Julia Galef from measureofdoubt.com talks about why rationalists are more likely to abandon social norms like marriage, monogamy, standard gender roles, having children, and so on. Is that a rational attitude to take?
I consider myself to be a rationalist and never understood a lot of traditional norms but as I grew older I realized some traditional norms exist to maintain a sense of community and uphold "family values". One of the keys to happiness is feeling a sense of belonging, and a sense of security which is what a community and family gives.
I agree! As cynics, people are more likely to have a predisposed 'selection bias' as in to think that just because something has been used for so long, it must be outdated. Something like the idea of marriage is only there to create a feeling of belonging in a society so that people are more willing to live together harmoniously.
A lot o, maybe most, rationalists go down that path When they're young they don't see the benefits of tradition and skirt it but as they grow older they become more aware of its value You can actually see this in Plato's work, in The Republic he was scornful of tradition. Then about 20 years later in Laws he praises tradition I think this brings merit to Chesterton's argument about complexity
I love your videos - so straight to the point with no unnecessary preamble - and always interesting. Julia once said her videos are formatted how they are because she didn't know how to edit videos and was forced to do everything in one take. In these cases, I think that resulted in some of my favourite videos on RU-vid - especially in the Skepticism genre.
Think more the hardest way as HSPACE of tags where this attribute sets the horizontal margin in Pixels or in percentage value Vs Think more the hardest way as VSPACE where this attribute sets the vertical margin in Pixels or in percentage value.
I admire your depth of knowledge and your skills in presenting them. You have an ability to keep long lines of interconnected arguments in your mind and still make it sound simple and obvious. You may be the new hero or role model for my children. Truly!
In a "personal and professional development" class I took in college, we had to divide into groups of 3-4 and come up with some kind of improvement project for the college of engineering. One group decided they wanted to take down this "annoying round thing that just took up space in the atrium" of the engineering buildings. They had no idea that it was a pendulum clock that showed the earth rotated that had been there since the 1970s. They got permission to destroy it. That really drove-home the point that people (even "educated" people) do not value what they do not understand.
@@rektyrektingson4668 not really. We already know the world rotates, we don't need an elaborate pendulum to demonstrate this. If the thing was in the way, or disrupted the space, or is unsightly to the area, it's rational to remove it because it serves no purpose, that is not already served by history books or modern science. And finally, if we really needed it, we could rebuild it. And finally, finally, just because something is old (built in the 70s) age itself of an object is not a virtue, unless it provides some historical context or knowledge not already known in history books or modern science. If it at least it served as beautification architecture in the atrium, perhaps it could have a purpose. Humans always try to attach reverence to objects because it helps them control others. In this case, the false reverence of the object, allows people to exclaim "omg, you are so dumb" or some other worthless exclamation of pretend virtue, and therefore imply they are so "smart", and should be listened to, ergo control is exerted. dogmatic adherence to tradition for the sake of tradition always veers more to control and therefore a specific benefit to "you" rather than an actual benefit to communities or others.
My issue with the Chesterton example is whoever wants to take away the fence is not just altering their own environment. They are - without knowledge of cause and consequences, taking a unilateral act to alter the environment for everyone who relies (or thinks they rely) on that fence. Hypothetically, let's assume it's to stop small children from running into the road. The "fence remover" knowing look and "Ahh... so THAT'S what it was for" is scant compensation for the parents of a child run over by a truck after running onto the road where that fence should have prevented them. Change your own life - fine. All power to you. Make decisions that will impact mine without mandate/authority. No. I don't think so.
Think more as wise as possible till 07:33 PM Vs Think more the hardest way of how I pushed my self efforted thinking capability with "Your switch off date is 18/12/2022" on TV screen as a piece of how I scrambled the different TV channels to progress the satellite segment broadcasting schedules, like a broadcasting expert
I used to have a probability teacher at my previous Uni (I switched degrees) who would just go "No." whenever you gave an answer that was the least bit wrong. It pissed me off, I'm not even gonna lie. When someone's wrong, at least say "Well x and y might be true, but not that. Here's how it is" or something of the sort. Super annoying especially coming from a teacher.
@@franciscoferraz6788 sign of a terrible teacher..A good teacher would ask how you came to that conclusion even if they believe your wrong. It's called listening. I find it very effective.
This is my first time viewing your youtube videos. Is this how you structure all of them? Because it's great. I love how you pick out what you think are the best arguments for the opposition first, so nobody can accuse you of strawmanning or other deception, and then go ahead to bring up all of your points. I think most of us can learn from your use of this style.
Sometimes its not even a matter of asking "why" because a lot of traditions weren't necessary something the people creating and recreating them were cognisant of, rather "how". Family structures for example had been quite diverse in pre-agricultural societies, and if we look at contemporary non-agricultural societies you can see a vast array of dynamic family arrangements, but then as we develop agricultural societies and the division of labor deepens, you see the emergence of smaller families, strongly delineated property lines, the emergence of patriarchies (and i mean this in a neutral sense), its a question of how the social and economic conditions of the time favoured or encouraged certain norms. The torah and the quran for example dont ever provide a rationale for the prohibition of swine, but some people hypothesize that swine in the middle east tended to be competitive and environmentally unfavorable with humans if they were reared, but they were advantageous in places like China or Europe. So its worth considering that these aren't things people just kinda made up.. most of the time.. but things that evolved and then when they become no longer advantageous, they may dissappear.
