Consider these dueling bumper stickers: Here religious conservatives do seem unfairly maligned: seeing a behavior as immoral is not at all the same as “hating.” These folks also rightly seethe at how they are usually portrayed in popular film and TV, and at seeing their democratic ideals violated when even local voting majorities can’t prevent their kids from being taught evolution in public schools. You can feel this resentment in the
Religious conservatives are absolutely not "unfairly maligned" as you suggest and your own post gives the rebuttal in the very definition of Hate Speech where you gloss over the other pieces of the definition which do not adhere to your narrow application to those holding moral views -- something akin to the like-minded claims re: "the war on Christmas". With mounting legislation designed to single out persons of the LGBT community, encompassing marriage; adoption; market access; job protection; especially noting the extreme laws of policing public restrooms, the motives are NOT simply moral views of persons "unfairly maligned", but are, by definition, hate -- Hate Speech: "speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation." The country continues to grow in demand that all persons be treated with equal treatment and attempts at silencing even the discussion of it will not stop legal enforcement. BTW--teaching established scientific facts in public schools is not a threat to democracy--facts are facts whether one believes them or not. The sun will appear again tomorrow without the need for a blood sacrifice.
No, disagreeing with someone is not disrespect. We do not all agree, but that does not mean I do not respect other people and their beliefs and opinions. If you think something tastes good and I don't that does not mean I disrespect you, or that you disrespect me. It simply means we do not agree.That is the same for whatever people believe. People can be disrespectful in how they act during a disagreement, but simply not agreeing is just that.
Since normative propositions are subjective people can disagree on them without accusing each other of irrationality. It may be that you simply have a different gut sense of right and wrong. This shouldn't be surprising: everyone has a different gut.
I mean, unless you think you have some magic means of bridging the is-ought gap I don't see how this can possibly be a rational belief.
Disagreement implies a claim of superior rationality only where there is also some sort of claim that the speaker's belief was some sort of inevitable result of a process of reasoning. However, anybody can "bet" or take sides on a doubtful issue, in which case the other person's mileage may vary, as they say. I have never met nationalist so good that they suspend judgementt on all doubtful issues.
When I disagree with someone, I don't necessarily see them as less intelligent. I generally look at people that disagree with me as people with a different point of view. I believe a person can disagree with someone in a disrespectful way. For example, I say "I don't believe in that stuff" when referring to other person's religion or faith, that is disrespectful. However, I can say "I do not agree with their concepts or faith", that is more respectful. It is all about how you address a person. Some people don't understand that they do not have to disrespect people they disagree with.
I don't agree with this post. I don't see disagreement as disrespect. I don't think that not agreeing with someone means your being disrespectful, sure, if you say "you're an idiot", "that's stupid", or something along those lines, then you are being disrespectful. However, I don't think it's right to say that if someone doesn't agree with you, they are disrespecting you, they don't have to agree just because you put your opinion out first.
I used to be baffled when I told someone that what they were saying was clearly false and they got all butt-hurt about it; in retrospect it's obvious that I was saying they were idiots, no matter how nicely I said it. Now I'm wondering if that makes me the idiot.
But the fact that this post does not clear up the mystery of why I don't think people who prefer lobster to veal are morons makes it utterly useless. It has been damned by a devastating counterexample and I shall force this post from my mind.
Image via WikipediaI used to frequent Robin Hanson's blog Overcoming Bias. Then, I disengaged partly because I could not understand the practical import of his...
Re: the future *is* fact, it just hasn't happened *yet*. If you've read EY's quantum sequence, or know anything about the "many worlds" interpretation of QM, you'll know that the future is deterministic.
From the multiverse perspective, the girl and the mother exist in many worlds - in some of which the couple have gone to the ice cream vendor, and others the hardware store.
That doesn't help them in their discussion too much - and it doesn't prove that one of them is right about their destination, and the other is biased.
