Why is rhetoric taboo among rationalists?

post by TOoHNA · 2021-03-16T17:38:05.355Z · LW · GW · 1 comment

This is a question post.

Contents

  Answers
    10 Dagon
    9 ChristianKl
None
1 comment

We acknowledge that sometimes type1 solutions are better that type2 solutions and the only way to change type1 processes is with rhetoric. But improving type1 systems is a cardinal sin.

Answers

answer by Dagon · 2021-03-14T15:24:47.912Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Modifying someone else's type 1 systems is the sin.  Improving one's own (typically by identifying things with type 2 and reinforcing them to make them smoother in type 1) is mostly good.

Rhetoric is other-directed: how to "win" a debate.  There are elements of truth-seeking in there, especially if done with steelmanning and rigorous humility.  But that's rarely where it comes from, or goes.

↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2021-03-16T22:05:54.549Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

CFAR did a lot of work in helping people align their type 1 and type 2 which I wouldn't call sinful but is about modifying people's system 1. 

Replies from: AnthonyC
↑ comment by AnthonyC · 2021-03-20T01:21:07.747Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

In that case I'm assuming CFAR is only applying these ideas to people who want to be so modified? That seems dramatically less problematic.

Replies from: ChristianKl
↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2021-03-20T13:43:53.602Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

That's a part of it, but I think the fact that CFAR techniques focus on aligning system I and system II makes them different from attempts to change system I without caring about aligning with system II.

answer by ChristianKl · 2021-03-16T20:37:08.267Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

We acknowledge that sometimes type1 solutions are better that type2 solutions and the only way to change type1 processes is with rhetoric. 

No, I don't acknowledge that the only way to change type1 processes is with rhetoric. There's a variety of verbal and non-verbal processes that can change type1 processes. When it comes to a process like Focusing that does mangage to change type1 processes that does have a verbal component calling it rhetoric still seems misleading.

1 comment

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2021-03-23T17:44:54.692Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

and the only way to change type1 processes is with rhetoric

Type 2 processes are implemented on top of Type 1 processes [? · GW], so anything that affects Type 2 processes also affects Type 1 processes.