Excellent points about motivated reasoning. Thanks for explaining why you've reduced your FITs idea.
"What remains to be done is not so interesting and not so much in my skill set. The next step would be to hire and train people to score essays and podcasts."
I don't think so. The Beta-1 (May) version of FITs has the key non-scalable problem of "who scores"?
I have lots of brainstorm ideas, which I'll add here in the coming days. But the key one is that some group of 8 - 12 "owners" should be in a club, and draft intellectuals, and score them themselves. They have to promote the ones on their team AND score whether those promoted by the other owners are worthy.
I'm now thinking your great one-time scoring system is too detailed - sort of like how Apple took the 3-button Xerox Spark mouse (I played on some at Stanford!) and made it a one button (sometimes double click) mouse.
Twitter & FB use the too crude "like". But easy. And scalable.
We (FI club owner promoters of Teams) need an easy way to score other owners' intellectual posts. Usually two, who must be close enough or else a third is called in?
We need more revised rules, and more Beta tests for club-scoring. The "investors" could provide money prizes (starting at $1,000?) plus bragging rights to get a LOT of effort from owners in clubs to score the essays, posts, podcasts (please more transcripts).
FITs is a GREAT idea. Maybe you're getting too old, too jaded?, to busy IRL to live so much with URLs.
Arnold Kling's "hypothesis for motivated reasoning" is unnecessarily roundabout; and its 2nd step is implausible insofar as any desire, which a 'person in the street' might have, to be admired by a remote public figure whom she admires, normally isn't strong enough to motivate her reasoning.
An alternative -- and, I think, more plausible -- hypothesis for motivated reasoning goes like this:
1. I (who am nobody) admire public figure X. You (who are nobody) admire public figure Y.
2. It bothers me when Y criticizes X, because:
2a. I admire X.
2b. I want X to have high status.
2c. I want to bask in X's high status.
2d. I want to be right and so you to be wrong. You and Y being right would lessen me.
2.e. If I am tribal, and if my tribe, too, admires X, then by extension you and Y being right would lessen also my tribe.
None of this requires me to want remote public figure X to admire me.
The admiration hypothesis for motivated reasoning resonates with me.
I admire Jordan Peterson, so when he received blowback for comments on climate change I was inclined to defend him with a charitable interpretation. Others are generally at odds with Peterson and are inclined to ignore charitable interpretations, context, or any sliver of a point he might have had.
The fact that the Zvi, who has good intellectual habits, also had criticisms for Peterson should probably make me open to the possibility that I am wrong to some extent. And I think it did, though I am still inclined to be somewhat charitable even after adjusting my prior (see my comment on Zvi's post below).
Personally I am more inclined to improve my intellectual habits by extending the same willingness to entertain charitable interpretations I have for those I generally admire to those who disagree, rather than withdrawing charitable interpretations to be uniformly critical. I think this is both cognitively easier and a happier way to live, and I am glad that the FITs scoring system rewards this approach (e.g. points for steelman and open mind).
So what is the FIT scoring on Rogan? I did not watch too much of his productions - because I prefer reading - but he seems to be very open minded. For example he once changed his mind on the possibility of Moon landing being a hoax: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mmlmxamw_k
This is an interesting story - and I am with Rogan on this one - it is quite probable the the videos are not authentic not because the landing was a hoax but simply because the people involved in the project lost the original material - so the media just published the material from the training phase as the real one. This unscrupulous behaviour of the media is quite probable in my world view. And it is also quite important to spot them - because they are false in some ways. But they would not be spotted if we just relied on the mainstream narration.
Excellent points about motivated reasoning. Thanks for explaining why you've reduced your FITs idea.
"What remains to be done is not so interesting and not so much in my skill set. The next step would be to hire and train people to score essays and podcasts."
I don't think so. The Beta-1 (May) version of FITs has the key non-scalable problem of "who scores"?
I have lots of brainstorm ideas, which I'll add here in the coming days. But the key one is that some group of 8 - 12 "owners" should be in a club, and draft intellectuals, and score them themselves. They have to promote the ones on their team AND score whether those promoted by the other owners are worthy.
I'm now thinking your great one-time scoring system is too detailed - sort of like how Apple took the 3-button Xerox Spark mouse (I played on some at Stanford!) and made it a one button (sometimes double click) mouse.
Twitter & FB use the too crude "like". But easy. And scalable.
We (FI club owner promoters of Teams) need an easy way to score other owners' intellectual posts. Usually two, who must be close enough or else a third is called in?
We need more revised rules, and more Beta tests for club-scoring. The "investors" could provide money prizes (starting at $1,000?) plus bragging rights to get a LOT of effort from owners in clubs to score the essays, posts, podcasts (please more transcripts).
FITs is a GREAT idea. Maybe you're getting too old, too jaded?, to busy IRL to live so much with URLs.
Arnold Kling's "hypothesis for motivated reasoning" is unnecessarily roundabout; and its 2nd step is implausible insofar as any desire, which a 'person in the street' might have, to be admired by a remote public figure whom she admires, normally isn't strong enough to motivate her reasoning.
An alternative -- and, I think, more plausible -- hypothesis for motivated reasoning goes like this:
1. I (who am nobody) admire public figure X. You (who are nobody) admire public figure Y.
2. It bothers me when Y criticizes X, because:
2a. I admire X.
2b. I want X to have high status.
2c. I want to bask in X's high status.
2d. I want to be right and so you to be wrong. You and Y being right would lessen me.
2.e. If I am tribal, and if my tribe, too, admires X, then by extension you and Y being right would lessen also my tribe.
None of this requires me to want remote public figure X to admire me.
The admiration hypothesis for motivated reasoning resonates with me.
I admire Jordan Peterson, so when he received blowback for comments on climate change I was inclined to defend him with a charitable interpretation. Others are generally at odds with Peterson and are inclined to ignore charitable interpretations, context, or any sliver of a point he might have had.
The fact that the Zvi, who has good intellectual habits, also had criticisms for Peterson should probably make me open to the possibility that I am wrong to some extent. And I think it did, though I am still inclined to be somewhat charitable even after adjusting my prior (see my comment on Zvi's post below).
Personally I am more inclined to improve my intellectual habits by extending the same willingness to entertain charitable interpretations I have for those I generally admire to those who disagree, rather than withdrawing charitable interpretations to be uniformly critical. I think this is both cognitively easier and a happier way to live, and I am glad that the FITs scoring system rewards this approach (e.g. points for steelman and open mind).
https://thezvi.substack.com/p/covid-12722-let-my-people-go/comments
So what is the FIT scoring on Rogan? I did not watch too much of his productions - because I prefer reading - but he seems to be very open minded. For example he once changed his mind on the possibility of Moon landing being a hoax: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mmlmxamw_k
This is an interesting story - and I am with Rogan on this one - it is quite probable the the videos are not authentic not because the landing was a hoax but simply because the people involved in the project lost the original material - so the media just published the material from the training phase as the real one. This unscrupulous behaviour of the media is quite probable in my world view. And it is also quite important to spot them - because they are false in some ways. But they would not be spotted if we just relied on the mainstream narration.
Good interview. Thanks for doing it.