Determinism doesn't help predict the future much if you can't find out what the initial state is. That is, of course, exactly the situation embedded observers face.
Check the definition of "fact" in the dictionary. Note the repeated use of the past tense.
Tim, the future *is* fact, it just hasn't happened *yet*. If you've read EY's quantum sequence, or know anything about the "many worlds" interpretation of QM, you'll know that the future is deterministic.
In your example the girl is really trying to convince her mom of the fact "your overall utility function will be higher (when weighted by the square of the amplitude of decoherent futures) if you buy me icecream", since that is the fact that will convince her mom to buy her icecream. Neither one may understand exactly what they're arguing, but neither do most philosophers who appeal to occam's razor.
It may be a hard question to give a confident answer to, but that doesn't mean it's not a fact, and that doesn't mean you sit there and drool instead of calculating your expected utility (with the information and processing power available) and making a choice.
On a more general note, many commenters seem to have a different working definition of "disagreement" than Robin. RH seems to define "disagreement" as "differing probability distributions", while many commenters seem to define it as "differing probability distributions *with no weight to other guys credibility*". If I'm arguing with someone, it means we started with different probability distributions. If midway through the argument someone stops us and asks for our current probability distributions, we very well may give identical distributions (if we know we're both rational).
I still say "I still don't see how your argument leads to X being true, but since you do I must update accordingly". Robin would say we don't disagree, but seemingly others would say we do (on the other definition). It's possible to not disagree (RH), but still find it arguing to be productive.
If you say "I still don't see how your argument leads to X beign true, and I'm unwilling to move my distribution to match your post argument distribution", that necessarily means you think the other guy is less rational, because you are in a disagreement (RH).
The possibility of an infinite loop, catch-22, vicious cycle (it's a cognitive hypersensitivity that Jesus himself couldn't get me to correct) forces me to choose to judge rather than let it pass. I transfer the question of respect to whether I'll press the issue. Infinite loops rob everybody of truth, justice, and other valuables. I think there's a lack of attention to the chaotic dillema of feedback loops so I can't ignore it. I just spend less time whining about it than I used to and more time preventing myself from falling into such loops. I choose to be judge or jury for my own reasons, but I refuse to be the executioner.
Myself, I get into the diametrically (on a two dimensional grid of "priors to reason" and "shoot first apologize later to set the table first and then debate") opposite conundrum. I try so hard to present all my priors and establish a common ground that people assume I'm insulting them and treating them like toddlers.
In terms of evolutionary psychology, disagreement would have come from self-interested people trying to convince a tribe of their own differing goals. In that context, there's no reason not to disagree with someone more intelligent than you are, and so there's no correlation between your decision to disagree with a person and your opinions of their intelligence (as long as you do it nicely).
If our mind has models related to argument and disagreement, they probably come from those dark pre-Hansonian days of our early history. People don't intuitively connect opinion with level of rationality, and so people with whom you disagree don't feel insulted that you think you're more rational than they.
I can even feel this sort of thing being implemented in my mind. Isaac Newton was obviously smarter than I, but I naturally interpret his alchemy and religious prophecies as "a really smart guy with a cognitive blind spot." Robin and Eliezer are obviously smarter than I, but when I disagree with one of their blog posts, my first thought is still immediately "Oh, look, Robin/Eliezer's got another cognitive blind spot." That's not healthy thinking, and I'm not proud of it, but it's my natural thought process and from what I can see it's the natural thought process of most other people I interact with.
I think Robin's generally right that we need to become more aware of this sort of thinking and root it out. That being said, I think the naive concept of disagreement does have its uses. When I interact with people smarter than I am, it doesn't mean they're right and I'm wrong 100% of the time we disagree. It means they're probably right 66% of the time we disagree, and I 33%. The unspoken social convention that allows me to disagree even though I know I'm less intelligent leads to arguments by which the two of us can compare evidence and eventually come to a more accurate set of beliefs than if we always accepted the smarter person's opinion (as long as the less intelligent person is sufficiently humble and open-minded).
