Skepticism is a bias that treats true and preposterous statements with the same incredulity right out of the gate. So, initially, with a set of statements half of which are true and half of which are false, skepticism would prove to be appropriate half the time. But then, so would credulity be just as right the other half of the time. The problem is that skeptics think that skepticism would still be superior to credulity, and that credulity doesnt have corresponding ways to figure out whats false, just like skepticism has ways to figure out whats true. The plain fact is that skeptics are pretty ignorant about how credulity works. Otherwise theyd see it as another method with its own strengths and uses, just like skepticism is another method. I ran an experiment in credulity for a few years. I tried sincerely to take everything people told me as true. (I didnt bother with advertising tho.) My surprising discoveries: it was scary (why is that?) and I ended up pretty much where I would have ended up skeptically in terms of what I finally believed, except for some huge differences: 1. I was much better informed, having become a much better listener. 2. People liked me better, so they told me more. 3. It was easier to make friends. 4. Even when I couldnt in good faith believe something they said, they knew Id given it a fair hearing. 5. I actually knew more, was more confident, and had more right to be confident than I would have via a purely skeptical position. 6. I was smarter, because I understood people and myself better, as well as being more knowledgeable. I didnt go crazy and I didnt get conned. In fact, I realized that getting taken advantage of has to do with factors that skepticism aggravates as much as guards against. It raises the question, when this is possible, why more people dont try it?
Posted on: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 18:27:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015