The most obnoxious thing about the stereotypical modern atheist is easily his arrogance. Self-identifying as a "Bright" or "Freethinker" leaves little room for anyone else; the clear implication is that alternative positions are occupied entirely by those who are too dim or too unmotivated to think their way out of the proverbial wet paper bag of recieved wisdom. The theory goes that anyone who applies a modicum of intelligent skepticism will immediately realize that everyone else is full of shit and make their way to the One True Religion Movement of skeptical atheism. A free thinker who arrives at any other conclusion is a contradiction in terms; if they were truly willing to subject their most deeply held beliefs to critical analysis, they would have discarded them after hearing a real Freethinker's kickass explanation of how Zombie Jesus and the Sky Daddy are logically impossible.
The weird part is how a worldview that demotes all opposition to mindless sheep is accepted by the vaguely human-positive progressive left. They recognize the absurdity of demanding that people think for themselves and then arrive at a specific position, but their diagnosis of the problem is typically that the so-called "Freethinkers" are insufficiently critical of their own beliefs. If only they would continue to think for themselves after joining the local atheist collective, they would eventually progress beyond petty tribalism into a more tolerant, humanistic philosophy...
In other words, the problem with the free thought movement is that the members don't do enough thinking for themselves. The solution is therefore to think for yourself, only for real this time. Cue warning alarms.
Any strategy whose reaction to failure is to do the same thing again, but harder, is past dysfunctional and well into the self-reinforcing deathspiral zone. Dudes in trenches mowing down your infantry with machine guns? Try again with more troops. People complaining about totalitarian government? Censor the whiners. Centrally planned economy leaving millions in poverty? Get better economic planners. Lassez-faire market policies poisoning the food and water supply? Cut the regulations stifling environmentally friendly businesses.
At that point, you don't have a rational position, you have insane religious zeal. Any instance of failure can be attributed to the fetish in question being insufficiently applied. "Think For Yourself" has a "too much of a good thing" point like everything else. There are real risks with letting people do their own thinking; there's a very good chance that they'll come up with a crazy, wrong, or just plain dangerous idea. The kindergarten values of 'sharing' and 'caring' are preventing us from becoming rationally self-interested supermen. Congenital defects can be prevented by sterilizing high-risk demographics. Ecological balance can be achieved by cutting 2/3rds of the human population. A one-party state solves the problem of divisive partisan politics.
It would be absurd to deny the real benefits to "Think For Yourself". It is equally absurd to deny the risks. Blindly promoting TFY, regardless of circumstance, is simply not a sane strategy. You may be thick-skinned enough to stomach dissenting opinions. You may even be wise enough to learn from them. But to assert that thinking for oneself is always a Good, no matter what, is to assert that being murdered is acceptable provided the attack is carried out by a self-radicalized terrorist. Maximizing freedom of thought without the commensurate increase in violence requires more restrictions on behaviour, not less. This is not to say that we've necessarily hit the "too many individuals thinking too much for themselves" point. Society can probably withstand a lot more internal tension before spontaneous ideological violence overtakes everyday institutional violence. Self-radicalized terrorists have so far mostly been unhinged in one way or another to start with; we don't need to really worry until neurotypical everymen start popping. (Maybe our rallying cry should be "Think for yourself, schmuck, and take all medications as prescribed!" ?)
For everyone who isn't up for pushing creative-destructive Discord to the absolute razor's edge, though, none of this is a problem. All you have to do is Stop Encouraging People To Think For Themselves. (SEPTIT; now accepting submissions for a catchier call-to-action.) Encouraging everyone to think for themselves because you think it will create allies for you is like installing democracies in the Middle East because you think they will spontaneously elect friendly governments that provide your country with a steady supply of oil -- what you actually get is a theofascist out to ruin your day. You probably just wanted people to think less like the mainstream and more like you. In that case, telling them to think for themselves is generally counterproductive; you'd be better served having better propaganda than the other guy than by teaching anything as destructive as critical thinking.
TFYS isn't a One Rule to End All Rules. It's fed and supported by other reasonable and intelligent behaviors.
You are correct in being worried that people will think for themselves some terrible ideas.
I think the reason discordians encourage people to think for themselves is not that we want more people to think like us. We know perfectly well that there is a real risk of universal ideological clusterfuck this century, and that will definitely make life more difficult for everyone (be they mainstream, reactionaries, fundamentalists, whatever).
However, I think the extra difficulty will not be evenly distributed. We can probably withstand environments much more batshit crazy than our direct memetic competitors (The Machine, the Free Thinkers), and that's why we are (or rather, I am) trying to accelerate the ideological eschaton.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on November 05, 2012, 04:16:22 AM
You are correct in being worried that people will think for themselves some terrible ideas.