If disagreement doesn't have much to do with opinion of intelligence, and if you can disagree with someone on one (or every) issue and still think they're more intelligent than you are, disagreement doesn't have to mean disrespect.
Robin, I hope you will not quit blogging and I hope you will not quit this topic either. I enjoy your blog contributions a great deal. (I currently hope to be able to convince myself that you are wrong about disagreement and disrespect. Or, that if you are not wrong, that the relationship between disagreement and disrespect you suggest should not trouble me. I also look forward to more thinking and learning on the topic.)
What else is there - besides facts? Well, there's the future. The future is not established as fact. From the perspective of embedded observers, the future is not completely predictable (according to HUP).
For example, a girl may disagree with her mother about whether they should visit the ice cream parlour, or the hardware store. That is not a disagreement over truth or facts - it's an expression of the different targets they want to steer the future towards - due to the fact that they are are distinct organisms with different goals.
In such cases, the parties are not normally disagreeing over a fact. Rather, their dispute concerns uncertain future events. Maybe the mother's pragmatism will win out. Or maybe the girl will convince her mother that the ice cream really will give her the curves that will land her the future mate she needs. It all depends on exactly what path their argument takes. We cannot say that one side has the truth, and the other is biased, because neither side has access to the truth. What will happen may be something not known to either party, or to anyone else, even in theory (due to HUP).
You could say that there's no disagreement, because there's no point in arguing - because each side recognises the situation - and realises that arguing is pointless. However, in reality, that doesn't always happen. In fact there is often disagreement behaviour in such circumstances. Such issues are often dealt with using behaviour which extremely closely resembles behaviour surrounding disagreements over facts. Cases are put, arbitrators are appointed, voices are raised, consensus is assessed, etc. Functionally speaking, different motives often do lead to real disagreements over policies.
Religious conservatives are absolutely not "unfairly maligned" as you suggest and your own post gives the rebuttal in the very definition of Hate Speech where you gloss over the other pieces of the definition which do not adhere to your narrow application to those holding moral views -- something akin to the like-minded claims re: "the war on Christmas". With mounting legislation designed to single out persons of the LGBT community, encompassing marriage; adoption; market access; job protection; especially noting the extreme laws of policing public restrooms, the motives are NOT simply moral views of persons "unfairly maligned", but are, by definition, hate -- Hate Speech: "speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation." The country continues to grow in demand that all persons be treated with equal treatment and attempts at silencing even the discussion of it will not stop legal enforcement. BTW--teaching established scientific facts in public schools is not a threat to democracy--facts are facts whether one believes them or not. The sun will appear again tomorrow without the need for a blood sacrifice.
No, disagreeing with someone is not disrespect. We do not all agree, but that does not mean I do not respect other people and their beliefs and opinions. If you think something tastes good and I don't that does not mean I disrespect you, or that you disrespect me. It simply means we do not agree.That is the same for whatever people believe. People can be disrespectful in how they act during a disagreement, but simply not agreeing is just that.
Wrong.
Since normative propositions are subjective people can disagree on them without accusing each other of irrationality. It may be that you simply have a different gut sense of right and wrong. This shouldn't be surprising: everyone has a different gut.
I mean, unless you think you have some magic means of bridging the is-ought gap I don't see how this can possibly be a rational belief.
Disagreement implies a claim of superior rationality only where there is also some sort of claim that the speaker's belief was some sort of inevitable result of a process of reasoning. However, anybody can "bet" or take sides on a doubtful issue, in which case the other person's mileage may vary, as they say. I have never met nationalist so good that they suspend judgementt on all doubtful issues.
When I disagree with someone, I don't necessarily see them as less intelligent. I generally look at people that disagree with me as people with a different point of view. I believe a person can disagree with someone in a disrespectful way. For example, I say "I don't believe in that stuff" when referring to other person's religion or faith, that is disrespectful. However, I can say "I do not agree with their concepts or faith", that is more respectful. It is all about how you address a person. Some people don't understand that they do not have to disrespect people they disagree with.
