The argument that walls *generally* don’t work (which is prima facie absurd) provides an interesting illustration of how motivated reasoning works in political arguments.https://twitter.com/PereGrimmer/status/1076616122844229632 …
-
Show this thread
-
(We really don’t want Trumps wall. So *any* arguments that would undermine his wall are readily believed and propogated. Even the arguments that we would otherwise know are silly. Even when there are very legitimate arguments at hand.)
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Moshe_Hoffman
If someone from “respectable society” actually wants and supports Trump‘s wall, they probably won’t tell us, because the potential downside is larger than the upside, and we likely don’t know at least some their better arguments.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @Moshe_Hoffman @Plinz
I concur, we probably don’t hear the more reasonable arguments (on both sides imo). And to me that’s an interesting phenomena. Is it more effective at promoting one’s policies? If so, why? Or just a better virtue signal? Unsure myself tbh.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Moshe_Hoffman
Like with Brexit, a random person off the street (including myself) is unable to realistically predict the consequences and have little agency over their policy related beliefs. I sure hope the people whose models our public administration acts on have run good simulations.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Fair. But wouldn’t you readily know “walls never work” is a bad argument?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Moshe_Hoffman @Plinz
And separate puzzle you raise: Why wouldn’t you learn which politicians and news sources are credible? (Most) people correctly learned, for instance, to trust Einstein when it comes to physics, even if they can’t evaluate his arguments.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Moshe_Hoffman
Mostly because there is no upside in having true political beliefs, instead of the right ones. We don’t get to act on political beliefs outside of elections very much, so their role is in negotiating alignment, not facts.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
Oh. Very true. And I think this is integral to why we get so much motivated reasoning in this domain (but to be clear, the argument you are giving would suggest when we have a real accuracy motive you wouldn’t see this? Is that your prediction? It’s mine.)
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
At some level, every mind must have an accuracy motive, or we’d go psychotic. The willingness to override it must be selective. Selective stupidity is possibly an adaptation that many of our ancestors were selected for at swordpoint.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Yes. Very much agree. The question is then when do we override it. And in which Qays do we then allow our beliefs or logic to be biased. Just random? Or...? In particular why the bias in my original post?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Moshe_Hoffman
It would be interesting to see some people discuss Israel’s wall in the west bank at the same time as Trump’s wall.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 3 more replies
New conversation -
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.