Irrational others (was: RE: Cryonics/Nanotech Skepticism)
Damien Broderick (damien@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au)
Sat, 15 Aug 1998 11:23:00 +0000
At 12:49 PM 8/14/98 -0700, Hal wrote:
>What if people hold the contrary belief, that there are significant
>numbers of other people who are stubbornly irrational? It would seem
>that we might have a stable outcome similar to what we actually see:
>people collecting into subgroups with shared opinions, where they believe
>other members of their group are rational (at least on this issue!).
>However the existence of significant groups with other opinions does
>not lead them to change their ideas because they simply assume that the
>others are irrational.
Well, that there are significant numbers of other people who are stubbornly
irrational *in a certain domain*.
Presumably this is the means whereby people in a (fairly) peaceful
pluralist society treat the religious and (mainstream variant) political
views of their neighbors. The polite rule against discussing politics and
religion at the dinner table (or whatever it is) acknowledges this working
assumption. It has the convenient side effect that people with novel
approaches to the world actually can get on and try them out, up to a
point, which sometimes leads to fresh science, art, technology...
Presumably adherence to sporting claques (as non-playing supporters) is a
contrived version of this domain-construction, or maybe an adaptation of
earlier tribalisms which saw competitors not so much as irrational but as
worthy and feared Others, to be belittled by scornful shouts but envied for
their prowess and possessions.
Damien Broderick