[PREV - GENERAL_VAGUE] [TOP]
CROOKED_REASON
April 3, 2018
ID_OF_REASON
From a comment posted to crookedtimber:
[link]
Sam Harris seems like a good example of someone who believes he's
reasonable, but clearly isn't-- in fact it's so clear, there are
some who doubt he's really trying, but I don't see any need to go
there. Human beings are capable of bigger delusions.
When confronted with someone like this, there are a few
natural reactions-- you might try to pin down the source of
his delusions; you might try to contrive an argument that can
punch through them; you might look for arguments that might
win over the undecided spectators-- or you might just spout
off to show other members of your tribe how smart you are,
and how tightly you belong.
There's another step after all that though, which
Henry alludes to at the end of his piece: how do FLIP_TEST
you know you're any better?
At this point we have many examples of people who should
know better falling into congitive traps, and worse denying
the problem and resisting contrary evidence with convoluted
arguments.
(Even a man who is pure of mind, and recites his Socrates at
night may become a wolf...)
A really intelligent person can rationalize almost anything. WE_DETAIL
Since Ezra Klein is on everyone's minds, I might remind WE_SMART
you all about his piece from 2014, "Politics Makes Us
Stupid": [link]
"To spend much time with Kahan’s research is to
stare into a kind of intellectual abyss. If the work
of gathering evidence and reasoning through thorny,
polarizing political questions is actually the
process by which we trick ourselves into finding the
answers we want, then what’s the right way to search
for answers? How can we know the answers we come up
with, no matter how well-intentioned, aren’t just
more motivated cognition? How can we know the
experts we’re relying on haven’t subtly biased their
answers, too? How can I know that this article
isn’t a form of identity protection? Kahan’s
research tells us we can’t trust our own reason. How
do we reason our way out of that?"
There have been many results that point in this
direction in recent years, and there's very little in
the way of encouraging news. We keep learning more
about how bad the traps are without hearing any good way
of staying out of the traps.
Do I need to point out that there are few, if any
intellectual tribes that can claim to be immune to them?
The liberal/left/educated may indeed be doing better
than the right at present-- I certainly think they are--
but it's also pretty clear to me that the left sometimes
fails, sometimes pretty badly, and when it does it's
*just* as recalcitrant to listen to anything like reason
on the subject.
One possible conclusion from this is to simply give up
on reason: we're all fools and knaves on some level, so
we might as well embrace it and learn how to play the
game.... and personally I think I've been seeing an
increase in numbers of people who've essentially given
up on anything like reasoned debate. At this point
everyone knows that there's evidence out there that Though, that
contrary facts don't seem to persuade, and in fact they evidence may
seem to cause people to dig in and cling harder to their be weak:
errors. If the only thing that persuades is an engaging
narrative however devoid of facts, than what else can we DOUBLE_BACKFIRE
do but give 'em what they want?
Now, this strikes me as a dangerous development, even
from the point of view of a persuasive strategy--
playing fast and loose with the facts is just handing
ammunition to the other side. If you don't like the
"both sides do it" line, then you probably shouldn't E.g. Lakoff's frame
start doing it. game: spin in all
but name.
Sam Harris is indeed overplaying his stance as a bold
defender of reason, but in this light, it strikes me as
the vice that pays tribute to virtue. We may yet wish
for more such defenders of Reason, though preferably
ones a bit better than Harris or Pinker.
--------
[NEXT - ID_OF_REASON]