I do not value people who change their mind frequently because they cannot think for themselves.
The last decade has really shown to me that people do not think for themselves. The devastating effect of the great depression changed Keynes mind and he adapted his theories to it, you would think the same would happen for significant events that have happened recently too.
Dogmatists: unthinking, inflexible
Weathervanes: unthinking, flexible
Skeptics: thinking, inflexible
Pragmatists: thinking, flexible
The names are adhoc and should be taken with a grain of salt. The thinkingness axis we can attach a notion of good/bad to, since it is generally better to think things through than not.
Flexibility, not so much, but we can contrast the skeptic’s “I need more information before I can make a judgment” to the pragmatist’s “how can I use this right now?” and apply this to our workplaces. Certainly some of us are more skeptical than pragmatic, and vice versa.
I took this to mean: “weathervanes” are people who attach themselves to some popular sentiment without giving it much thought.
You could call them trendies, or in cybercultural terms: NPC, I SUPPORT THE CURRENT THING, etc
Dogma is -- by its very denotation -- inflexible. Partisans have no issue with flexibility.
It's a paradox because dogmatism typically implies a fixed perspective, whereas a refusal to be dogmatic typically suggests an openness to various perspectives.
Of the one, or that fiery death that never ends
To the heart of its description
Go through great changing of conciseness
It becomes what becomes the lesser, not to much more and not of us.
And without whining (or any sad crap)
One crappy song, you know is very much like this place
Goes the same way and that is:
“Thanks to you, and me, it’s super awesome!
I’m leaving all the bad times behind.“Full contrarianism would be to reject the dogmatic beliefs. "If authority X claims it is true, it must be wrong." You would seek out beliefs that are in opposition to the dogma.
But not being dogmatic might just be aiming for immunity to dogma? "Whatever authority X claims is irrelevant." You might try to evaluate ideas on your own and form beliefs that are uncorrelated with the dogma.
I forgot to mention a third form of "not being dogmatic" which is closer to my own idiomatic understanding of the phrase. Rather than focusing on your consumption or reaction to prevailing dogma, it is also a useful not to try to be a source of dogma. Don't consider your own beliefs to be "facts" and don't try to become an authority who promotes or evangelizes a new prevailing dogma...
[1] https://kasmana.people.cofc.edu/MATHFICT/mfview.php?callnumb...
Skepticals are fairly flexible given that you can convince them with accurate, fact based information. IMO this is probably the best default for all of them. Pragmatists by your definition sound too trusting.
And flexibility as having gone through the "thinking" phase and arriving at a conclusion and opinion, the ability to defend, bend or uproot the previous conclusion or opinion as supported by newer evidence and experience.
Then there's people who pretend to be one but are another, some who don't know who they are, some who are splendid pragmatists in some areas and astute dogmatists in others.
And then you come across some weathernerves who've done much better for themselves simply by following , some dogmatists who've done well for themselves by leading the skeptics. While the pragmatists, sit around gathering and categorizing others and themselves, and some others commenting on such comments, thinking they've finally; finally figured it out.
Oh! The variety. Such is life...
Sometimes it's good to take a weathervane approach if you don't know much about an area and get blown around a bit before you're able to form an opinion. And yes that might make you look silly, but that's ok.
I think flexibility is orthogonal and turns this into a cube.
There are times when changing your position is absolutely the right thing to do.
The practical reality is that nobody today can develop a sufficient depth of knowledge in more than a couple of niche subjects at best to be "right" about them at anything other than the most superficial of levels.
Somebody might read a book, or several books, or several books and some blogs about a subject, or even take one or several courses in it, but that doesn't mean they know it. They know some things about it, and some of the things they think they know about it will be wrong.
Maybe part of the disagreement here that isn't being addressed is the difference between ideas (or facts) and principles. My principles have changed very little over the years, and so the direction of my ideas haven't either. But my ideas change frequently because there are only a few subjects about which I know anything and I am a moron in the rest.
edit: and even in those couple of subjects where I might claim some expertise, I'm wrong frustratingly often.
Without thought/consideration, you can hold an obviously incorrect position for quite some time before someone else bothers to correct you, or until you discover the other information.
So, just because you _might_ be wrong, is not an excuse for not applying careful thought to all topics. This is especially true for 'strong opinions loosely held' people who seem to think that loosely holding an opinion is a replacement for putting even a modicum of thought into any given topic. It's not. You hold obviously wrong opinions and rely on people to correct you.
It can happen, and has happened to me several times, as an adult. But, I agree that it probably shouldn't be frequent. Sometimes genuine facts are presented that should immediately change a perspective.
What I am talking about is the process that starts once you encounter a new piece of information that challenges your world view: the process of evaluating if it is of quality (ie. trustworthy), or just appears so superficially. That process is not instant, and if you treat it as an instantaneous process, you're probably going to accept a lot of superficially trustworthy information (including scams, mis- and disinformation, and so on).
Neither am I. I'm saying that instantaneous adjustment to ones beliefs is possible, and should be a regular occurrence, while developing ones world view.
> accept a lot of superficially trustworthy information
No. Sometimes you can see things with your own eyes, or have a person that is trustworthy say or demonstrate them to you. Sometimes occurrences can prove a belief immediately true or false. A great example is a child realizing, for the first time, that an adult can be wrong about something. Or, a young adult who voted for the first time, realizing that politicians lie to get elected. Or someone taking drugs for the first time, to realize that perception is fundamentally fragile. There are many many examples. Again, it should be a regular occurrence, when young.
