I think, in a way, you’re giving many of these people too much credit.
Belief in Belief (as Dennett used it, anyway) was usually meant to mean that the person didn’t themselves “really” believe the thing, they know it’s not true, but instead they think it’s useful for other people to believe it - and so they will do things in accordance with making other people “really” believe it; things such as saying “this is true”. I don’t think most people are nearly this strategic.
Instead, I think this is more a case of “social beliefs”. Social beliefs are beliefs that are indistinguishable from non-social beliefs but only “become true” under certain social conditions. These “beliefs” feel just as true to their hosts as “normal” beliefs, the only difference being where/when they become activated. “Social beliefs” made it a lot easier for humans to form into coalitions, so we became very good at doing this, even when these beliefs seem to directly contradict other beliefs we also hold in our heads, sometimes even simultaneously.
It’s very hard to act as though you believe something that you don’t actually believe (belief in belief). The cognitive dissonance this creates is painful. Instead, our brains evolved to allow us to hold contradictory beliefs in our heads and “believe them” at different times, ways, or in different conditions. I think this is what we see far more often, including in this case.
This piece is fascinating. I’m also moved by the description of the flat earthers who, upon seeing Antarctica, embraced humility and accepted they were wrong. That is worth celebrating!
People here are probably Terminally Online enough that they've seen at least one of Dan "Folding Ideas" Olson's YT video essays/documentaries, but I think "In Search of a Flat Earth" is one of his best and hits on a lot of these topics.
There's an old saying in the rationalist community, "Politics is the mind-killer." In retrospect, it could have more appropriately been said that "Self-identification is the mind-killer." It is the nature of the human psyche that, once we have have taken an idea to form a core part of our conception of who we are, the mind will instinctively fight any attempt to critique or disprove that idea. Whether that idea is a political ideology, an religious worldview, or even something as simple as the "proper" way to perform a given task.
Better to hold our beliefs and ideologies at arm's length, lest we forgot that they are but tools to be used to interpret the world around us.
"A better description of the underlying motive of the pro-betting position is: To draw a bright line between (a) serious thinkers who measure their words, state their views clearly, and humble themselves before the facts, and (b) frivolous thinkers who exaggerate, state their views vaguely, and feign constant vindication by events.
Why is the line between serious and frivolous thinkers so important to brightly draw? Because frivolous thinkers vastly outnumber serious thinkers, to the point that serious thinkers are difficult to detect. The world of ideas has long been a dreadful cacophony, and the Internet has aggravated this curse a thousand-fold. The Betting Norm greatly mitigates this problem by spurring frivolous voices to silence themselves. This in turn allows serious thinkers to hear each other, learn from each other, make intellectual progress, and credibly publicize their progress."
"I don't answer those questions anymore" seems to rhyme with "do your own research, we're not here to teach you." Which in turn seems to flow directly to "I do my own research." A circle of stupid.
Wouldn't the people in charge of the Round Earth conspiracy be able to fake a trip to Antarctica pretty easily? Maybe they just hypnotised or blackmailed the Flat Earthers who claimed to go there. Far-fetched of course but if you're going to believe in Flat Earth you might as well also believe in UFOs and mind-control rays.
I like this post and thinks it’s right about the existence of “beliefs in beliefs” and also wrong in a black and white fallacy way.
I don’t think it’s true that true believers can be proven wrong and accept it (sometimes) and belief-in-believers definitionally cannot. The latter half, maybe. The former ignores that motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, etc. exist; it seems.
It strikes me that there may be a horseshoe shape here. The hardest people to change the minds of are the staunchest of true believers, because it’s inseparable from who they are (I feel like the very religious form a decent example here) and close, in metaphorical physical space are the people who don’t really believe but feel they have to, as this piece discusses.
Revealed preference is always more accurate than stated. My theory is that everyone is a capitalist. If you don’t think so, go to a Phish Show parking lot and try to pay half price for a veggie burrito
I’m not sure I think the political examples fit. I think the prison abolitionists are simply being hypocritical.
As for the Trump supporters I think it’s possible they were doing the very common thing of saying they believed something because it was the right thing in their circles. However, I also think they and their circle do have a belief. The belief is that Trump is right in everything he does. As that is the core belief the phenomenon here is more similar to what we see in 1984 when people celebrate the sugar ration being reduced ( although, it’s been presented as an increase so it’s not quite the same). It doesn’t only affect politics. A lot of Destiny watchers seem to base their opinions on what he says. Is this belief in belief? Or is it belief that another person is right and they should agree with that person?
I think, in a way, you’re giving many of these people too much credit.
Belief in Belief (as Dennett used it, anyway) was usually meant to mean that the person didn’t themselves “really” believe the thing, they know it’s not true, but instead they think it’s useful for other people to believe it - and so they will do things in accordance with making other people “really” believe it; things such as saying “this is true”. I don’t think most people are nearly this strategic.
