http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/10/the-dark-side.html (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/10/the-dark-side.html)
Just an interesting blog article from Overcoming Bias on lying and scales of lying.
A lot of this sounds like powerful trolling theory.
"Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage. Don't do it to anyone unless you'd also slash their tires."
Or torch their website.
According to the OSS, this was a key component of Hitler's personality:
"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."
One of the greatest con-men in history also used it. Count Victor Lustig, the man who sold the Eiffel Tower (twice, no less) believed that if something was improbable, it would more likely be believed because of that improbability. "It couldn't be a con...its just too unlikely." Boldness is the key. He almost got caught out on the first sale, but he asked for a bribe, which just confirmed the idea that he was a poorly paid French civil servant.
Interesting.
QuoteWe are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, & then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.
-George Orwell (1946)
Mistakes were quite possibly made by the administration in which I served.
-Henry Kissinger, reporting to charges that he committed war crimes in his role in the United States' actions in Vietnam, Cambodia, & South America in the 1970's
If, in hindsight, we also discover that mistakes have been made . . . I am deeply sorry.
-Cardinal Edward Egan of NY, referring to the bishops who failed to deal with child molesters among the Catholic clergy
I will look at any additional evidence to confirm the opinion to which I have already come.
-Lord Molson, British politician (1903-1991)
The American Presidency Project www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php provides documented examples of every instance of "mistakes were made" said by American presidents. It's a long list. ...
The above were all from the book Mistakes Were Made (but not by
me),
Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, & Hurtful Acts by Carol Tavris & Eliot Aronson
& this from the Tao Te Ching:
61
When a country obtains great power,
it becomes like the sea:
all streams run downward into it.
The more powerful it grows,
the greater the need for humility.
Humility means trusting the Tao,
thus never needing to be defensive.
A great nation is like a great man:
When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted it, he corrects it.
He considers those who point out his faults
as his most benevolent teachers.
He thinks of his enemy
as the shadow that he himself casts.
If a nation is centered in the Tao,
if it nourishes its own people
and doesn't meddle in the affairs of others,
it will be a light to all nations in the world.
Or you've previously heard the proverb "beliefs require evidence", and it sounded wise enough, and you endorsed it in public. But it never quite occurred to you, until someone else brought it to your attention, that this provreb could apply to your belief that there's a dragon in your garage. So you think fast and say, "The dragon is in a separate magisterium."
SP
Spelling nazi. HEIL GRAMMAR
Goes back and gives Sagan credit.
I hate to tell you this, but there is a dragon in my garage.
Also, give Sagan credit if you're gonna borrow his arguments.
that link led me into a goldmine of interesting links.
also,
QuotePromoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage
This implies the existence of one(1) absolute and knowable reality in wich belief can be (theoretically) perfectly accurate.
This does not combine well with the ability to have multiple maps to switch between at will.
The only way i see this working requires doublethink.
hmm come to think of it, doublethink does not have to be bad.
Quote from: Regret on October 20, 2008, 05:07:17 PM
that link led me into a goldmine of interesting links.
also,
QuotePromoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage
This implies the existence of one(1) absolute and knowable reality in wich belief can be (theoretically) perfectly accurate.
This does not combine well with the ability to have multiple maps to switch between at will.
The only way i see this working requires doublethink.
hmm come to think of it, doublethink does not have to be bad.
"Maximally accurate"
As in, "to the best of my knowlege, combining the information and ignorance I have on this subject, which may change as new information produces itself".
No doublethink needed.
Quote from: Eliezer Yudkowsky
Or you've previously heard the proverb "beliefs require evidence", and it sounded wise enough, and you endorsed it in public. But it never quite occurred to you, until someone else brought it to your attention, that this provreb could apply to your belief that there's a dragon in your garage. So you think fast and say, "The dragon is in a separate magisterium."
Unfortunately, this is utter bullshit.
Your mind is
necessarily and biologically predisposed to form beliefs on minimal cues. They don't need to be accurate, all they need to do is contribute to the believer's survival.
Heuristics spags, have you heard of it?
This guy is projecting what he
wants to be true about the nature of belief without citing evidence.
:lulz:
Where the fuck are this guy's references?
He's a pretentious nutball that's only good for trolling fundies.
I'll give him that much.
The reference is Sagan's "Invisible Dragon" gambit for debunking the paranormal.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
Quote from: LMNO on October 22, 2008, 02:17:01 PM
The reference is Sagan's "Invisible Dragon" gambit for debunking the paranormal.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
Lame fact:
I used that very argument in my AP European History class when we were discussing the Scientific Revolution. "The Invisible Dragon" and I gained some notoriety for that.
I miss that class.
I think it's kinda crap.
At least, when he makes the leap that "lack of ordinary evidence = extraordinary claims are false", it's crap.
Sagan doesn't like to say, "I don't know" very much.
Quote from: LMNO on October 22, 2008, 06:42:14 PM
I think it's kinda crap.
At least, when he makes the leap that "lack of ordinary evidence = extraordinary claims are false", it's crap.
Sagan doesn't like to say, "I don't know" very much.
I've never felt the need to make a reasoned and sound general argument that extraordinary claims are mostly bunk.
Quote from: LMNO on October 22, 2008, 06:42:14 PM
I think it's kinda crap.
At least, when he makes the leap that "lack of ordinary evidence = extraordinary claims are false", it's crap.
Sagan doesn't like to say, "I don't know" very much.
Good point.
What I got out of it was "People can and will shift the goalposts as much as they want, and make it impossible for you to prove them wrong. These people are asshats." I kinda knew that already but thought the argument was colorful and made its point well.
But then, I never finished the book. :oops:
Quote from: Felix on October 22, 2008, 06:45:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 22, 2008, 06:42:14 PM
I think it's kinda crap.
At least, when he makes the leap that "lack of ordinary evidence = extraordinary claims are false", it's crap.
Sagan doesn't like to say, "I don't know" very much.
I've never felt the need to make a reasoned and sound general argument that extraordinary claims are mostly bunk.
At least you said "mostly".
Of course, this also leads into semantic arguments about what "ordinary evidence" and "extraordinary claims" mean.
LMNO
-.....aaaaaaaand QUANTUM.
:lol:
Pretty much. Enough intelligent inquiry will break anything down into the stupidest possible parts.
That's been on my mind a lot today.