I think the reason discordians encourage people to think for themselves is not that we want more people to think like us. We know perfectly well that there is a real risk of universal ideological clusterfuck this century, and that will definitely make life more difficult for everyone (be they mainstream, reactionaries, fundamentalists, whatever).
However, I think the extra difficulty will not be evenly distributed. We can probably withstand environments much more batshit crazy than our direct memetic competitors (The Machine, the Free Thinkers), and that's why we are (or rather, I am) trying to accelerate the ideological eschaton.
There's two ways to take that last sentence. The way I read it first (and probably not what you meant) is that as a highly educated white person, I'm unlikely to be offed by someone who Thinks For Himself and decides that a race war is coming and preemtive strike is best strike... which would make Discordianism yet another crazy religion that only works for sheltered white cis-dudes. Not trying to put words in your mouth; I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant.
The other reading is that Discordians & allies are just better at critical thinking than everyone else (which would demand a big CITATION NEEDED), so pulling out all the supports so everyone has to default to MANUAL helps them over others somehow. Even if that were true - and it seems equivalent to passing out hand grenades to everyone in a bar fight on the basis that your friends are more shrapnel-proof then the other guys - The Machine doesn't just fall over if there isn't some minimum level of consensus reality. If anything, The Machine thrives on Batshit Times, because that's when it's members are most willing to sic the riot squad on anything insufficiently photogenic.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on November 05, 2012, 04:38:07 AM
If anything, The Machine thrives on Batshit Times, because that's when it's members are most willing to sic the riot squad on anything insufficiently photogenic.
Reactionaries can become a very big problem in the weird times. Somehow I hadn't realized that until I read your post, so thanks for pointing it out.
However, I have to say that your plan to stop encouraging people to think for themselves causes me the same feeling of uneasiness that your first interpretation of my previous post caused you. Like discordianism is a religion that can only work for well-educated upper middle class people. Hey, maybe that's true, regardless of how I feel about it.
I think that maybe a big implied but unstated element of "Think For Yourself" involves critical thinking. Critical thinking examines sources for credibility and ideas for plausibility; it isn't enough to merely think for oneself, but also important to know when to agree with someone else who has more or better quality information.
Quote from: CAKE on November 05, 2012, 06:06:58 AM
I think that maybe a big implied but unstated element of "Think For Yourself" involves critical thinking. Critical thinking examines sources for credibility and ideas for plausibility; it isn't enough to merely think for oneself, but also important to know when to agree with someone else who has more or better quality information.
I think the problem with Think for Yourself is that it's too self-centered. Like you say, other people are often better informed than you, and you should listen to them.
Perhaps we should encourage people to Think more, period. Unfortunately, "thinking more" sounds like hard work, and it doesn't make you feel like a very special snowflake the way "think for yourself" does.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on November 05, 2012, 07:53:36 AM
Quote from: CAKE on November 05, 2012, 06:06:58 AM
I think that maybe a big implied but unstated element of "Think For Yourself" involves critical thinking. Critical thinking examines sources for credibility and ideas for plausibility; it isn't enough to merely think for oneself, but also important to know when to agree with someone else who has more or better quality information.
I think the problem with Think for Yourself is that it's too self-centered. Like you say, other people are often better informed than you, and you should listen to them.
Perhaps we should encourage people to Think more, period. Unfortunately, "thinking more" sounds like hard work, and it doesn't make you feel like a very special snowflake the way "think for yourself" does.
When people say "think for yourself" it often feels like they're giving an instruction to the Other People. I fall into the same trap of doing this, but I do try to remind myself that its my job to think for myself, and other people will be ready to do the same when they're ready.
I think a lot of this is kind of wankified nitpicking based on the ways people can misinterpret "Think For Yourself" if they try hard enough. Sure, people can interpret it to mean they should go in a contrarian direction just to avoid agreeing with other people's thinking, but a reaction against someone else's thinking is not really thinking for oneself. "Think for yourself" is pretty straightforward; it exhorts the listener, simply, to not blindly obey nor to seek a guru to follow, but to engage thought and make informed decisions based not on simple directives but on what they find, after consideration, to be true. It's not inherently selfish nor inherently altruistic. Thinking for yourself is not rejecting the input of other people; it is simply not allowing other people to do your thinking for you.