Instead, I think this is more a case of “social beliefs”. Social beliefs are beliefs that are indistinguishable from non-social beliefs but only “become true” under certain social conditions. These “beliefs” feel just as true to their hosts as “normal” beliefs, the only difference being where/when they become activated. “Social beliefs” made it a lot easier for humans to form into coalitions, so we became very good at doing this, even when these beliefs seem to directly contradict other beliefs we also hold in our heads, sometimes even simultaneously.
It’s very hard to act as though you believe something that you don’t actually believe (belief in belief). The cognitive dissonance this creates is painful. Instead, our brains evolved to allow us to hold contradictory beliefs in our heads and “believe them” at different times, ways, or in different conditions. I think this is what we see far more often, including in this case.
This piece is fascinating. I’m also moved by the description of the flat earthers who, upon seeing Antarctica, embraced humility and accepted they were wrong. That is worth celebrating!
People here are probably Terminally Online enough that they've seen at least one of Dan "Folding Ideas" Olson's YT video essays/documentaries, but I think "In Search of a Flat Earth" is one of his best and hits on a lot of these topics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44
“I think "In Search of a Flat Earth" is one of his best and hits on a lot of these topics.”
Amen. One of the better short films I’ve ever seen online. The mid-script twist was sublime.
There's an old saying in the rationalist community, "Politics is the mind-killer." In retrospect, it could have more appropriately been said that "Self-identification is the mind-killer." It is the nature of the human psyche that, once we have have taken an idea to form a core part of our conception of who we are, the mind will instinctively fight any attempt to critique or disprove that idea. Whether that idea is a political ideology, an religious worldview, or even something as simple as the "proper" way to perform a given task.
Better to hold our beliefs and ideologies at arm's length, lest we forgot that they are but tools to be used to interpret the world around us.
Bryan Caplan:
"A better description of the underlying motive of the pro-betting position is: To draw a bright line between (a) serious thinkers who measure their words, state their views clearly, and humble themselves before the facts, and (b) frivolous thinkers who exaggerate, state their views vaguely, and feign constant vindication by events.
Why is the line between serious and frivolous thinkers so important to brightly draw? Because frivolous thinkers vastly outnumber serious thinkers, to the point that serious thinkers are difficult to detect. The world of ideas has long been a dreadful cacophony, and the Internet has aggravated this curse a thousand-fold. The Betting Norm greatly mitigates this problem by spurring frivolous voices to silence themselves. This in turn allows serious thinkers to hear each other, learn from each other, make intellectual progress, and credibly publicize their progress."
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2013/07/the_silence_of.html
A third category of flat earthers, the dominant one I suspect, is trolls
Two things:
1: because people can't just be stupid, of course.
2: Ironically being a dumbass is worse than actually being a dumbass, because if you're doing it ironically, then that implies that you know better.
One of the best essays I have read this year! Great distillation that should make everyone take a minute to introspectively question their beliefs.
"I don't answer those questions anymore" seems to rhyme with "do your own research, we're not here to teach you." Which in turn seems to flow directly to "I do my own research." A circle of stupid.
Wouldn't the people in charge of the Round Earth conspiracy be able to fake a trip to Antarctica pretty easily? Maybe they just hypnotised or blackmailed the Flat Earthers who claimed to go there. Far-fetched of course but if you're going to believe in Flat Earth you might as well also believe in UFOs and mind-control rays.
I like this post and thinks it’s right about the existence of “beliefs in beliefs” and also wrong in a black and white fallacy way.
I don’t think it’s true that true believers can be proven wrong and accept it (sometimes) and belief-in-believers definitionally cannot. The latter half, maybe. The former ignores that motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, etc. exist; it seems.
It strikes me that there may be a horseshoe shape here. The hardest people to change the minds of are the staunchest of true believers, because it’s inseparable from who they are (I feel like the very religious form a decent example here) and close, in metaphorical physical space are the people who don’t really believe but feel they have to, as this piece discusses.
Perhaps it was all a long con to get a free trip to Antarctica.
Revealed preference is always more accurate than stated. My theory is that everyone is a capitalist. If you don’t think so, go to a Phish Show parking lot and try to pay half price for a veggie burrito
I’m not sure I think the political examples fit. I think the prison abolitionists are simply being hypocritical.
As for the Trump supporters I think it’s possible they were doing the very common thing of saying they believed something because it was the right thing in their circles. However, I also think they and their circle do have a belief. The belief is that Trump is right in everything he does. As that is the core belief the phenomenon here is more similar to what we see in 1984 when people celebrate the sugar ration being reduced ( although, it’s been presented as an increase so it’s not quite the same). It doesn’t only affect politics. A lot of Destiny watchers seem to base their opinions on what he says. Is this belief in belief? Or is it belief that another person is right and they should agree with that person?