Discover more from Overcoming Bias
Rolf Nelson points out that we don’t have good terminology to call “beliefs we would have had if we didn’t choose to be persuaded by the fact that everyone else believes differently”. It’s an important distinction because this kind of belief is arguably more helpful to know, for both majoritarians and others.
In classic group-decision experiments like “guess how many beans in the jar”, you get less accurate answers if people call out their guesses one after the other, because they are revealing their adjusted beliefs, that take into account the social consensus (perhaps without realizing it). If people write their answers down, we get Rolf’s kind of beliefs, uninfluenced by the consensus view, and those have been shown to be more accurate on average.
So Rolf’s point is very relevant about the lack of terminology. Devil’s Advocacy is about as close as I can come, but that doesn’t capture it. What do you suggest would be a good way to describe these kinds of beliefs? Once more people start making a conscious distinction between the two modes of believing, how should we talk about it?
Naming Beliefs
You claim there's literature showing that people take other people's opinion into account too much. Robin claims there's literature showing that people take other people's opinion into account too little. How can you resolve these views?
That's an interesting point, Joseph. Of course it is a standard principle that the merits of an argument are independent of the character of the arguer. But your comment suggests something else, that in some cases hypocrisy may be justified and appropriate.
Hypocrisy is one of the most reviled of human faults in today's world; it sometimes seems that even mass murderers receive less condemnation than hypocrites. But in a way the hypocrite can be seen as doing us all a favor, by advocating an idea or position which might otherwise not see much support. And the hypocrite can perform this service while still following the majority in ignoring the position in practice.
Many of us have expressed the concern that if we had greater conformity, while only advocating sincerely held beliefs, we would see a diminished social discourse and less diversity in our intellectual culture. Hypocrisy may be a solution to this quandary. I have long felt that our society has made a fetish of intolerance for hypocrisy and has elevated its importance excessively. This is another argument for being more forgiving of hypocrites and recognizing the positive contribution they make to society.