Besides, TFY,S! isn't exactly the same thing as modern skepticism. Thinking for yourself may or may not arrive at the same (or even a "true") conclusion. TFY,S! doesn't require Aristotelian logic, arriving at a "God does/does not exist". As long as its really the individual actually thinking for themselves, God, no god, the nine legged Jesus, Eris, Roger's Great Bowel could all be legitimate possibilities.
Question everything means question everything... and once you question observation by humans, then science can appear as 'maybe' as anything else.
Well... maybe.
When most people say TFYS, they really mean Think Like Me.
I don't. I want stupid people to think their stupid thoughts for themselves, too. I like the idea of people running around using their brains with no instruction or even adult supervision.
yeah, the OP runs into an immediate problem when it seems to assume that TFYS is an attempt to make the world a better place. :lulz:
I'm with Roger. I just want everyone to bring their own brand of crazy and/or stupid to the table.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 05, 2012, 03:47:34 PM
yeah, the OP runs into an immediate problem when it assumes we're interested in making the world a better place. :lulz:
This.
I just want the world to be weird. I DON'T want everyone running around thinking clearly.
Quote from: CAKE on November 05, 2012, 06:06:58 AM
I think that maybe a big implied but unstated element of "Think For Yourself" involves critical thinking. Critical thinking examines sources for credibility and ideas for plausibility; it isn't enough to merely think for oneself, but also important to know when to agree with someone else who has more or better quality information.
Quote from: CAKE on November 05, 2012, 11:51:46 AM
I think a lot of this is kind of wankified nitpicking based on the ways people can misinterpret "Think For Yourself" if they try hard enough. Sure, people can interpret it to mean they should go in a contrarian direction just to avoid agreeing with other people's thinking, but a reaction against someone else's thinking is not really thinking for oneself. "Think for yourself" is pretty straightforward; it exhorts the listener, simply, to not blindly obey nor to seek a guru to follow, but to engage thought and make informed decisions based not on simple directives but on what they find, after consideration, to be true. It's not inherently selfish nor inherently altruistic. Thinking for yourself is not rejecting the input of other people; it is simply not allowing other people to do your thinking for you.
Both excellent points, Nigel, and I agree with you - that's exactly what real Thinking For Yourself looks like. In particular, thinking for yourself without critical thinking isn't really thinking at all.
Like Rat, though, I find that thinking for yourself is not proof against coming to sophomoric conclusions. You can do all the right analysis, and still end up wrong. Thinking for yourself is an extremely important component of being less wrong, but it's not the only thing.
Quote from: chimes on November 05, 2012, 04:02:51 AM
TFYS isn't a One Rule to End All Rules. It's fed and supported by other reasonable and intelligent behaviors.
All I disagree with is the notion that enough TFYS the solution to any problem. Here's another component: taboo and socialization.
(apologies for essay format)
It's telling that we teach our children "no biting", "no stealing", and "no lying" before we teach them critical thought. There's an element of selfish paternalism there; it's easier for teachers to preside over well-behaved children than it is to wrangle smart alecks. (The biological factor - humans grow sharp teeth well before their brain can handle serious thinking - is also present, but is insufficient to explain everything.) As a society, we value critical thinking in detectives, doctors, researchers, and literary critics, but for the important stuff - how we interact with each other, what resources are fair game, where you may place your penis / what may be placed in your vagina - we fall back on social pressure, institutional indoctrination, and propaganda. Most human decision making happens at the emotional or instinctive levels; we make sure that our neighbors have the Right Values because it's just too risky to let them decide for themselves - however critically - if there is a moral imperative to protect (your) socially-constructed property rights. Even the most liberal campuses have variations on "No Means No" campaigns. They don't have seminars where they invite students to dissect all sides of the issue with a critical eye, they bring in the big guns of Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, Shame, and Authority because rape is too fucking important to screw around with. Any dean who decided to hold "Rape: Teach the Controversy" sessions instead would be pressured out of office, and rightly so, even if his justification was that the truth has nothing to fear from analysis and that anything less was condescending to his students. That's extremely optimistic, and either puts a lot of confidence in the ability of critically-thinking students to come to his own conclusions at the end (the "when I say think for yourself I mean think like me" approach) or is dangerously cavalier about his charges ending up with the Wrong Values on their own (implying that the dean is willing to be wrong on this issue).
This is the value of taboo: it gives you a firm grounding from which you can explore without messing up something important. My (Catholic) high-school teachers used to use the euphemism "life-giving" to describe religions and cultures that, while not necessarily Christian, fulfilled the basic criteria and were therefore tolerable. You could critically examine any faith you liked, provided that it respected and encouraged growth into your fullness as a rational, emotional, social, and spiritual being. On the other hand, any religion that tries to isolate you from your family or encourages mutilation and suicide is a dangerous cult and can be dismissed out of hand, without bothering to examine the specifics of its doctrine. With those boundaries in place, you can explore as much as you want without having to worry about doing something irreversible. Freedom within strict boundaries, which TGRR is going to argue eloquently is not freedom at all, but if those boundaries weren't there the options would have been Catholicism or ostracization.
Here's a more concrete example: anybody remember the then-Harvard President saying stuff about innate gender differences explaining gender ratios in high academia back in 2005? The full transcript, in which he says a number of very ignorant things, was released eventually, but the immediate media coverage and fallout was mostly based on rememberings of his argument that boys have a higher variance in intelligence than girls. This does not mean that boys are smarter than girls, but it would imply that the top .1% (and the bottom .1%) is disproportionately male. It's well documented that boys have substantially higher rates of autism and other kinds of retardation; it's not completely insane to suggest a similar gender bias at the opposite end of the spectrum. There were some who wanted to have a serious public discussion about his theory, and those who argued that academic freedom includes the freedom to be wrong on emotional issues, but the majority came down on the side that so public of a figure at such a respected institution could not be allowed to be critical of a central tenet of equality. An honest public discussion about the neurological and statistical basis for the Aptitude Variance Hypothesis (or lack thereof) detracts from the important issue of gender equality in academia. I'm arguing that the mainstream feminist response - which mostly attempted to stifle that discourse with blanket accusations of sexism, calls for his resignation, and more SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP than you can fit in a letter to the editor - was not entirely wrong, even if it was a little intellectually dishonest and paternalistic. The importance of everybody understanding that they are not allowed to think that men are smarter than women outweighs the risk of potentially undermining that message with the uncertain investigation into the goopy mess that is developmental neurobiology.
Quote from: Reverend Roadkill on November 05, 2012, 01:38:34 PM
When most people say TFYS, they really mean Think Like Me.
I don't. I want stupid people to think their stupid thoughts for themselves, too. I like the idea of people running around using their brains with no instruction or even adult supervision.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 05, 2012, 03:47:34 PM
yeah, the OP runs into an immediate problem when it seems to assume that TFYS is an attempt to make the world a better place. :lulz:
I'm with Roger. I just want everyone to bring their own brand of crazy and/or stupid to the table.
I'm not disagreeing with you, it's just that your position falls outside the scope of this argument. When you say TFYS you
mean it, and don't go complaining afterwards about what other people do with their brains. This is more reserved for the people who want everybody else to be egalitarian and stop giving them shit about their lifestyle choices, but say TFYS instead and get confused when their audience turns around and votes Republican.
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! is not the same thing as Let Me Think for Myself!.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on November 05, 2012, 05:38:52 AM
However, I have to say that your plan to stop encouraging people to think for themselves causes me the same feeling of uneasiness that your first interpretation of my previous post caused you.
It makes me uneasy too. One of my personal rules is that whenever I come up with something that feels like it might be off the deep end - like this one - I should do less individual inquiry and go find some smart people to point out where I've gone wrong.
It occurs to me that self-selecting for my dumbest ideas to post on PD does not help my reputation.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on November 06, 2012, 01:34:21 AM
It's telling that we teach our children "no biting", "no stealing", and "no lying" before we teach them critical thought. There's an element of selfish paternalism there; it's easier for teachers to preside over well-behaved children than it is to wrangle smart alecks.
It's also to keep the little bastards from turning into sociopaths.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on November 06, 2012, 01:35:00 AM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on November 05, 2012, 05:38:52 AM
However, I have to say that your plan to stop encouraging people to think for themselves causes me the same feeling of uneasiness that your first interpretation of my previous post caused you.
It makes me uneasy too. One of my personal rules is that whenever I come up with something that feels like it might be off the deep end - like this one - I should do less individual inquiry and go find some smart people to point out where I've gone wrong.
It occurs to me that self-selecting for my dumbest ideas to post on PD does not help my reputation.
Oh, I dunno. Posting about what great guys the KKK are was fucking
inspired.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on November 06, 2012, 01:34:43 AM
Quote from: Reverend Roadkill on November 05, 2012, 01:38:34 PM
When most people say TFYS, they really mean Think Like Me.
I don't. I want stupid people to think their stupid thoughts for themselves, too. I like the idea of people running around using their brains with no instruction or even adult supervision.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 05, 2012, 03:47:34 PM
yeah, the OP runs into an immediate problem when it seems to assume that TFYS is an attempt to make the world a better place. :lulz:
I'm with Roger. I just want everyone to bring their own brand of crazy and/or stupid to the table.
