From the inside, via introspection, each of us feels that our beliefs are pretty damn sensible. Sure we might harbor a bit of doubt here and there. But for the most part, we imagine we have a firm grip on reality; we don’t lie awake at night fearing that we’re massively deluded.
But when we consider the beliefs of other people? . . .
Later,
I contend that the best way to understand all the crazy beliefs out there — aliens, conspiracies, and all the rest — is to analyze them as crony beliefs. Beliefs that have been “hired” not for the legitimate purpose of accurately modeling the world, but rather for social and political kickbacks.
Still later,
The trouble with people is that they have partial visibility into our minds, and they sometimes reward us for believing falsehoods and/or punish us for believing the truth.
My thoughts:
1. One might suggest that incentives apply only to beliefs that you espouse. You can choose your private beliefs on merit. However, it is hard to maintain a private/public disparity. You might have to reveal your true beliefs at some point. Also, when you espouse something, I think it makes you more inclined to believe it.
2. Of course, all beliefs are socially communicated. One way to rephrase Simler’s thesis is that some beliefs are transmitted via reason and others are transmitted via incentives.
3. It might be hard to avoid proceeding from the insight that beliefs can be affected by incentives to go on to say that well, my beliefs are based on merit but yours are based on incentives. Simler, too, is worried about this. His solution is to recommend embedding oneself in a community where the norms of behavior go against maintaining confidence in beliefs that are affected by incentives. Such a community will create good incentives to counteract bad incentives.
My concern is that we are prone to deceive and to self-deceive. Suppose that economist X at Yale and economist Y at GMU are each convinced that he or she is part of a community that creates good social incentives for shaping one’s beliefs. Yet their beliefs differ. What should we do then? I think Simler would say that in that case we should reward those who have low confidence in their beliefs and punish those who have high confidence. But what if neither the Yale nor the GMU economics department effectively does this?
“we are prone to deceive and to self-deceive.” << this is the biggest tough issue for all those who espouse rational thinking.
'Smart people are all smart enough to lie to themselves and believe their own lies' << this is a key message I got from Barbara Branden's "The Passion of Ayn Rand".
Also, I have moved towards the thought that most people make a decision based on their emotions, and then use their rational thinking to … rationalize that emotional decision, including the lie (to themselves) that it was based on reason.
Childhood morality training and experience has a huge influence on the emotions, especially of young people who have not suffered too many times for their own decisions.
Almost everyone learns from their own mistakes — the wise learn from the mistakes of others.
The social incentives are to believe in Dem PC non-truths; these incentives are most strong in US Universities today, but fairly strong in TV & movies, too.
I liked that post, lots of standard rationalist thinking. I think there needs to be a wider ecosystem though. Consider for example, believing in an afterlife. This is a classic rent-paying belief for a lot of people because it allows them to cope with all sorts of stuff, but it falls outside of the merit/crony dichotomy. I don’t think people adopt such a belief either to posture or to navigate the world
What about my libertarian beliefs? I get no social benefits, no incentives. All I get from them are loneliness, anxiety, and depression!
1) Be a little more introspective, I’m sure you’ll find some benefits.
2) There is no guarantee our beliefs make us happier. Our environment is shifting very rapidly and your evolutionary instincts aren’t. Maybe “be a libertarian” is the equivalent of “fat and sugar are widely available?!? gorge yourself to fatten up for the long hard winter ahead!”
You get HUGE benefits: the Dems are dumb on economics, the Reps are dumb on social freedom issues! Most folk are much, much dumber than the (usually quite lonely) Libertarians.
You can be friends with both Reps & Dems, and agree with them where you agree that the other side is dumb.
However, the folk I most enjoyed hanging out with and living a real life with — were seldom L-Libs, tho often small-l libs voting for Reps, or occasionally laughers at Libs voting for Dems.
I continue to believe that Lib policies, if enacted and enforced, would result in the greatest economic wealth creation and the most personal freedom. Switzerland is my personal model for this, especially with referendums on tax increases.
Yet RealPolitik means that “Libs” won’t usually have the gov’t power, and Lib secularism / atheism means, in practice, an amorality that easily drifts into supporting immorality. Libs in general, and Ayn Rand in particular, have difficulty in social policy with dependents: kids and the elderly.
The great SF Lib author Heinlein is also w/o kids, and 3 marriages, last 2 “open”, is a bit deficient in how to raise actual kids.