1. Intelligent people with whom I disagree tend to make the most interesting and enjoyable friends.
2. When a comparably intelligent person has access to the same information and arrives at a different conclusion, it is realistic to acknowledge the probability that your own particular belief is true to be only marginally higher than the opposing belief; roughly 0.50 assuming one view is, in fact, correct. By comparison, people typically irrationally assign something approaching 1 to the probability that their belief is true. Accepting this observation as empirically and epistemically correct is an excellent foundation for sane debate and helps to limit general bias. This perspective also helps to distinguish those beliefs with justifiably high probability. [Note, I credit this concept to Tyler Cowen and I, like him, give it a high P(true)].
3. Accepting (2) does not erode confidence in your beliefs. Advocating for a belief despite awareness that you do not hold an informational advantage and that opposing views have probabilistic merit is a far more realistic and genuine flavor of confidence. Blind confidence is not confidence; it is faith. There is nothing wrong with faith, per se, but it is not compelling.
4. Engaging in a debate with someone can indicate that (a) you think they are wrong and want to make them feel like a fool, (b) you think they are wrong and want to correct the error in their thinking, or (c) you respect their intelligence enough to give them a chance to challenge your view. Most people immediately assume the motive for an argument is (a) and attempt to reciprocate or become defensive. This can be very frustrating when your motive is not (a), particularly when it is (c).
5. Not engaging in a debate with someone when the opportunity is presented usually indicates you think that person is not worth your time.
6. Very few beliefs worth discussing are accepted by a majority. By holding non-universal beliefs, a person is implicitly arrogant. That is, the person starts under the assumption that large groups of people are either smart and ignorant or informed and stupid. Arrogance is perfectly healthy and does not necessarily contradict (2). In fact, accepting (2) and (6) suggests that you are both occasionally arrogant AND willing to admit that there is a non-trivial probability that you are occasionally the one who is stupid or ignorant.
7. People who are not occasionally arrogant have often not critically examined their own views. They are also often less interesting.
8. Intellectual debate can be incredibly fulfilling for those of us who are so inclined. Not everyone is so inclined.
9. The confirmation bias is the largest hurdle to thoughtful debate. Resisting the confirmation bias, and bias generally, can be incredibly liberating.
10. People have an *extremely* strong interest in maintaining their beliefs. That is, once a belief is formed, the social and psychological cost of rejecting the belief is very high. This has two implications. See 11 and 12.
11. Convincing someone with strong priors to change their beliefs is largely futile. Even when your argument is perfectly lucid, they will likely cling to their preconceptions. It is far more effective to create small fractures in their perspective by convincing them that it is reasonable to accept minor refutations without rejecting their principal beliefs.
12. Somewhat paradoxically, the best way to improve the accuracy of your beliefs is to postpone arriving at any particular belief for as long as is practical. This lowers the eventual costs in (10) and compliments the application of (2).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment