Furthermore, people's training breaks down outside specific situations. Philosophers argue logically at work. At home they're like anyone.
Conversation
Replying to
Statisticians are great at solving equations, but make elementary errors when dealing with real world problems... Etc.
2
Replying to
Oddly enough, some types of training are resistant to this effect - but sloppy thinking is very resistant to all available cures.
1
1
Replying to
It seems like we are not able to alter our habits of thought much without a combination of things. Education/visible results are inadequate.
1
Replying to
Most people repeat habitual mistakes all their lives. I make mistakes now that I've done for years, and I recognize them well enough.
1
Replying to
Just knowing, academically or emotionally, "this is wrong" doesn't suffice to alter behaviour much. It just makes you anxious.
1
Replying to
People make changes when they are convinced they no longer need their bad habits, not when they realize said habits are bad.
1
Replying to
Take epistemic doubt, which is near the topic I retweeted: have you tried arguing with an opinionated person while in rational self-doubt?
1
Replying to
Most people, when given free space in a debate, act like sharks smelling blood: they go straight for the meat. They attack, attack, attack.
1
Replying to
It takes a much broader set of skills than just critical thinking to handle that situation correctly. It can be done, but not easily.
1
Replying to
Meaning if someone actually learns to use critical thinking correctly (and not just to attack other opinions), they are at a disadvantage.
Replying to
Most bad habits are either completely organic, ordinary parts of being human that are really difficult to shift, or habits for self-defense.
1
Replying to
In the first case: good luck fixing it; it's tricky. In the second: you need to provide better alternatives, not just clean up the problem.