I learned from this a new way of thinking about thinking, “cognitive decoupling,” and its role in disagreements.https://twitter.com/everytstudies/status/989544002511949825 …
-
Show this thread
-
-
Replying to @literalbanana @Meaningness
It sounds like a fancy way of saying 'talking past each other' @?)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ArtirKel @literalbanana
They were talking past each other, but the thesis is that they were doing so because one of them was decoupling (Harris) and the other wasn’t (Klein). cc:
@everytstudies IOU: more tweets explaining this1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @ArtirKel and
1/From quick perusal, it looks like Keith Stanovich is one of several 90s alt-psychologists (along with Dan Coleman, etc.) who propounded a way of filling in the gaps of what Eysenck called "intelligence 2;" i.e., that portion of what we ordinarily call intelligence not captured
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PereGrimmer @Meaningness and
2/by "intelligence 3" (g). Stanovich identified a bunch of irrational ways of thought, in an Amos Tversky, and (per the reporting here) it's suggested by the work of Tetlock &c that having a high g might be necessary, but is not sufficient, to (i) avoid irrational thinking; nor,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PereGrimmer @Meaningness and
3/(ii) relatedly, accurately evaluate how rational you've been. All well and good, though I'm not familiar with the empirics, and reading the description of Stanovich's work grated a little, as it seemed like he was hiding the ball as to the extent to which all general knowledge
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PereGrimmer @Meaningness and
4/tests will be correlated. Even so -- with the caveat that I haven't listened to the Harris/Klein kerfuffle - I sort of doubt there was some failure of "meta-rationality" at stake. Granting both participants are smart enough to be rational (I don't know), a more parsimonious
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PereGrimmer @Meaningness and
5/explanation is that Klein (a) feels deeply about race issues and the specter of racism; or at least, (b) has a vested professional interest in projecting that he does. You'd be better off giving him a Xanax than teaching him meta-rationality. [end, sorry for length].
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Well, supposing Klein was willing and able to be rational, there still would have been an argument to be had about what considerations are relevant and why. Apparently he was, indeed, trying to say “you can’t just ignore racism,” but was failing to make a good argument for it
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @ArtirKel and
Meta-R (as noted): people skilled at reasoned argument are rational to want to exclude emotionalism, just as people skilled at emotionalism are rational to want to exclude reasoned arguments. But you'll probably need an emotional appeal to move people from group 2 to group 1.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.