I'm not disagreeing with you, it's just that your position falls outside the scope of this argument. When you say TFYS you mean it, and don't go complaining afterwards about what other people do with their brains. This is more reserved for the people who want everybody else to be egalitarian and stop giving them shit about their lifestyle choices, but say TFYS instead and get confused when their audience turns around and votes Republican.
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! is not the same thing as Let Me Think for Myself!.
No, how is that confusing? The world is full of stupid people. Some of MY ideas may appear stupid to some people. I'm not going to stop thinking for myself because they don't like what I think, nor am I going to ask someone dumb enough to vote republican to stop thinking. This ain't Jonestown, do whatever the fuck you please.
Doesn't mean I'm not going to make fun of you for it. Hypothetically speaking.
Quote from: Reverend Roadkill on November 06, 2012, 01:46:05 AM
Oh, I dunno. Posting about what great guys the KKK are was fucking inspired.
Case in point - maintaining a united front against slavery and the KKK is more important than countenancing an attempt to drive a critical discussion about how a Southerner might feel slighted and victimized post Civil War without depriving him of his agency as a human being, even if you have to distort the other guy's position and reach for peer-pressure shame tactics to do it. A pro-TFYS-in-every-circumstance radical would have been willing to suspend the racism taboo for the sake a discussion because he values human inquiry over anything and everything else, including the pragmatic utility of making very sure that nobody could possibly walk away from a forum thread with the impression that the very real horrors of the white supremacy movement were any less than they were.
Sorry, that came out more sarcastic than I meant it.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on November 06, 2012, 02:23:58 AM
Quote from: Reverend Roadkill on November 06, 2012, 01:46:05 AM
Oh, I dunno. Posting about what great guys the KKK are was fucking inspired.
Case in point - maintaining a united front against slavery and the KKK is more important than countenancing an attempt to drive a critical discussion about how a Southerner might feel slighted and victimized post Civil War without depriving him of his agency as a human being, even if you have to distort the other guy's position and reach for peer-pressure shame tactics to do it. A pro-TFYS-in-every-circumstance radical would have been willing to suspend the racism taboo for the sake a discussion because he values human inquiry over anything and everything else, including the pragmatic utility of making very sure that nobody could possibly walk away from a forum thread with the impression that the very real horrors of the white supremacy movement were any less than they were.
Racial what?
I just think they're dumbfucks. I still get to laugh at dumbfucks.
GA, I am getting the impression that your real point is buried deep within an obfuscating semantical argument about a relatively irrelevant PD catchphrase. Want to pony up and make your actual point in plain words?
I agree with Nigel, TFY,S imo is a different point I think. Rational, logical thought may or may not jive with thinking for yourself.
Quote from: CAKE on November 06, 2012, 08:01:59 AM
GA, I am getting the impression that your real point is buried deep within an obfuscating semantical argument about a relatively irrelevant PD catchphrase. Want to pony up and make your actual point in plain words?
Coming out of Humanist (I think?) ideals is a very high value on the freedom of thought/opinion and exercising it. Telling someone what to think ranges from disrespectful to the worst kind of tyranny; instead of teaching people what to think, a true education teaches people how to think better (by which they usually mean rational/critical/logical thought, although Rat is correct in pointing out that there are other important modes of thought.)
The tension there is that those same people usually have lots of other ideals that they think would be nice if adopted more widely. But they can't just tell people to stop being racist or creationist or whatever, because that would be telling people what to think. So there's an equivalence made between promoting those other ideals and helping people think for themselves. Assertion #1 is that this is a false equivalence; teaching people to think "better" and respecting their freedom to draw their own conclusions is not the same as, and often in opposition to, whatever other idea or value you have. So TFYS, while important, cannot be the only component of driving whatever social change you want. (And
nobody is entirely satisfied with the status quo.)
If getting everyone to think for themselves is insufficient, then something else is required. Assertion #2 is that there is value in the tools of thought-control, which range from social pressure and ridicule to indoctrination and outright propaganda, in preventing people from seriously considering certain positions on certain topics. This is the social level of thought. Participating in social thought on the receiving end means knowing when to mistrust your own ideas and seek outside guidance (which may even be a component of TFYS), but participating on the transmitting side means knowing when to assert the "right" opinion and ensuring that people understand that they aren't allowed to keep thinking in that direction, which is absolutely in conflict with TFYS.
Indoctrinating someone with the 'right' idea is as much of a trap, I think, as failing to think for yourself. We are all cosmic Schmucks (the S bit of TFYS), as Schmucks we often end up believing that we now what is right/best/most important... those are, however, assumptions based on some mix of knowledge, ignorance and subjective experience.
