I was once in a group discussion about whether wild animals might be having net negative lives. One person didn’t want to consider that possibility, essentially because “then people would want to kill all the wild animals.”
Hold on! You can evaluate the question of “What is life like for wild animals” without jumping to “And if they’re having bad lives, we should try to kill them all.” There’s a kind of tunnel vision here, as if having a belief about facts must necessarily channel you to only one action.
If you want people to honestly consider “Is climate change real?” it matters a lot if the only options are “No” and “Yes, so you must stop using airplanes and clothes dryers,” or if there are other possible responses.
I’d like to see more scout mindset here, figuring out what the facts might be before jumping to policy conclusions.
On the other hand, I get why people are alarmed when they realize they’re interfacing with someone who holds a belief that’s associated with policies they find appalling.
Bryan Caplan on the kinds of people who want to discuss IQ:
“I’ve got to admit: My fellow IQ realists are, on average, a scary bunch. People who vocally defend the power of IQ are vastly more likely than normal people to advocate extreme human rights violations.”
And people with beliefs that others find horrifying might not admit to the most unpopular of their beliefs.
So I can see why onlookers who see someone advocating idea X might say: “Sure, they only mentioned X, but people who support X often turn out to support Y and even Z. Read between the lines!” If someone voices “IQ is real and important,” you should have a higher prior that they might support human rights violations on that basis. This is especially true if you don’t know them and don’t have time to evaluate what they’ve said and written in the past.
Another approach is “Let’s not judge people guilty by association. There’s nothing inherently wrong with believing X. They didn’t say anything about Y or Z, or maybe they even argue against Y and Z.”
This can be a more useful approach when someone has an extensive history of public writing and speaking that indicates they’re not into human rights violations, etc.
The more polarized an idea is, the harder it will be to think clearly about it. Often for controversial belief X, the spread looks like
If you want to explore the facts on X, it’s especially hard because neutral people don’t research the topic. Much of the evidence is collected by people with strong feelings in one direction or the other.
But I think there are often a fair number of people in that silent middle zone.
I’d like to have more people saying “X is an important topic, and I want to form a clearer picture of it.” This might allow people to explore steps G, W, R, or no action at all, rather than only Y.
Kelsey Piper’s piece “Can we be actually normal about birthrates?” is an example of this:
“There’s something that feels ugly around proclamations about what the population or the birth rate “should” be — especially given the horrific history of mass sterilizations conducted in the name of “fixing” high birth rates for the sake of the world. . . .
What I want is a cultural and policy conversation about how to support families that starts by addressing these problems, beginning with simple premises I think most people agree on: that having children can be awesome and a source of great joy and meaning in life, though it’s far from the only source of joy and meaning in life; that we could do a lot more to build communities in which children are supported, welcomed, and have meaningful independence; that people who don’t want kids shouldn’t have them but that people who do want kids should be supported in making that a priority.”
I also value it when people say “Hey, I believe X and firmly reject Y.”
Caplan’s post on intelligence continues:
“If someone says, ‘I’m more intelligent than other people, so it’s acceptable for me to murder them,’ the sensible response isn’t, ‘Intelligence is a myth.’ The sensible response is, ‘Are you mad? That doesn’t justify murder.’
….here’s what I say to every IQ realist who forgets common decency: You embarrass me. You embarrass yourself.”
Exploring the middle zone, even privately, won’t be a good fit for everyone. It’s reasonable that a lot of people won’t want to spend their energy or their weirdness points on this. Declining to develop an opinion on whether dragons exist is often the option that lets you move ahead with your life and spend less time in internet arguments.
But I’m sad about that. And I appreciate it when people like Kelsey Piper and Bryan Caplan say “Are you mad?” to the people proposing awful things, and explore other ways forward.
I saw this unfortunate reflex happen in a “crunchy” group I was in when the Covid pandemic started.
Thanks to also being in a rationalist group, I heard by Feb 2020 that Covid was an event worth prepping for. I knew that vaccines and targeted medicines might spend years in development. So I figured that OTC and alternative treatments were all we might have for a while. I acquired Vitamin D, C, zinc, guaifenisin, and more speculatively helpful supplements, as well as N95 masks, before the government started discouraging masking. I even put germicidal copper tape on light switches and sink faucets, before I learned fomites weren’t actually a big deal.
I thought my crunchy alternative medicine community would have a huge advantage during the pandemic. We were used to being proactively responsible for our own health. And we didn’t give up when basic medicine shrugged and said they couldn’t help us. We were used to finding cutting-edge possibilities to try out. Sure, some of us were overly wary of the risk of vaccine side effects. But I really thought we’d shine when it came to masking and supplements/herbal treatments.
What happened instead? The admins of the Facebook group at the center of my crunchy community decided by March 2020 that Covid must be, if not an outright hoax, at least maliciously overblown. Someone who claimed it was more serious than influenza was blocked. I was blocked for liking that comment.
I’m pretty sure their motivated reasoning went something like “If we allow a societal consensus that Covid is serious, then when a vaccine does come out, they’ll think it’s justified to make it mandatory, and we don’t want that. So Covid must not be serious.”
The broader crunchy community then mostly became anti-mask, and didn’t have the discussions I had hoped about supplements and herbal treatments either. What a waste.
In all fairness, the vaccine (which my own family drove an hour to receive ASAP) did become much more mandatory than I expected or thought was justified. So maybe they were on to something. But that still didn’t mean Covid wasn’t serious.
On the other side of the aisle, it was curious how potential medicinal treatments, even prescription ones, were vehemently resisted. I don’t think hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin were ever effective. But wouldn’t it have been great if they had been? Along with budenosine and a couple other ones I never followed up with after Paxlovid came out, I think there were several candidates worth becoming cautiously hopeful about for a while. Instead they got exaggerated descriptions of the risks of their side effects, and nonstop mockery. I’m pretty sure the motivated reasoning there went something like “If we allow a societal consensus that there are ways to treat Covid, people won’t get vaccinated against it. And if we let anti-vaxxers win, we’ll all die of polio. So these drugs must not work.”