them and fight for them in some way(instead of being "objective-minded" to the point of meaninglessness)....which is a scary thought to libs.

Eva Yojimbo · Post by **Eva Yojimbo** » Sun Feb 12, 2017 11:19 pm

phe_de wrote:There is no objective truth, and there are no objective values.

I agree there are no objective values (values are how we think/feel about things), but there is objective truth. Truth is, at least partly, about what IS objective, what exists out there external to the mind. So, in a sense, the term "objective truth" is redundant, since if something's objective then it's a truth.

Post by **Islandmur** » Sun Feb 12, 2017 11:54 pm

Personnally I've always tried to teach my students (I do tutoring) to think for themselves, to research things, to reason them out. I think if kids learn how to question, to think instead of just absorbing what is thaught that is a big step.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:02 am

@eva Yes, you have your core values and then you use reason to make reality-based value judgements. Where we disagree is seen in the original assertion I made on this thread: that I think the issue has more to do - in some way - with core values than poor reasoning skills/misunderstanding of reality.

Bigotry is another example of this issue. I see bigotry as a fundamental character flaw, not an innocent/almost understandable misinterpretation of reality. The former understands bigotry as a choice , while the latter gives bigots a pass.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:05 am

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:
Cassius Clay wrote:
I'm not sure discussing those values will do any more good than discussing the bad reasoning they rest on
Values aren't based on reasining. What I'm trying to stress is - as Anakin mentioned above - that values are not beliefs. Beliefs can be taught with reasoning....values cannot. Values are more like an orientation than a belief...which is why reasoning is irrelevant. Values can be encouraged or instilled in children, but not via intellect. I think you're not understanding that I'm talking about character ...something one doesn't get directly from reasoning or intellectual education.
I think you may be struggling to get across to us what you're absolute and unquestionable/unarguable values are. Could you give us an example list of some of them please? Because even things like "don't kill people" need caveats when you come to teach absolute values - (it's okay to kill in self defence or if you're a soldier and you're in combat, isn't it? Or are you deciding unilaterally to teach absolute pacifism?)

I don't think there are "objective" or "absolute" values. You can't argue values. You can argue about judgements based on shared values.

Eva Yojimbo · Post by **Eva Yojimbo** » Mon Feb 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Cassius Clay wrote:I think the issue has more to do - in some way - with core values than poor reasoning skills/misunderstanding of reality.

I think it depends on what precisely we're talking about, because some issues will come down to "core values" and some will come down to bad reasoning. What the OP described, things like the dismissal of science, can't happen without bad reasoning. So I think when it comes to THOSE kinds of things, bad reasoning is more to blame; but I would agree that for different issues--abortion, say--that values are more to blame.

Cassius Clay wrote:I see bigotry as a fundamental character flaw, not an innocent/almost understandable misinterpretation of reality. The former understands bigotry as a choice , while the latter gives bigots a pass.

Except we already know that at least some bigotry is based on unconscious irrational processes: http://www.livescience.com/55337-uncons ... -bias.html Such things are NOT a "choice," at least not a choice in any kind of conscious/awareness sense. There may be some types of bigotry and racism that are due to more conscious choices, but even many of these I'd argue are built upon irrational perceptions of how reality is.

I'm thoroughly puzzled as to why you think the latter "gives bigotry a pass." You think that because all people are irrational/biased that they shouldn't be held accountable for their beliefs/actions based on those biases? That's certainly not a position I or any other rationalist I know holds. Frankly, every belief is "understandable" in the sense that there is a reason behind why it exists. Whether that reason is due to irrationality or conscious choices, both are under the general umbrella of cognitive science, why the mind works how it does. A belief/action being due to one more than the other isn't more/less "understandable" or "forgivable" because of it.

phe_de · Post by **phe_de** » Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:37 pm

Eva Yojimbo wrote:I agree there are no objective values (values are how we think/feel about things), but there is objective truth. Truth is, at least partly, about what IS objective, what exists out there external to the mind. So, in a sense, the term "objective truth" is redundant, since if something's objective then it's a truth.

I disagree. I believe that truth is relative.
There may be things that exists outside of the human mind, but what are these things "objectively"? Everything we talk about is based on models. Humans are not able to grasp the Kantian Noumenon, because their senses and intelligence is limited.

It's not possible to say that a piece of iron is objectively a piece of iron. Because iron is a term that is not absolute.
And 2 + 2 = 4 is not objective either. If in earlier times, humans had decided that 5 should come before 4, then George Orwell would have made Big Brother pronounce "2 + 2 = 4" in his famous novel "1985".

