Let's say you have been promoting some view (on some complex or fraught topic – e.g. politics, religion; or any "cause" or "-ism") for some time. When somebody criticizes this view, you spring to its defense. You find that you can easily refute most objections, and this increases your confidence. The view might originally have represented your best understanding of the topic. Subsequently you have gained more evidence, experience, and insight; yet the original view is never seriously reconsidered. You tell yourself that you remain objective and open-minded, but in fact your brain has stopped looking and listening for alternatives.
I'm currently using the approach to critique my choice of major, and am finding it extremely effective at prompting me to consider gaps I neglected before. Thanks for this post!
I'll write one if Barack Obama and each member of his staff writes one. Also, they must all be published in the NY Times, the L.A. Times, and the Miami Herald.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Universal...Laws of Physics.........Moral Archetypes...Pure Math FormsSystem......Applied Physics.........Psychology.............LogicObject.......Inventions..................Culture...................Software
---
Universal Level
...............Laws of Physics.........Moral Archetypes....Pure Math Forms
Interface.. Field Theory...............Aesthetics...............Set TheoryFunction....Mechanics.................Consequentialism......AlgebraStructure....Geometry.................Virtue Ethics............Combinatorics
Interface...Virtual Reality...........Art.......................OntologyFunction....Engineering...............Morals...............Object Oriented ProgrammingStructure....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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Debate teams and moot courts are exercises like this. I don't think they increase the level of rationality. They teach people to use tricks of persuasion without caring about truth.
glibness aside, Hopefully Rational:you can question your own criterion for deciding on the veracity of experiment. you can also question the criterion by which you decide to go hunting for this or that bit of experimental evidence, as I doubt your days are filled with reading research papers without filtering.
everything collapses back to the purpose of this blog: examining the filter you apply to reality.
My first 'take' on coming to transhumanist lists was 'Transhumanists are hyper-rational' My (current) changed 'take' is 'These people are actually no more rational than average'.
More seriously, my views on both Bayes ) and economics have definitely changed. Initially, the 'big issue claims' I blindly believed were:
'Bayes is the secret to the universe''Libertarianism is the best political system'
Composing Q&A (Questions and Answer) lists can be helpful because you have to write down lists of objections and then the counter-arguments. This is how I talked myself out of Libertarianism for example.
As to Bayes, about 2 years ago I composed a gem of a philosophical argument which left me gobsmacked, and immediately I had convinced myself that Bayesian Induction is merely a special case of Analogy Formation.
Here is a less than 100-word essay that would persuade my past self of the debating proposition that: ‘Bayes is not the ultimate foundation of logic, but analogy formation is’:
‘Take the famous design adage: Form follows Function and Function follows Interface. Now try something original: Apply it to abstract concepts! Then we have: Geometric Solids are the Forms of Physics, Forces are the Functions of Physics and Fields are the Interfaces of Physics. Another example, this time applied to pure math concepts: Permutations are the Forms of Math, Relations are the Functions of Math and Sets are the Interfaces of Math. In Logic: Deductions are the Forms of Logic, Inductions (Bayes) are the Functions of Logic, and Analogies are the Interfaces of Logic’
A brilliant proof of the primacy of analogy formation or (knowing the famous hopeless Geddes luck), yet another dead-end? ;)
I'm currently using the approach to critique my choice of major, and am finding it extremely effective at prompting me to consider gaps I neglected before. Thanks for this post!
I'll write one if Barack Obama and each member of his staff writes one. Also, they must all be published in the NY Times, the L.A. Times, and the Miami Herald.
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.
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.)
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!
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.
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.
'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 FormsSystem......Applied Physics.........Psychology.............LogicObject.......Inventions..................Culture...................Software
---
Universal Level
...............Laws of Physics.........Moral Archetypes....Pure Math Forms
Interface.. Field Theory...............Aesthetics...............Set TheoryFunction....Mechanics.................Consequentialism......AlgebraStructure....Geometry.................Virtue Ethics............Combinatorics
---
System Level
................Applied Physics.........Psychology.........Logic
Interface....Networking..............Communication......Analogy FormationFunction.....Thermodynamics.......Decision Theory....Bayesian InductionStructure....Chemistry.................Sociology.............Deduction
----
Object Level
................Inventions.................Culture................Software
Interface...Virtual Reality...........Art.......................OntologyFunction....Engineering...............Morals...............Object Oriented ProgrammingStructure....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>>>ObjectMathematics>>Teleology>>PhysicsInterface>>>>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!
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.
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.
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.
Good piece, reminded me of this.
Debate teams and moot courts are exercises like this. I don't think they increase the level of rationality. They teach people to use tricks of persuasion without caring about truth.
glibness aside, Hopefully Rational:you can question your own criterion for deciding on the veracity of experiment. you can also question the criterion by which you decide to go hunting for this or that bit of experimental evidence, as I doubt your days are filled with reading research papers without filtering.
everything collapses back to the purpose of this blog: examining the filter you apply to reality.
My first 'take' on coming to transhumanist lists was 'Transhumanists are hyper-rational' My (current) changed 'take' is 'These people are actually no more rational than average'.
More seriously, my views on both Bayes ) and economics have definitely changed. Initially, the 'big issue claims' I blindly believed were:
'Bayes is the secret to the universe''Libertarianism is the best political system'
Composing Q&A (Questions and Answer) lists can be helpful because you have to write down lists of objections and then the counter-arguments. This is how I talked myself out of Libertarianism for example.
As to Bayes, about 2 years ago I composed a gem of a philosophical argument which left me gobsmacked, and immediately I had convinced myself that Bayesian Induction is merely a special case of Analogy Formation.
Here is a less than 100-word essay that would persuade my past self of the debating proposition that: ‘Bayes is not the ultimate foundation of logic, but analogy formation is’:
‘Take the famous design adage: Form follows Function and Function follows Interface. Now try something original: Apply it to abstract concepts! Then we have: Geometric Solids are the Forms of Physics, Forces are the Functions of Physics and Fields are the Interfaces of Physics. Another example, this time applied to pure math concepts: Permutations are the Forms of Math, Relations are the Functions of Math and Sets are the Interfaces of Math. In Logic: Deductions are the Forms of Logic, Inductions (Bayes) are the Functions of Logic, and Analogies are the Interfaces of Logic’
A brilliant proof of the primacy of analogy formation or (knowing the famous hopeless Geddes luck), yet another dead-end? ;)
"I don't hold any views that aren't supported by facts verified by experiment"
I'd like to believe you on this, but I can't until I see a journal citation.
Next!