Encouraging people to think for themselves should be, IMO, independent of any attempt to teach them your personal beliefs of right, wrong, good or bad.
Mixing the two seems like a trap on both sides. The convincer is falling into a trap of believing they are right and should pass on the true knowledge... while the other schmuck is getting told what to believe within the trapping of being taught to think freely.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on November 06, 2012, 01:30:15 PM
Quote from: CAKE on November 06, 2012, 08:01:59 AM
GA, I am getting the impression that your real point is buried deep within an obfuscating semantical argument about a relatively irrelevant PD catchphrase. Want to pony up and make your actual point in plain words?
Coming out of Humanist (I think?) ideals is a very high value on the freedom of thought/opinion and exercising it. Telling someone what to think ranges from disrespectful to the worst kind of tyranny; instead of teaching people what to think, a true education teaches people how to think better (by which they usually mean rational/critical/logical thought, although Rat is correct in pointing out that there are other important modes of thought.)
The tension there is that those same people usually have lots of other ideals that they think would be nice if adopted more widely. But they can't just tell people to stop being racist or creationist or whatever, because that would be telling people what to think. So there's an equivalence made between promoting those other ideals and helping people think for themselves. Assertion #1 is that this is a false equivalence; teaching people to think "better" and respecting their freedom to draw their own conclusions is not the same as, and often in opposition to, whatever other idea or value you have. So TFYS, while important, cannot be the only component of driving whatever social change you want. (And nobody is entirely satisfied with the status quo.)
If getting everyone to think for themselves is insufficient, then something else is required. Assertion #2 is that there is value in the tools of thought-control, which range from social pressure and ridicule to indoctrination and outright propaganda, in preventing people from seriously considering certain positions on certain topics. This is the social level of thought. Participating in social thought on the receiving end means knowing when to mistrust your own ideas and seek outside guidance (which may even be a component of TFYS), but participating on the transmitting side means knowing when to assert the "right" opinion and ensuring that people understand that they aren't allowed to keep thinking in that direction, which is absolutely in conflict with TFYS.
So... just trying to tease the plainspeak out of the tap-dancing here... the problem you have is when people tell others to think for themselves
instead of just flat telling them they think they're wrong?
Having an introspective temperment, it shouldn't be surprising that I take the TFYS to be a personal, internal struggle.
In Thinking Fast and Slow (which I finally finished, and I believe Can and I agreed to offer up a critique of it at some point), it was shown in a series of experiments that when faced with a difficult question that would require effort and energy (physical energy -- the brain sucks up a lot of resources when it's focusing hard on a problem), a natural tendency for people is to substitute an easier question in its place without conciously realizing they're doing it.
So, my interpretation of TFYS is the struggle to actually think about the matter at hand, and not resort to substitutions, fallacies, heuristics or biases to answer the question for me.
I still have my notes on Slow and Fast Thinking. Though it should be noted most of my notes were taken for the purposes of finding how to more easily manipulate others perceptions than necessarily just improving my own.
My impression of GA's argument is this;
Thinking for yourself is not to be held up on a pedistal of intellectual awesomeness. It's problematic that (in my opinion in the same way as 'just be yourself' isn't on its own always good advice) TFYS is such a commonly bandied about phrase/idea because it implkies that doing so is enough to make all the smart thinkings and good choices happen. The phrase TFYS doesn't in itself imply the importance of other thinking skills that we need.
People say THINK FOR YOURSELF with the implication that independent thought = good thought, and that's problematic.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on November 08, 2012, 01:04:54 PM
My impression of GA's argument is this;
Thinking for yourself is not to be held up on a pedistal of intellectual awesomeness. It's problematic that (in my opinion in the same way as 'just be yourself' isn't on its own always good advice) TFYS is such a commonly bandied about phrase/idea because it implkies that doing so is enough to make all the smart thinkings and good choices happen. The phrase TFYS doesn't in itself imply the importance of other thinking skills that we need.
People say THINK FOR YOURSELF with the implication that independent thought = good thought, and that's problematic.
I say it with the implication that your stupidity* is not my problem.
*not you personally, the general "you".
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 07, 2012, 01:19:14 PM
Having an introspective temperment, it shouldn't be surprising that I take the TFYS to be a personal, internal struggle.
In Thinking Fast and Slow (which I finally finished, and I believe Can and I agreed to offer up a critique of it at some point), it was shown in a series of experiments that when faced with a difficult question that would require effort and energy (physical energy -- the brain sucks up a lot of resources when it's focusing hard on a problem), a natural tendency for people is to substitute an easier question in its place without conciously realizing they're doing it.
