By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - What makes your beliefs superior to everyone else's?

vlad321 on 09 April 2011
Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:
The_vagabond7 said:

I don't think my beliefs are the best, I think they are the best that I am aware of. Which is simply logical, if I was aware of a better set of beliefs I would adopt those. Which is why I try to read, study and learn as much as possible. I don't believe the same things today that I did a year ago, and certainly not ten years ago. And I hope that in ten years my beliefs will be superior to the ones I have now.

 

One shouldn't insist that one's beliefs are the best, they should insist on testing their beliefs against those around them, and those that came before them. If your belief is found to stand on better reason, logic and data then move on and find one that has better reason, logic and data, adopt that and keep going. It's the evolution of ideas, where the strong conquer the weak, and the information age is rapidly speeding this process up.


I wonder if this is so.

There is evidence to the contrary as well, as the information age allows all ideas to be found on the interent, including people who agree with you.  There is some evidence to suggest the internet is also allowing minor viewpoints to continue because it allows singular entities who would be forced to defend their ideas vs others to find others that agree with them whether there ideas are right or not.

 While the numbers of supporters may be low in percentage terms of the population... the pure number is unimportant


Research tends to show the internet is more ideologically seregated then everything excpet Newspapers.

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/jesse.shapiro/research/echo_chambers.pdf

So it may not be a problem....

However, what may be flawed and make the data even higher is they are basically only counting major sites.

It also doesn't count the outright extremism you can find on the internet.

Your average person likely couldn't find any KKK literature or Jihadist literature on the streets.  Yet on the internet, anyone with google can find any number of hateful things as it costs almost nothing to make a website or message board.

Every viewpoint imaginable has a presense on the internet, where only the most mainstream views have "traditional" media exposure.

Well outside the occasional badly photocopied 2 page newspaper.

I mean, would stuff like Zeitgeist or a lot of this other conspiracy exist without the internet?  Sure there were stupid conspiracy theories before, but they were more limited in number.

Now a days it seems like there is a conspiracy for EVERYTHING.


This is so weird, this is abit  off-topic. The bolded is basically the reason why I think the general, middle class, "golf-culture," populance in America ends up being so ignorant. Unlike in other places where cars aren't as commonplace and people don't have a huge separation between them and other human beings, people are not forced to hear/interact with other people and their ideas. In the US socializing is something you have to opt-in to do, because you can easily sit your your home with a huge lawn and never leave the place. Ever. So what ends up happening is people opt-in to socialize solely with the people that think and have the same ideas as them, which is perfectly natural. The downside is that no new ideas and information penetrates these social circles, unlike in the lower class, or cities in Europe where people have to go through some serious hoops to isolate themselves from society.


I've heard that arguement before.

I don't really buy it though.

How often does the average person have a long lasting conversation with a random person on the subway or some other area?

I mean, when I take public transportation I pretty much never see people independently having conversations with each other.

I was thinking more of the neighbors in the apartment building and the people you meet at places like the lunch restaurant (I can't even think of a term for it in english). Not to mention (at least here in the South) that any time I step into a restaurant for lunch, I'm hassled to eat and gtfo as fast as possible. That has not happened to me ONCE in Spain/Italy, did in London though (but not Liverpool).

Edit: I am not exactly sure where the more socialization comes from, but the fact remains that people have more social interaction per day than their counterparts in the US. It is also true within the US as well, if you compare the population of NYC to something like LA , where a large portion of the people live in the suburbs.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network
FaRmLaNd on 09 April 2011

Well I generally support things that are based on empirical evidence and explained by rational discourse, and can be shown to work in the real world. So I wouldn't say they're superior in any objective sense, but if someone can show me that something is more likely to be true or effective then I will change my opinion eventually.

So its not so much my beliefs, but the framework I attempt use to get to the point where I can say I support some kind of notion that I think is quite effective.

I certainly don't think all beliefs are equal, I mean if you support something that is full of logical fallacies, has little to no evidence and is contrary to the facts that we do no about the world or society then I'm not going to have such a high view of said "belief".



iBlah on 09 April 2011

because, I belive I am superior to others, therefore my belief is also superior.