> confrontational
I didn't mean to. I consider "bollocks" to show, somewhat silly, disagreement/defiance. I don't consider defiance or disagreement of an opinion to be confrontational.
I assume that your "statistical approach" translates to a much more haphazardly approach that's similar to how other people do it (gut feeling, based on rules of thumb and heuristics), and describing it as statistical is disingenious.
If I notice the same novel argument getting picked up from somewhat-independent multiple directions I revisit it and apply a more rigorous rethink. This is what I mean by a "statistical" approach. Perhaps some other word would have been better.
I do, however, pretty regularly sit down with some graph paper or an envelope and review/diversify my trusted sources.
There's nothing wrong with taking time to really think through the presented argument, looking for holes, before you accept it. In fact, it helps you not fall for fine-sounding nonsense.
More succinctly, there are times when one should change their mind much more rapidly than gradually.
I suppose you think there are no circumstances under which a person ought to change their mind “on the spot” so to speak. If you can think of such a circumstance then what is the point you are tying to get across?
That's from the post you made. That's pretty general, not talking about just a "type of situation".
> I suppose you think there are no circumstances under which a person ought to change their mind “on the spot” so to speak.
I deny you the right to put words in my mouth. I did not say that, nor did I mean that.
Off topic: "I suppose you think" (and "Then you must think" and similar phrases) very often signal a distortion at best, and often a complete strawman. They have become red flags to me. Perhaps you did not mean it that way. But observing a fair number of HN comments, that's generally the way that phrase is used. To me, it has become a spectral signature of a certain kind of bad rebuttal.
You responded by repeating your original points. This gives the impression that you don’t think this is true. That is, that you don’t believe there are circumstances where someone ought to change their mind much more rapidly than gradually. I still don’t understand the purpose of your posts. They did not pertain the situation I was talking about.
Side discussion. Putting words into my mouth is not a good response. The statements we make have logical conclusions and implications. So while one may not say the words, for instance, I want to kill you. one can conclude this sentiment if other words/actions imply it.
You may attempt to deny me the right to put words into your mouth, so to speak, but as a person well trained in mathematics you won’t be successful. A collection of statements is rarely without valid, logical implications. I may not correctly make deductions on meaning/intent but the retort ought to be: That’s not a valid deduction for these reasons…
Change? No. Question? Yes. Question, probe, & investigate.
An argument may be good but applicable only to a narrow field of something, or be a valid exception to a general principle, etc. It also may be compelling but on further examination be fundamentally flawed or rely on logical errors (most of the more advanced religious apologetics are like this).
It should absolutely cause a reevaluation of your belief, but that’s not the same as necessitating it be outright changed.
It might sound like quibbling, but I feel that’s an important difference. One I feel is key to intellectual rigor & honesty.
You don't have to go hook line and sinker at the very first piece of evidence, because it's the preponderance of evidence that changes minds. The very first experiment that showed the duality of light didn't immediately change people's minds, but it broke the seal, and the accumulation of evidence did afterwards.
Strong evidence should update your beliefs strongly.
My general take is that people are too slow to update their beliefs when strong new evidence comes in. But are generally willing to update gradually over time even with bad/weak evidence.
It might be a tad hypocritical not to wrestle with how you got it so wrong previously, and why this time is different.
There might be some frustration with the "it happened to me and now I get it!" converts who've often had others desperately try to get them to understand prior.
When I'd tail him around work, he'd switch opinions to match the last person he was arguing with.
The old opinion was already debunked, so theres no need to consider it
- Change your mind when new information is given, that is thinking for yourself.
- Don't change it too much, that is not thinking for yourself.
- Not changing your mind is also not thinking for yourself.
Like I say, I agree with you but the nuance here is difficult to explain.
I understand your strong reaction to events in some countries in recent years, but the conclusion is both incomplete and unfair.
People can and do think... This is demonstrable, look at the good things around us in the world.
However, people can be brought very low intellectually and civically by their environment. They are vulnerable to a society that does not guarantee education and accurate information (in traditional or in modern media).
People are willing to conform, especially in exchange for food and opportunity for shelter. People are consummately manipulated by the control of the information around them.
[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721419862289
I think we're talking about data filtration here, not data processing. Does that make sense?
To expand on that, someone who gradually changes their view is a little skeptical, but can be convinced given enough accumulated data points to accept a new paradigm. They effectively reject new information up to a point. That's what slowly changing your mind means.
This is beautiful.
I subscribe to the belief that "intelligence" is any system that can meaningfully organize information on its own, and, perhaps, is more of an emergent behavior of organized information, rather than used to organize information. Although, I'm not sure those can be separated in a meaningful way.
When faced with a new idea, I love assuming it is correct and try to see things from that perspective. It makes it very hard to believe almost anything. I also change my mind if too many people think the same thing, I will be contrarian for the sake of defending the position no one else wants to take up.
But now you are making me think I've wasted my life. I probably have. Yep. I am almost certainly worthless like you said. I agree.
This isn't necessarily bad. Being able to understand the other side of some controversial topic, and even argue against your own position, is a sign of mental and emotional maturity.
Switching your position to whatever argument you heard most recently is not.
I think we're talking about data filtration here, not data processing. Yes?
Thinking takes time and effort. It's important to allocate those resources to things we care about. Some are lazy, but I suspect a lot don't really care.
Probably people on both sides of an issue feel this way - "how could the other side not have changed their mind".