Comments on: Write Your Hypothetical Apostasy

By: kujirakira

kujirakira — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 02:16:32 +0000

I tried this in regards to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.
This is the best I could come up with in defense of their violence and hate rhetoric…

SS aren’t really bigots or racists at all. When they say “jap” or go on a rant bashing Japan, despite never even visiting the place, they’re really just venting their frustrations because they hate their own lives.

Besides, those yellow squinty eyed small penis bastards have it coming to them for raping the oceans, molesting dolphins, getting their jollies by committing genocide against whales, and of course we can’t forget all that sick shit they did in WWII that has nothing to do with anything. japs are a fucked up society anyway and we should nuke them a few more times just for good measure.

By: Lenoxuss

Lenoxuss — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 01:19:37 +0000

I deeply, passionately believe that the world should not be destroyed.

Damn.

(I suppose Fourcultures made a similar point about recursivity — but mine is more explicitly in joke form, so there.)

By: Charlie

Charlie — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 00:21:08 +0000

Hmm, I’m finding this quite difficult. The only one I can think of that come close to working is politics-related, which is crucial because it allows vague claims to sound convincing, initially at least. My most-rehearsed issues are scientific, which makes them much more difficult to make vague claims about.

Perhaps actually writing it down is a crucial part of this technique, related to the power of masks. But the power of masks doesn’t care whether something is right or wrong, and it doesn’t go away so easily once the exercise is over. I don’t want to try this anymore, actually.

On the other hand, I could write a killer argument to my past self as to why I should totally write it out!

By: Will Newsome

Will Newsome — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 23:38:54 +0000

I did this and found it useful. It was much easier to write when I realized I should be attacking my algorithm for finding truth and not any of my current beliefs, which I am unlikely to be able to attack in a convincing manner. I expect this would be true for most people.

By: Anna Salamon

Anna Salamon — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 23:27:54 +0000

I just tried this exercise. I found it helpful in letting go of various beliefs and attachments, and would recommend it to others. I started by leaving myself a line of retreat, then attempted an all-out ad hominem attack on my current beliefs, while emphasizing my ability to change. I tried a similar exercise a year ago but kept flinching away; I guess it's progress that I'm no longer prohibitively afraid of this sort of thing.

By: mjgeddes

mjgeddes — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:26:10 +0000

‘The Ontological Conspiracy’,
by Marc Geddes

Here’s a big exercise to try to ‘snap’ readers out of all their biases, and induce multiple ‘crises of faith’ ; in fact the more the reader thinks they know, the more the reader is likely to be shocked after pondering my little tables.

This is the skeleton outline of the ontology which ‘carves reality at its joints’, by classifying fields (domains) of knowledge in the most natural way possible. The exercise for readers is to try to form as many analogies as possible between knowledge domains, in order to see things in ‘new ways’ and thus questions prevailing beliefs.

—

Reality

…………….Physics………………….Teleology…………….Mathematics

Universal…Laws of Physics………Moral Archetypes…Pure Math Forms
System……Applied Physics………Psychology………….Logic
Object…….Inventions………………Culture……………….Software

—

Universal Level

……………Laws of Physics………Moral Archetypes….Pure Math Forms

Interface.. Field Theory……………Aesthetics……………Set Theory
Function….Mechanics……………..Consequentialism……Algebra
Structure….Geometry……………..Virtue Ethics…………Combinatorics

—

System Level

…………….Applied Physics………Psychology………Logic

Interface….Networking…………..Communication……Analogy Formation
Function…..Thermodynamics…….Decision Theory….Bayesian Induction
Structure….Chemistry……………..Sociology………….Deduction

—-

Object Level

…………….Inventions……………..Culture…………….Software

Interface…Virtual Reality………..Art…………………..Ontology
Function….Engineering……………Morals……………Object Oriented Programming
Structure….Nano-Tech…………..Language…………Operating Systems

—-

The Questioning Exercise

Use the tables by by forming analogies between knowledge domains in corresponding table positions. For example, in the ‘Universal Level’ table, the cell at the (Moral Achetypes,Function) position is ‘Consequentialism’. In the ‘System Level’ table, the cell at the corresponding position (Psychology, Function) is ‘Decsion Theory’. So ‘Consequentalism’ maps to ‘Decision Theory’. When the concepts in all the given knowledge domains are carefully examined and as many analogies as possible are made between the’ triples’ of domains at corresponding cell positions, at a critical threshold of knowledge new ways of seeing may emerge.

One critical piece of information is required to ‘unlock’ the tables: This is that the knowledge domains exist in a hierarchy, as follows:

Most Abstract>>>>>>>>Least Abstract

Universal>>>>System>>>Object
Mathematics>>Teleology>>Physics
Interface>>>>Function>>>Structure

The more abstract domains super-cede (include) the less abstract ones, as for example, the outer part of an onion wraps the inner layers. For instance, the tables indicate that ‘Analogy Formation’ is more general than ‘Bayesian Induction’ since ‘Analogy Formation’ is at a higher sub-level on the ‘System’ level. And so on.

Free Your Mind

As Morpheus said to Neo in ‘The Matrix’…

FREE…
YOUR….
MIND!

By: Cameron Taylor

Cameron Taylor — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:20:01 +0000

Just find someone whose views you normally hold in contempt that happens to be arguing for ‘your side’ of an issue. Makes all sort of apostasy spring to mind without any effort whatsoever. Works for me.

By: Fourcultures

Fourcultures — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 02:06:50 +0000

Grid-Group cultural theory might be a way into this de-biasing process, a way of ‘trying not to fool yourself’. It proposes four rival rationalities, not merely one, which are all ‘viable’ on their own terms. Most of our thoughts and many of our social contexts are framed by just one of these rationalities, but the theory helps show how there are more. In other words, the theory offers the contours of not one ‘hypothetical apostacy’ but three (your own view plus the three that define it by differing). Faced with a problem or an issue it can be reframed according to the four cultures. This can throw up new ways of looking at the issue, and new solutions.
It shows, for example, that ‘saving the world from destruction’ is a very ‘Egalitarian’ problem/solution, that probably wouldn’t motivate everyone.
For those that aren’t taken with grid-group analysis, a similar thing can be done using Fiske’s Relational Models Theory, or even Lacan’s ‘four discourses’. These may be instances of a more fundamental social structuration which tacitly informs very many models of social science, as well as everyday social organisation.
But as ever, there’s a recursivity to these exercises: “I think Grid-group cultural theory is in error, and here are the four ways it is wrong…”
The Fourcultures website has plenty of examples of the approach in action.

By: Shane Legg

Shane Legg — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:23:45 +0000

Wei:

No, I’m not talking about a “vague annoyance”, as you put it. In one instance it’s a collection of results that large numbers of researchers cite and use to justify their work, and that I (and some others) think are deeply misleading.

By: Ben Jones

Ben Jones — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:33:42 +0000

Good piece, reminded me of this.