summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/content/entry/its-not-necessarily-irrational-to-believe-things-you-cant-justify-to-others.md
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'content/entry/its-not-necessarily-irrational-to-believe-things-you-cant-justify-to-others.md')
-rw-r--r--content/entry/its-not-necessarily-irrational-to-believe-things-you-cant-justify-to-others.md4
1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/content/entry/its-not-necessarily-irrational-to-believe-things-you-cant-justify-to-others.md b/content/entry/its-not-necessarily-irrational-to-believe-things-you-cant-justify-to-others.md
index e2dd3a1..1633ecb 100644
--- a/content/entry/its-not-necessarily-irrational-to-believe-things-you-cant-justify-to-others.md
+++ b/content/entry/its-not-necessarily-irrational-to-believe-things-you-cant-justify-to-others.md
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ draft: false
---
There's a certain mistake seasoned debaters often make when interacting with lay people and the mistake is that just because the unprepared lay person cannot presently argue a point, the seasoned debater concludes they hold that belief without justification. I'll explain why this conclusion isn't necessarily correct.
-Remember the "Change My Mind" guy, [Steven Crowder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Crowder)? If you're not familiar with him, he's an American-Canadian conservative political commentator and the subject of a popular meme format. He used to set up a table on college campuses to debate college students. I don't know if he still does it. I don't follow him. Anyways he goes into these debates where he picks the topic, one which he's knowledgeable about and has lots of points in his favor already in working memory, and he goes up against unprepared college students.
+Remember the "Change My Mind" guy, [Steven Crowder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Crowder)? If you're not familiar with him, he's an American-Canadian conservative political commentator and the subject of a popular meme format. He used to set up a table on college campuses to debate college students. I don't know if he still does it. I don't follow him. Anyway he goes into these debates where he picks the topic, one which he's knowledgeable about and has lots of points in his favor already in working memory, and he goes up against unprepared college students.
I don't consider what Steven does unfair in the slightest, because the college students voluntarily go and debate him, so it's up to them to be ready for the heat. It's not like he screens students before he debates them to make himself look good. But I fear that some people may get the impression that he's correct just because he can look smart in front of unprepared college students.
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ There's this idea that people who can't defend a belief to others are always unj
>
> If this finding ends up being generally an approximation of how our brains work, it could explain a lot about what's happening to global conversations, particularly around the Internet and on social media specifically. It also suggests a possible solution; make the data quickly available. Make it as seamless as possible to re-load those facts and figures into your working memory, and make it as unpleasant as possible to rely on shortcuts and logical tricks when arguing a point."
>
-> - TameAntelope
+> — TameAntelope
TameAntelope hits the nail on the head here. Believing something you cannot justify to others isn't necessarily irrational. If you recall a time when you did have all the relevant facts and figures in your head, and computed the conclusion, then it does make sense to stick to that conclusion even after you've long forgotten the justification for it.