So, my interpretation of TFYS is the struggle to actually think about the matter at hand, and not resort to substitutions, fallacies, heuristics or biases to answer the question for me.
I basically agree with you, but I think it's important to draw a line between valuing thinking for yourself as a method of being less wrong than you would have been with all of the standard biases and valuing thinking for yourself as its own end. Heuristics and biases aren't intrinsically bad; the problem with them is that if you don't pay attention to what biases you're walking around with you eventually end up with a really dysfunctional set of them. "Thinking for yourself" describes the task of grooming & pruning your own biases so that your automatic, unthinking responses work for you. A state where all decisions are made manually seems about as desirable as having to consciously control your heartbeat.
So then perhaps we're really discussing two separate "TFY" concepts?
There's the TFY which is code for "You're brainwashed, thats why you came to conclusion Y. If you think for your self you will come to conclusion X.
Then there is TFY,S! which is more about actual independent thought, questioning everything and expunging as much bias as possible. Conclusions may not be the goal... perhaps its more about thinking about, questioning and poking at all thought and all bias.
Bias and heuristics can be useful in making the decision making process automatic... but even well groomed biases and heuristics won't necessarily point you in the direction of the 'truth'/right answer... for varying values of truth and right ;-)
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 10, 2012, 09:32:28 AM
So then perhaps we're really discussing two separate "TFY" concepts?
There's the TFY which is code for "You're brainwashed, thats why you came to conclusion Y. If you think for your self you will come to conclusion X.
Then there is TFY,S! which is more about actual independent thought, questioning everything and expunging as much bias as possible. Conclusions may not be the goal... perhaps its more about thinking about, questioning and poking at all thought and all bias.
Bias and heuristics can be useful in making the decision making process automatic... but even well groomed biases and heuristics won't necessarily point you in the direction of the 'truth'/right answer... for varying values of truth and right ;-)
The S in TFY,S could have some nice implications too. Is the person being told to TFY because they're a schmuck or is the schmuck the nature of any one of us, to be realised and acknowledged through critical thought. From Bob Wilson to Crowley ' the fool' has been a strong archetype in philosophy and occult.
Horriffically overthinking it itt. I regret nothing.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 07, 2012, 01:19:14 PM
Having an introspective temperment, it shouldn't be surprising that I take the TFYS to be a personal, internal struggle.
In Thinking Fast and Slow (which I finally finished, and I believe Can and I agreed to offer up a critique of it at some point), it was shown in a series of experiments that when faced with a difficult question that would require effort and energy (physical energy -- the brain sucks up a lot of resources when it's focusing hard on a problem), a natural tendency for people is to substitute an easier question in its place without conciously realizing they're doing it.
So, my interpretation of TFYS is the struggle to actually think about the matter at hand, and not resort to substitutions, fallacies, heuristics or biases to answer the question for me.
That explains so, so , so much.
Quote from: CAKE on November 10, 2012, 03:40:50 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 07, 2012, 01:19:14 PM
Having an introspective temperment, it shouldn't be surprising that I take the TFYS to be a personal, internal struggle.
In Thinking Fast and Slow (which I finally finished, and I believe Can and I agreed to offer up a critique of it at some point), it was shown in a series of experiments that when faced with a difficult question that would require effort and energy (physical energy -- the brain sucks up a lot of resources when it's focusing hard on a problem), a natural tendency for people is to substitute an easier question in its place without conciously realizing they're doing it.
So, my interpretation of TFYS is the struggle to actually think about the matter at hand, and not resort to substitutions, fallacies, heuristics or biases to answer the question for me.
That explains so, so , so much.
Agreed. I hadn't really thought about it before. One more thing to consider when posting a response... Am I thinking of the same question, or an easier one. I think I fell victim to that in the porn/prostitution discussion.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 10, 2012, 06:43:32 PM
Quote from: CAKE on November 10, 2012, 03:40:50 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 07, 2012, 01:19:14 PM
Having an introspective temperment, it shouldn't be surprising that I take the TFYS to be a personal, internal struggle.
In Thinking Fast and Slow (which I finally finished, and I believe Can and I agreed to offer up a critique of it at some point), it was shown in a series of experiments that when faced with a difficult question that would require effort and energy (physical energy -- the brain sucks up a lot of resources when it's focusing hard on a problem), a natural tendency for people is to substitute an easier question in its place without conciously realizing they're doing it.
So, my interpretation of TFYS is the struggle to actually think about the matter at hand, and not resort to substitutions, fallacies, heuristics or biases to answer the question for me.
