Aversion by association

[Angst]

I was a teenage communist for a while, believing in a number of things, but when discussing them with my father he would not listen to my points, not because of their juvenile nature, but because of his association of communism with the Sovjet Union atrocities.

I've since grown and I think I'm some oddball of a leftist, but he isn't and I think a lot of his thoughts differ from leftism simply by his recollection of juvenile idealism and the plethora of militant communist violence during his adolescence.

So it hit me that for example my early showing of Rand has left me permanently ill-suited for libertarian ideas, even the good ones that I think may exist.

How do we get around this problem as thinkers, as people?

I think ideological neutrality is ideal when discussing how to solve a particular problem, see.

 

[Borachio]

Oh right. Do you think so-called "clear thinking" might be the way forward?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Thinking_Clearly

 

[Angst]

I'm not sure, haven't read the book. Have you?

 

[Borachio]

No. I haven't. I've only just stumbled across that one.

"Clear thinking" has been round for a very long time, though. And I've heard people hint at it, darkly.

Just a variant on critical thinking, maybe?

I don't know. It's not something I'm capable of, I think. I generally go with blind prejudice and leaping to conclusions.

 

[galdre]

Only thing we can do is be aware of the prejudice. I find that the biggest problem is that people are not conscious of, or at least unwilling to admit to, the association and how it is affecting their thinking.

 

[Borachio]

Rolf tackles the many ways in which thinking errors can occur (what we think is going on, and what is actually going on, can and often is very different). In a sense this is quite profound, we all run around with models of how the world works (and interconnects), and these models provide a handy short cut to quick decisions rather than thinking things through from scratch every time. Rolf clearly and logically and with examples shows us how and why these models are in error (the links are incorrectly connected) and while there might be good material going in, the wrong model all but guarantees the wrong material out.

As humans we are programmed for the here and now, long and very short time scales are difficult for us to grasp, big numbers are just big numbers etc. Rolf tackles psychological perception and how we can be confident and sure about something, yet we have mislead ourselves or been mislead by others, but our confidence means the alarm has not sounded. These sorts of thinking errors have been well researched by psychologists, but largely buried in academic journals and tomes. Rolf brings them out, makes them live and contemporary, and with examples shows, actually, anyone with a working brain needs to beware.

So this is less a book about `The art of thinking clearly' and more a book about `I think, therefore I err', and is no less valuable for that, just don't expect methods, plans and exercises for thinking clearly.

Finally, perhaps a perfect book for the modern age, we move too fast for our own good, a book which in very short hops takes you on a (thoughtful) journey, easy to pick up grab a page or two, put down to await the next `reading bite' opportunity. Take it from start to finish, or dip in an out, it makes no difference, each Chapter is stand alone.

5 star Amazon review of The Art of Thinking Clearly.

Oh dear. Chapter one Visit Graveyards Often, and bury yourself came to mind. Talk about starting on a big fat negative. Perhaps I prefer to see the World through rosy coloured specs as in Visit Graveyards often because life it short, so follow your dreams. Not visit graveyards often to see how many fail. Obviously this is not the right book for me and honestly when I am presented with a negative in chapter one the book gets buried. Unfair possibly to a well rated (by other readers) book, but life really is to short.

1 star Amazon review of the same.

 

[Mise]

I think, having recognised it in yourself, you're already in a better place than most people. I think you just have to constantly question your own instincts: why is it that I feel this way? Be your own harshest critic when it comes to your views.

Recently I found myself instinctively favouring "No" in the Scottish referendum. I think 10 years ago, my instincts would have been "Yes". But 10 years ago, I wouldn't have questioned it. I wouldn't have thought, "maybe my instincts are wrong?" and seriously thought about why it was that I felt that way. I would have just invented rational reasons to support No and rational refutations of Yes's arguments. But those reasons weren't why I support "No". I just came up with those afterwards, to justify it. And it turned out that part of it was just "nostalgia" or a yearning for constancy. I feared what Britain might look like without Scotland. I was curious about what would happen afterwards, but not enough to overcome that instinct of "no! no change!" Anyway, I realised that that was of course irrational, and instead thought to myself, "in a perfect world, how would we organise government?" Federalism was the best I could come up with, and I've tried to stick to that. Of course, I'll point out the hypocrisy of the Yes campaign, mostly for fun, to satisfy that first instinct. But the process led me to what I think is a better overall position: more federalism.

It might turn out that my support for federalism is just another post hoc justification for "No". I mean, how convenient that the "best" solution for everyone just so happens to coincide with my own personal prejudices. But hey, it's a start...


EDIT: i read this thing a couple days ago that is sort of related: http://aeon.co/magazine/psychology/we-are-more-rational-than-those-who-nudge-us/

 

[Gori the Grey]

Your last reflection, Mise, reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:

"So convenient a thing to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for every thing one has a mind to do."

--Ben Franklin

 

[Farm Boy]

I always figure support for federalization is actually a deep seated and possibly buried desire to be more like #1.

 

[warpus]

I think ideological neutrality is ideal when discussing how to solve a particular problem, see.

Yes, exactly. Ignore all ideology, forget that you're libertarian, Christian, atheist, liberal, conservative, crazy, whatever. Look at the facts and figure out the most efficient solution given the facts. Then go from there, no matter what sort of ideology people might associate with your actions.

 

[Borachio]

Dangerous ground, though. Who knows? You might end up being a fascist.

What's wrong with looking where you want to go, and working backwards from there? (Which fascists do as well, I know.)

 

[Farm Boy]

Always beware those espousing simple solutions to complex problems.

 

[Borachio]

What? Because they might be right?

Ol' Occam wouldn't agree with you. Mind you, he favoured the simplest solution. So, there's that.

 

[Farm Boy]

Simple solutions to complex problems seem to have a habit of needing to cut some corners. And by corners I mean people. Which, if we're operating in a moral vacuum or pure efficiency, might actually be the way to go.

 

[warpus]

Dangerous ground, though. Who knows? You might end up being a fascist.

What's wrong with looking where you want to go, and working backwards from there? (Which fascists do as well, I know.)

What's a good fascist idea that actually works as a good solution to a problem, though? Because if it's actually a good solution, I don't really care where it originated. If Hitler himself thought it up, I couldn't care less. It's the essence of the idea that's important, not the ideology of the person who thought it up.

 

[Thedrin]

Doesn't Occam's Razor apply to the cause of a problem rather than how to fix the problem?

 

[Borachio]

I thought Occam was on about preferring the simpler explanation over the more complicated one.

Explanation. Solution. Well. Maybe you're right. It depends, I guess.

 

[Thedrin]

Oh, it is, but the simplest solution [explanation of a problem] and the simplest solution [way to fix a problem] aren't the same thing.

 

[Mise]

I always figure support for federalization is actually a deep seated and possibly buried desire to be more like #1.

Germany?

 

[Farm Boy]

Sure! The #2 number #1 is a good place to start. Transcendence in stages.