But then, so what?

In my opinion it's not possible to find objective truth; but it's also not necessary.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:48 pm

Eva Yojimbo · Post by **Eva Yojimbo** » Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:32 pm

phe_de wrote:There may be things that exists outside of the human mind, but what are these things "objectively"? Everything we talk about is based on models. Humans are not able to grasp the Kantian Noumenon, because their senses and intelligence is limited.

I don't think we have to limit "objective truth" to the Kantian Noumenon. I think it's perfectly legitimate to call anything that is directly sensed "objective," or else we have nothing to legitimately contrast "subjective" with--"legitimately" meaning that "objective" would be a theoretical but empty category, since we wouldn't be able to actually label anything as objective in acknowledging we don't have direct access to it. I think we can label sensory objects objective even if we acknowledge that what we sense is a combination of what's "out there" and how our brains process sensory signals. We can even acknowledge that the processing isn't perfect, that it can lead to false conclusions like the checkerboard illusion (http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelso ... le_med.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Rather than a noumenal notion of objective truth, I'm referring to "truth" more in the Tarskian sense: "the phrase 'snow is white' is true iff snow is white." This subtly acknowledges all aspects of how truth is mediated: the sensory, semantic, and modeled.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:25 am

Truth is only relative when it comes to opinions, not facts.

It's not possible to say that a piece of iron is objectively a piece of iron. Because iron is a term that is not absolute.

Yes, but we can objectively say that a piece of iron is a piece of iron in relation to our definition of iron.

An example: The earth does not exist in a fixed position in the universe, because everything is moving in space. But it is entirely possible for a rock on earth to exist in a fixed position on the ground, and the fact that the ground itself is part of a planet moving through space does nothing to change that.

And 2 + 2 = 4 is not objective either. If in earlier times, humans had decided that 5 should come before 4, then George Orwell would have made Big Brother pronounce "2 + 2 = 4" in his famous novel "1985".

The symbols we use to represent numbers are not objective, but the mathematics they represent are.

Except we already know that at least some bigotry is based on unconscious irrational processes: http://www.livescience.com/55337-uncons ... -bias.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Such things are NOT a "choice," at least not a choice in any kind of conscious/awareness sense.

I agree with both of you here. I don't think initial bigotry is a choice - it's just the messages we unconsciously absorb from society - but to continue remaining wilfully ignorant or in denial about our own bigotry when marginalised people are pointing it out is a character issue.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 3:50 am

things like the dismissal of science, can't happen without bad reasoning. So I think when it comes to THOSE kinds of things, bad reasoning is more to blame

Dismissal of science can also come from not valuing reasoning, science, or truth. You're insisting on limiting the scope of the problem to one thing. But, this is the second time that I've agreed that bad reasoning is a problem...but so are values. I know you highly value reasoning, but you're treating it like it's the only important factor. Reminds me of the saying: "when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Such things are NOT a "choice," at least not a choice in any kind of conscious/awareness sense. There may be some types of bigotry and racism that are due to more conscious choices, but even many of these I'd argue are built upon irrational perceptions of how reality is.

I'm using choice broadly to mean a way of life. That's what values(or lack of values) are...a way of life. You can't simply choose beliefs. If you have a conceptual misunderstanding of reality, that's not a choice in any meaningful way. People simply believe what they believe...you cannot just arbitrarily believe whatever you want. Beliefs aren't a choice, so I don't hold people accountable simply for beliefs. That's why it gives bigots a pass. What I hold people accountable for is the way of life they've chosen. It's one thing to believe something erroneous simply because you don't know any different...it's another thing to support erroneous beliefs because you don't value truth. Specific beliefs may not be choices, but commitment to truth is a choice. When it comes to bigotry, we need to hold people accountable for the choices they make, rather than making it all about how they merely misunderstand reality(especially if they're being dishonest about the values they're committed to)...playing into/legitimizing their bullshit. What you have to understand is, that people who don't value truth don't just merely "misunderstand" reality....bigots don't just "misunderstand" reality. That's not the full picture...and it's a grossly naive way to address the issue. I swear every time I've had a disagreement with you, it's been fundamentally about this character versus reasoning dynamic.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 4:22 pm

I think I should make a distinction between an idea and a belief because it may clarify some things. A belief about reality is something you don't have direct control over...it's simply what you believe. But, ideas are more like potential beliefs that are still in the testing stage...they aren't deeply rooted into your overall understanding of reality yet. People are often drawn to certain ideas, not out of strict commitment to truth, but because it comforts them in some way/is appealing to their egos. Everyone is guilty of this. This brings us back to bigots and values: bigots are drawn to bigoted ideas, not out of a misunderstanding of reality, but because of their character. They are trying to force a false reality. It is very naive and dangerous to treat the issue as merely a misunderstanding of reality, rather than an intentional attempt to hijack reality. What they're doing is called willful ignorance, it's a character issue, and you're not doing yourself or anyone any favors by not confronting that. And this brings me back to my original statement on this thread...the people claiming science is fake are being willfully-fucking-ignorant..it's not that they just can't logic good. That needs to be confronted.