That explains so, so , so much.
Agreed. I hadn't really thought about it before. One more thing to consider when posting a response... Am I thinking of the same question, or an easier one. I think I fell victim to that in the porn/prostitution discussion.
I just dropped out of an insanely irritating conversation on my housemate's FB page because one of his friends absolutely cannot address the point from the OP. I don't think his brain will allow him to actually look directly at it.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 10, 2012, 09:32:28 AM
Then there is TFY,S! which is more about actual independent thought, questioning everything and expunging as much bias as possible. Conclusions may not be the goal... perhaps its more about thinking about, questioning and poking at all thought and all bias.
I might be coming at this from too utilitarian of an angle. I think of TFY as something that has both pragmatic benefits and as something that's fun to do in its own right, like higher math and strategy games. You certainly need some minimum level of math to function effectively, but it would be weird and selfish to convince people to learn higher math just because I personally enjoy it.
I see the value in practicing independent thought, but it doesn't follow from that that other forms of thought are valueless. I think it's an error to disregard the "social mode" of thinking - humans are social animals, and social signaling matters. People really do soak up thoughts and opinions just as they emit them, and that's okay. That's how people work.
As an individual, you can improve on this somewhat by being selective as to which ideas you internalize. As a member of society, you can improve on this somewhat by being selective as to which ideas you encourage or discourage in others. Everyone does both all the time; to a greater or lesser degree, we think for each other, in a very literal sense. It isn't something that can be avoided short of dropping out of society, and even that has the "silence indicates approval" thing going.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's a zero sum activity, but there is a tension between how much of an individual's thought is "independent" vs. how much is "recieved" - by socializing each other, we leave each other less room to think for ourselves. That's a conflict we should recognize and be mindful of, and not try to cheat with simple answers like "never tell someone else what to think." I don't think any quantitative solution ("think this much for yourself, accept this much opinion from other people, and do that much shaping of others' opinions") will work, actually.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on November 12, 2012, 04:34:45 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 10, 2012, 09:32:28 AM
Then there is TFY,S! which is more about actual independent thought, questioning everything and expunging as much bias as possible. Conclusions may not be the goal... perhaps its more about thinking about, questioning and poking at all thought and all bias.
I might be coming at this from too utilitarian of an angle. I think of TFY as something that has both pragmatic benefits and as something that's fun to do in its own right, like higher math and strategy games. You certainly need some minimum level of math to function effectively, but it would be weird and selfish to convince people to learn higher math just because I personally enjoy it.
I see the value in practicing independent thought, but it doesn't follow from that that other forms of thought are valueless. I think it's an error to disregard the "social mode" of thinking - humans are social animals, and social signaling matters. People really do soak up thoughts and opinions just as they emit them, and that's okay. That's how people work.
As an individual, you can improve on this somewhat by being selective as to which ideas you internalize. As a member of society, you can improve on this somewhat by being selective as to which ideas you encourage or discourage in others. Everyone does both all the time; to a greater or lesser degree, we think for each other, in a very literal sense. It isn't something that can be avoided short of dropping out of society, and even that has the "silence indicates approval" thing going.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's a zero sum activity, but there is a tension between how much of an individual's thought is "independent" vs. how much is "recieved" - by socializing each other, we leave each other less room to think for ourselves. That's a conflict we should recognize and be mindful of, and not try to cheat with simple answers like "never tell someone else what to think." I don't think any quantitative solution ("think this much for yourself, accept this much opinion from other people, and do that much shaping of others' opinions") will work, actually.
Who is telling anyone to disregard the social mode?
I am wondering where this idea that "Think for yourself, Schmuck" is an exhortation to disregard social norms (different from the social mode, really) and authority input (where "authority" is defined as a person or persons who has studied a subject in depth and reported their findings) in favor of opinions formed in a vacuum on one's lonesome has come from. GA, do you have any examples of what you are objecting to that you can share?
Quote from: CAKE on November 12, 2012, 04:45:46 AM
I am wondering where this idea that "Think for yourself, Schmuck" is an exhortation to disregard social norms (different from the social mode, really) and authority input (where "authority" is defined as a person or persons who has studied a subject in depth and reported their findings) in favor of opinions formed in a vacuum on one's lonesome has come from.
Paul of Tarsus.
Or someone very much like him.
I think the "disregard social norms" bit can be rephrased as, "don't believe something only because someone else said it."
It's kind of an extention of the fifth Pentabarf (forbidden to believe anything they read).
From a Bayesean perspective, it means, "don't forget your priors".
Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify."
Less Wrong says, "how do you know what you know?" or something to that effect.