I’ve been spending a lot of time on the road talking to @oscredwin, and I’m realizing that we have very different intuitions around speculating under uncertainty.
-
-
I think I have a default assumption that the stuff authority figures tell you is pretty likely to be false. I wasn’t “an atheist” till I was an adult but I totally did “belief in belief” as long as I could remember; I believed because I thought that was what good people did.
Show this thread -
Andrew, on the other hand, doesn’t do that effortless thing of “yeah Officially X but I don’t really expect to personally rely on X.” If he believes something, he believes it “in real life”; otherwise it’s phony.
Show this thread -
This means
@oscredwin has higher intellectual integrity than me; you *shouldn’t* have separate magisteria, in principle. Everything should be consistent with everything else, in the end.Show this thread -
OTOH I think my intuition and “vibes” are *accurately pointing to stuff he can’t perceive* about how often people are bullshitting and how trustworthy authorities are. There’s probably false things that he *actually believes* that I wouldn’t outright deny but I wouldn’t bet on.
Show this thread -
This is a pretty canonical gender difference: men (speaking roughly) are more principled and women are more sensitive to signals of incongruence/insincerity, but we don’t really know how to articulate what we perceive in ways that don’t sound super “woo” or “crazy.”
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I thought the "indoor greenhouse effect" was just lack of convection.
Thanks. 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.