This brilliant point by @ESYudkowsky explains about 75% of why it's hard to change people's minds through Twitter.https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5LASfhhArZ7w/expecting-short-inferential-distances …
-
Very interesting point. But I would adjust the percentages. Bad faith has to account for much of the incorrigibility we see on Twitter (in my timeline, I would put it at more than 50%).
Hypothesis: any sufficiently extreme inferential distance is indistinguishable from bad faith.
-
-
Strong disagree. I think you could talk to
@juliagalef about a subject at an arbitrarily great distance and you would be able to distinguish her conduct from that of someone arguing in bad faith. -
Yes, conspicuous cues of epistemic humility, rationality, and open-mindedness (openness-signaling?) can do a lot to overcome impressions of bad faith. But most people aren't very good at openness-signaling....
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
There is a difference, and it's the extreme resistance to making the necessary inferential leaps, even when the speaker "backs all the way up." However, I'm not the biggest fan of calling it "bad faith"...
-
...It can be that, but it's also part of a process where beliefs are bound up within moral communities, and traveling the inferential distance often requires someone stepping out of their community; calling it bad faith papers over how difficult of a process this is...
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Findings: Even though they may be indistinguishable, research will show that many people don't trust ideological opposites.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
...Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You gotta meet people in the middle. NEXT!!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think this is probably right. I listen to Sam all the time and he talks about steel manning the opposition. At the same time I often think Sam straw man's the opposition. I don't think Sam is acting in bad faith.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Perhaps: disjoint cultural mores that are inherently incompatible are perhaps the result of compounding inferential distances. Developed thru lossy models of the world interacting with how a culture has adapted Schelling points to interface with it's ever changing environment.
-
many Schelling points are inherently incompatible by their nature, but they only show that incompatibility in the extremes. Conflict arises when those divides can not be crossed without one side's culture decaying in a way that would injure them.
- 2 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.