Eva Yojimbo · Post by **Eva Yojimbo** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:48 pm

Cassius Clay wrote:Dismissal of science can also come from not valuing reasoning, science, or truth. You're insisting on limiting the scope of the problem to one thing.

The entire point of correct reasoning is to ascertain the truth; the two go hand-in-hand. I already agreed that if someone doesn't value truth then pointing out their bad reasoning won't matter because reasoning ONLY matters if you care about the truth.

However, I would argue that I don't think most people consciously reject truth as a primary value. I think what happens more often than not is they convince themselves they value truth when they really, perhaps unconsciously, value other things more, and allow those values to warp their reasoning so that their perception of the truth is equally warped. If you come across someone who admits they don't value truth, or admits their other values are more important, or that those other values conflict with truth; then, yeah, it all comes down to values; but I think very, very few people would be this self-aware. In most cases, all you can do is point out how their bad reasoning has warped their perception of truth.

This is all rather tangential to my initial point, though, which was really about teaching rationality (which would include the value of truth: there's plenty on Lesswrong about this very point: http://lesswrong.com/lw/go/why_truth_and/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) early and often. At the very least this would make it difficult for people to unconsciously use bad reasoning when it comes to supporting other values as they'd necessarily be more conscious of those errors. It's easier to hide behind such biases when you're ignorant of them.

Cassius Clay wrote:Specific beliefs may not be choices, but commitment to truth is a choice. When it comes to bigotry, we need to hold people accountable for the choices they make, rather than making it all about how they merely misunderstand reality(especially if they're being dishonest about the values they're committed to)...playing into/legitimizing their bullshit. What you have to understand is, that people who don't value truth don't just merely "misunderstand" reality....bigots don't just "misunderstand" reality. That's not the full picture...and it's a grossly naive way to address the issue. I swear every time I've had a disagreement with you, it's been fundamentally about this character versus reasoning dynamic.

Frankly, I'm having difficulty pinpointing where exactly our disagreement is, or where you think it is. I agree that "commitment to truth is a choice," but I wouldn't necessarily say that "non-commitment to truth is a choice" is equally true. Minds are subtle, deceptive things. Most everyone agrees, at least in one sense, on the value of truth. As that lesswrong article states, there are certain utilitarian situations when even the most hardened bigot would become the most ruthless rationalist. The ability of the mind to compartmentalize and to do so without our being aware of it is pretty amazing and alarming. When a bigot becomes a bigot I do not think the vast majority do so realizing that reality opposes their perception, that their emotions, which are frequently unconscious and irrational reactions to very limited data, are grossly skewing that perception. I don't understand why you think understanding how this process happens from a cognitive perspective is in any way "playing into/legitimizing their bullshit."

Cassius Clay wrote:I think I should make a distinction between an idea and a belief because it may clarify some things. A belief about reality is something you don't have direct control over...it's simply what you believe. But, ideas are more like potential beliefs that are still in the testing stage...they aren't deeply rooted into your overall understanding of reality yet. People are often drawn to certain ideas, not out of strict commitment to truth, but because it comforts them in some way/is appealing to their egos. Everyone is guilty of this. This brings us back to bigots and values: bigots are drawn to bigoted ideas, not out of a misunderstanding of reality, but because of their character. They are trying to force a false reality. It is very naive and dangerous to treat the issue as merely a misunderstanding of reality, rather than an intentional attempt to hijack reality. What they're doing is called willful ignorance, it's a character issue, and you're not doing yourself or anyone any favors by not confronting that.

And here's where I think YOU'RE being terribly naive. First, I agree with the distinction you make between beliefs and ideas, but I don't necessarily agree that all beliefs are out of our control; that really depends on the specific belief and how we came to it.