I don't agree with this post. I don't see disagreement as disrespect. I don't think that not agreeing with someone means your being disrespectful, sure, if you say "you're an idiot", "that's stupid", or something along those lines, then you are being disrespectful. However, I don't think it's right to say that if someone doesn't agree with you, they are disrespecting you, they don't have to agree just because you put your opinion out first.
Gawddamn.
I used to be baffled when I told someone that what they were saying was clearly false and they got all butt-hurt about it; in retrospect it's obvious that I was saying they were idiots, no matter how nicely I said it. Now I'm wondering if that makes me the idiot.
But the fact that this post does not clear up the mystery of why I don't think people who prefer lobster to veal are morons makes it utterly useless. It has been damned by a devastating counterexample and I shall force this post from my mind.
Apologies To Robin Hanson
Image via WikipediaI used to frequent Robin Hanson's blog Overcoming Bias. Then, I disengaged partly because I could not understand the practical import of his...
How Would We Know If a Bail-Out Worked? Take Your Stand
We're still likely to see a bail-out in the near future. So here's a question: If the bail-out happens, how...
Re: the future *is* fact, it just hasn't happened *yet*. If you've read EY's quantum sequence, or know anything about the "many worlds" interpretation of QM, you'll know that the future is deterministic.
From the multiverse perspective, the girl and the mother exist in many worlds - in some of which the couple have gone to the ice cream vendor, and others the hardware store.
That doesn't help them in their discussion too much - and it doesn't prove that one of them is right about their destination, and the other is biased.
Determinism doesn't help predict the future much if you can't find out what the initial state is. That is, of course, exactly the situation embedded observers face.
Check the definition of "fact" in the dictionary. Note the repeated use of the past tense.
Tim, the future *is* fact, it just hasn't happened *yet*. If you've read EY's quantum sequence, or know anything about the "many worlds" interpretation of QM, you'll know that the future is deterministic.
In your example the girl is really trying to convince her mom of the fact "your overall utility function will be higher (when weighted by the square of the amplitude of decoherent futures) if you buy me icecream", since that is the fact that will convince her mom to buy her icecream. Neither one may understand exactly what they're arguing, but neither do most philosophers who appeal to occam's razor.
It may be a hard question to give a confident answer to, but that doesn't mean it's not a fact, and that doesn't mean you sit there and drool instead of calculating your expected utility (with the information and processing power available) and making a choice.
On a more general note, many commenters seem to have a different working definition of "disagreement" than Robin. RH seems to define "disagreement" as "differing probability distributions", while many commenters seem to define it as "differing probability distributions *with no weight to other guys credibility*". If I'm arguing with someone, it means we started with different probability distributions. If midway through the argument someone stops us and asks for our current probability distributions, we very well may give identical distributions (if we know we're both rational).
I still say "I still don't see how your argument leads to X being true, but since you do I must update accordingly". Robin would say we don't disagree, but seemingly others would say we do (on the other definition). It's possible to not disagree (RH), but still find it arguing to be productive.
If you say "I still don't see how your argument leads to X beign true, and I'm unwilling to move my distribution to match your post argument distribution", that necessarily means you think the other guy is less rational, because you are in a disagreement (RH).
@Yvain:
The possibility of an infinite loop, catch-22, vicious cycle (it's a cognitive hypersensitivity that Jesus himself couldn't get me to correct) forces me to choose to judge rather than let it pass. I transfer the question of respect to whether I'll press the issue. Infinite loops rob everybody of truth, justice, and other valuables. I think there's a lack of attention to the chaotic dillema of feedback loops so I can't ignore it. I just spend less time whining about it than I used to and more time preventing myself from falling into such loops. I choose to be judge or jury for my own reasons, but I refuse to be the executioner.