 

Kasz216 on 09 April 2011
vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:
The_vagabond7 said:

I don't think my beliefs are the best, I think they are the best that I am aware of. Which is simply logical, if I was aware of a better set of beliefs I would adopt those. Which is why I try to read, study and learn as much as possible. I don't believe the same things today that I did a year ago, and certainly not ten years ago. And I hope that in ten years my beliefs will be superior to the ones I have now.

 

One shouldn't insist that one's beliefs are the best, they should insist on testing their beliefs against those around them, and those that came before them. If your belief is found to stand on better reason, logic and data then move on and find one that has better reason, logic and data, adopt that and keep going. It's the evolution of ideas, where the strong conquer the weak, and the information age is rapidly speeding this process up.


I wonder if this is so.

There is evidence to the contrary as well, as the information age allows all ideas to be found on the interent, including people who agree with you.  There is some evidence to suggest the internet is also allowing minor viewpoints to continue because it allows singular entities who would be forced to defend their ideas vs others to find others that agree with them whether there ideas are right or not.

 While the numbers of supporters may be low in percentage terms of the population... the pure number is unimportant


Research tends to show the internet is more ideologically seregated then everything excpet Newspapers.

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/jesse.shapiro/research/echo_chambers.pdf

So it may not be a problem....

However, what may be flawed and make the data even higher is they are basically only counting major sites.

It also doesn't count the outright extremism you can find on the internet.

Your average person likely couldn't find any KKK literature or Jihadist literature on the streets.  Yet on the internet, anyone with google can find any number of hateful things as it costs almost nothing to make a website or message board.

Every viewpoint imaginable has a presense on the internet, where only the most mainstream views have "traditional" media exposure.

Well outside the occasional badly photocopied 2 page newspaper.

I mean, would stuff like Zeitgeist or a lot of this other conspiracy exist without the internet?  Sure there were stupid conspiracy theories before, but they were more limited in number.

Now a days it seems like there is a conspiracy for EVERYTHING.


This is so weird, this is abit  off-topic. The bolded is basically the reason why I think the general, middle class, "golf-culture," populance in America ends up being so ignorant. Unlike in other places where cars aren't as commonplace and people don't have a huge separation between them and other human beings, people are not forced to hear/interact with other people and their ideas. In the US socializing is something you have to opt-in to do, because you can easily sit your your home with a huge lawn and never leave the place. Ever. So what ends up happening is people opt-in to socialize solely with the people that think and have the same ideas as them, which is perfectly natural. The downside is that no new ideas and information penetrates these social circles, unlike in the lower class, or cities in Europe where people have to go through some serious hoops to isolate themselves from society.


I've heard that arguement before.

I don't really buy it though.

How often does the average person have a long lasting conversation with a random person on the subway or some other area?

I mean, when I take public transportation I pretty much never see people independently having conversations with each other.

I was thinking more of the neighbors in the apartment building and the people you meet at places like the lunch restaurant (I can't even think of a term for it in english). Not to mention (at least here in the South) that any time I step into a restaurant for lunch, I'm hassled to eat and gtfo as fast as possible. That has not happened to me ONCE in Spain/Italy, did in London though (but not Liverpool).

Edit: I am not exactly sure where the more socialization comes from, but the fact remains that people have more social interaction per day than their counterparts in the US. It is also true within the US as well, if you compare the population of NYC to something like LA , where a large portion of the people live in the suburbs.


Maybe, However, I don't know a single person in my apartment building though.

Suburubs are more a biproduct of defacto segregation, but europe isn't exactly free of that themselves, France being a good example.

I'd have to see actual data on it before i'd take that as a fact, as right now you seem to be relying soley on ancedotal expierence.

As for people tryint to rush you or of a restruant.  That has nothing to do with socialization and everything to do with the fact that Waiters and Waitresses in the US  live on tips.  Every second you linger is lost money.

 

EDIT: Oh and it has been a recent arguement lately that increased segregation with things like gated communities are actually a biproduct of life becoming more diversified, and home becoming more of a secondary setting ever since the invention of motorized travel.