Secondly, yes, in a sense bigots are drawn to bigoted ideas because they're bigots, but I disagree that this is necessarily disconnected from their misunderstandings of reality. One of the key misunderstandings of bigots everywhere is that groups are homogeneous, either that all members of some group share certain traits or that a vast majority do. This is very clearly a misunderstanding of reality that can in itself cause the bigotry to begin with. Another key cause is xenophobia, which is basically fear of the unknown. Once someone has identified their "in-group" and identified "others," being afraid of the unknown/other is a pretty common evolutionary bi-product, rooted in the irrational notion that the unknown is dangerous: the danger produces fear, the fear produces hate, the hate produces a bigot. But that notion of xenophobic fear is itself rooted in a misunderstanding of reality that happens on a deep, unconscious level. Even most race realism (eg) is founded on the notion that there are objective, inherent differences between race, and this is in itself a misunderstanding of many aspects of reality (including race being sociological rather than biological). In fact, I'm having difficulty thinking of any example of how a bigot could come to be a bigot without it being connected in someway with their misunderstandings of reality.

Now, I might agree that after a bigot becomes a bigot there are many cases where they they would, indeed, try to "'force' a false reality," where they become convinced of the rightness (or righteousness) of their bigotry and that becomes far more important than any truth that might contradict it. Some of this is a chicken-or-the-egg problem: does a racist believe members of another race are homogeneous because they're a racist, or did coming to believe members of another race are homogeneous make them a racist? I think the answer will depend on the individual, but I think for most the cause of their bigotry will come down to some fundamental irrational misunderstanding of reality, and that bigotry will, as you say, force other false notions of reality, so it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.

Of course this becomes a character issue, but I don't really know how you propose to "confront this" without confronting the irrationality and false perceptions of reality that it's both rooted in and continues to try to "force." I mean, when a bigot tries to promote some bigoted view, what really can you do besides point out the falseness of their statements (reality isn't like that) and the fallaciousness of any reasoning they try to use to justify it?

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:32 am

I agree with both of you.

bigots are drawn to bigoted ideas, not out of a misunderstanding of reality, but because of their character.

I think the key word there is 'drawn'. People may start out as bigots due to ignorance, misinformation, misunderstanding of reality and all that, regardless of character. If one honestly believed that the gays were out to rape your kids, I'd argue that homophobia would be the only decent reaction. But if, after they have been informed of their misconceptions, they stay bigots or pursue further bigotry, it then becomes a question of character.

Eva Yojimbo · Post by **Eva Yojimbo** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:28 pm

I think I agree with both of us too. Upon further consideration last night of what Troy is saying, I think part of the problem is terminology and that we're talking about two different things. What Troy is defining as values and character to me still falls under the rubric of irrationality and/or cognitive science, which is a big umbrella for "why/how people think what/how they do." I've been thinking of it more from a "source" perspective, ie, the innate cognitive biases that initially lead people to be drawn to bigotry; while Troy is talking more about all of the things bigots do after they become bigots to maintain their ignorance, perspective, and justify their actions.

From my perspective, once people reach a point of devaluing truth in order to maintain a "value/worldview/character," then they're usually lost causes. I'm more concerned with getting at the source of what makes people like that in hopes of quashing it in younger generations before it can begin and spread. Troy is more concerned with confronting people who are already like that. I think Troy is concerned that my statements about irrationality being innate to human minds is in some ways giving bigots a "pass" because, in a sense, it's not their fault; but I think this is just a misunderstanding of a rationalist's views on things like fault. As a pretty staunch determinist who thinks that there is no libertarian free will ("we" are just deterministic, physical brain functions; "choices" are just the outcome of those functions), I'm not particularly concerned about the details of why people arrive at fucked up values and views because it all comes down to those same brain functions; I'm more concerned with fixing and preventing the problem.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:16 am

What Troy is defining as values and character to me still falls under the rubric of irrationality and/or cognitive science

I consider these separate, because it's possible to have someone of impeccable character who is also extremely dumb.

Eva Yojimbo · Post by **Eva Yojimbo** » Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:30 pm

Anakin McFly wrote:
What Troy is defining as values and character to me still falls under the rubric of irrationality and/or cognitive science
I consider these separate, because it's possible to have someone of impeccable character who is also extremely dumb.

"Character" is a pretty broad term, but in general it seems to sum up how people behave. How people behave depends on what they believe and value, what they believe and value depends on what they experience and what they think about that experience, what they think about that experience comes down to cognitive science and ir/rationality. It's certainly possible for people to arrive at good or bad character traits without being intelligent or rational, but I think good or bad rationality and cognitive science can explain how they got there. It's like in logic how you can arbitrarily arrive at correct or incorrect conclusions with invalid logic; the point of endeavoring for valid logic is to make sure those conclusions are right.