Myself, I get into the diametrically (on a two dimensional grid of "priors to reason" and "shoot first apologize later to set the table first and then debate") opposite conundrum. I try so hard to present all my priors and establish a common ground that people assume I'm insulting them and treating them like toddlers.
In terms of evolutionary psychology, disagreement would have come from self-interested people trying to convince a tribe of their own differing goals. In that context, there's no reason not to disagree with someone more intelligent than you are, and so there's no correlation between your decision to disagree with a person and your opinions of their intelligence (as long as you do it nicely).
If our mind has models related to argument and disagreement, they probably come from those dark pre-Hansonian days of our early history. People don't intuitively connect opinion with level of rationality, and so people with whom you disagree don't feel insulted that you think you're more rational than they.
I can even feel this sort of thing being implemented in my mind. Isaac Newton was obviously smarter than I, but I naturally interpret his alchemy and religious prophecies as "a really smart guy with a cognitive blind spot." Robin and Eliezer are obviously smarter than I, but when I disagree with one of their blog posts, my first thought is still immediately "Oh, look, Robin/Eliezer's got another cognitive blind spot." That's not healthy thinking, and I'm not proud of it, but it's my natural thought process and from what I can see it's the natural thought process of most other people I interact with.
I think Robin's generally right that we need to become more aware of this sort of thinking and root it out. That being said, I think the naive concept of disagreement does have its uses. When I interact with people smarter than I am, it doesn't mean they're right and I'm wrong 100% of the time we disagree. It means they're probably right 66% of the time we disagree, and I 33%. The unspoken social convention that allows me to disagree even though I know I'm less intelligent leads to arguments by which the two of us can compare evidence and eventually come to a more accurate set of beliefs than if we always accepted the smarter person's opinion (as long as the less intelligent person is sufficiently humble and open-minded).
If disagreement doesn't have much to do with opinion of intelligence, and if you can disagree with someone on one (or every) issue and still think they're more intelligent than you are, disagreement doesn't have to mean disrespect.
Robin, I hope you will not quit blogging and I hope you will not quit this topic either. I enjoy your blog contributions a great deal. (I currently hope to be able to convince myself that you are wrong about disagreement and disrespect. Or, that if you are not wrong, that the relationship between disagreement and disrespect you suggest should not trouble me. I also look forward to more thinking and learning on the topic.)
Re: Tim, all disagreements are about facts. What else would you be talking about?
To quote from my citation of Robin's consent on the issue:
You might say that there's other kinds of disagreement besides disagreeing about what's true, and I'm happy to grant that.
- The last minute of: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/12535
What else is there - besides facts? Well, there's the future. The future is not established as fact. From the perspective of embedded observers, the future is not completely predictable (according to HUP).
For example, a girl may disagree with her mother about whether they should visit the ice cream parlour, or the hardware store. That is not a disagreement over truth or facts - it's an expression of the different targets they want to steer the future towards - due to the fact that they are are distinct organisms with different goals.
In such cases, the parties are not normally disagreeing over a fact. Rather, their dispute concerns uncertain future events. Maybe the mother's pragmatism will win out. Or maybe the girl will convince her mother that the ice cream really will give her the curves that will land her the future mate she needs. It all depends on exactly what path their argument takes. We cannot say that one side has the truth, and the other is biased, because neither side has access to the truth. What will happen may be something not known to either party, or to anyone else, even in theory (due to HUP).
You could say that there's no disagreement, because there's no point in arguing - because each side recognises the situation - and realises that arguing is pointless. However, in reality, that doesn't always happen. In fact there is often disagreement behaviour in such circumstances. Such issues are often dealt with using behaviour which extremely closely resembles behaviour surrounding disagreements over facts. Cases are put, arbitrators are appointed, voices are raised, consensus is assessed, etc. Functionally speaking, different motives often do lead to real disagreements over policies.