Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Evan's avatar

"It should be shameful to believe things without evidence, embrace whatever simplistic narratives win approval within your tribe, or parrot the identity-defining pieties favoured by your community or subculture."

That sounds great in theory, but how do you apply it in practice? It seems like it would fall prey to all the issues you have pointed out in the "misinformation" debate -- there's no straightforward test to determine whether a given belief is a "simplistic narrative" or "identity-defining piety," versus a belief arrived at by careful thought.

Moreover, none of us has time to reason everything out from first principles and direct evidence. Like it or not, we have to trust other people to explain how most of reality works.

I think the strongest counter to this tendency in humans is a culture that enshrines tolerance for, and engagement with, dissent. Groupthink will always be with us, but often you only need a few people to point out that the Emperor has no clothes. The key is to keep those voices from being silenced, and to lionize those who turn out to be right.

But this will mean putting up with a lot of cranks spouting nonsense, because -- again -- there's no easy test to distinguish the cranks from the free thinkers. A lot of consensus beliefs are correct! It means looking at -- for example -- the anti-vax movement, and saying, "I don't agree with them, but they have the right to have their say."

And then you run into the question of where tolerance for dissent shades into giving a medical degree to someone who believes in four humours and bloodletting...

Expand full comment
Geoff Olynyk's avatar

I probably posted this the first time this essay was posted, but a fruitful (if depressing) line of inquiry would be what online discourse does to supercharge this. Because we can self-select into bubbles far more than when interaction was physically embodied and local.

Expand full comment
22 more comments...

No posts