Good stuff. I disagree with your discounting of the traditionalist position, but it's valuable to separate the discussion. It's one thing for an individual or family to discard tradition and attempt to blaze a new path, but it's a wholly different thing for government to impose a new order above the order that individuals want. Pruitt-Igoe is an example of the failure of planners to understand what they presume they can plan. Those families paid the price for the destruction visiting on them by seemingly well-intentioned governors. On other hand, if you choose to forego kids, you bear the vast majority of that risk, and so you have every right to experiment with your own life. Moreover, if you do choose to have children, I believe you have every right to experiment with your family and its structure. Again, no one is in a better position to assess the benefits and consequences of your actions. And I agree we all learn from such experimentation. The key is whether the experiment is occurring organically and the burdens are borne by the experimenters or whether the experimenters are treating their fellow men as lab rats to become object lessons in their future journal submissions.
"It would be hard to think of a more ridiculous way to make decisions than to transfer those decisions to third parties who pay no price for being wrong." ~ Thomas Sowell
I thought the GK Chesterton allegory seemed quite reasonable, especially in relation to the precautionary principle, too often it seems people become focused on removing things without thinking about how to replace them in a way that has a greater net positive benefit.
As for challenging societal norms. This needs to be done constantly as society changes. To test whether what worked before is relevant or needed any more. Ideally some people will always do this. There is a danger of very large numbers - for the sake of a passing ideology - deciding to abandon en-masse a range of societal norms. For the same reason you wouldn't try an untested drug on an entire population - but rather a well monitored group alongside a control. Society is immensely complex and doesn't exist as peacefully as it does for most in the West as a default. In fact we are almost a unique exception to the rule of how societies perform in human history. It is highly likely that society teeters between numbers of catastrophic fail states. Many that can be arrived at with the very best of intentions. They are all over the place. Many unseen. Change is required to adapt no doubt. But ideological change of huge numbers of people to new ways of living without thought of consequences? That could end quickly in disaster.
Nice. I want to add a comment: You don't actually need to understand the function of tradition in order to reap its benefits, but you need an in-depth analysis of the pros and cons of both the tradition and it's potential replacement, in order to change it. This means that an individual only has the capacity to reevaluate a limited portion of the traditions that structure the social world.
Tinkering with complex systems almost always results in unintended consequences. What you need is an experimentation, measurement, and rollback system. It's essentially impossible to really predict all the outcomes of a change you make.
Brilliant. I always had the same thought. I think there is a major issue in philosophy and social studies that somehow either assume that all men are equally capable or they just ignore the fact of unequal ability/mental capacity. this is intentional because it can easily lead to the argument that not all men are equal which obviously a more dangerous idea especially in the hand of the less capable. this is always a problem when you try to make a general rule. because there is no perfect general rule ever. there is no theory of everything.
Think more the hardest way as how like most of the other sectors of Indian economy, why we see that media sector has also witnessed a substantial transformation during the phase of liberalisation of the Indian Economy.. Vs Think more the hardest way as how *The Era of Convergence* just proved that there was a very significant development inthe field of media studies in the later part of the nineteenth century..
So tradition can have a hidden benefit, or a hidden detriment, or perhaps both. So maybe understand a tradition before changing it. Look at the premise of the tradition, the reason for its existence, and how it operates in our society.
Wow. I rarely see a subject treated as rationally, arguments as well explained and opinions as balanced as that. And I completely agree. Sticking with the traditions when there's a clear advantage to do so is obviously correct. When the traditions seem either useless in today's society, or actually unjustifiably inconvenient, then it's also a rational thing to do to get rid of them.
Think more the wisest way as *another Barriers to Effectiveness* on *Personal(Lack of Clarity and Consistency)* Vs Think more the wisest way as how *Clarity and Consistency are cornerstones of good communication*
This was briefly touched upon in the video: It's not what works that persist. It's what is likely to persist that persists (no shit right?). If a tradition or practice will self reinforce, then that will be more likely to persist than something that will not. Lets say two robots are made. One is programmed to always make another exact copy of itself. The other is not. Thus the one that self replicates will persist. Either way, this is pretty well done.
But if it persists it must have SOME virtue, right? In an ever changing world, the unchanging robot would be at a disadvantage, eventually going extinct. Except if it is a generalist that can overcome several adversities, so cool. If the world is not changing then the unchanging robot works just fine in it's environment, so no problem here. Either way, something is working ok for this robot.
@@mementovivere2 you presuppose that replication is a “virtue”... that a tendency for self-replication will tend to lead to copies of itself is essentially a tautology (though one perhaps not thoroughly understood before _Selfish Gene_ came out?!?). To say this has “virtue”, though, is a value judgment... no?
I tinker with it as I please. I change myself and not trying to impose the novel on anyone. I give you access to it for review but ultimately it's up to you if you jump on board. The old cannot be in the way of new and vice versa. Universe is expanding and diverse space we need to stay open.
Awesome video. An additional point (on the weakness of the natural selection analogy): We can also think about the term "genetic drift" in the context of natural selection for cultural norms. Genetic drift is (crudely) meaningless changes over time in the genes of a population that result from no particular environmental pressure. Drift just means that nothing stays the same, even if no new fancy trait is evolving. We should expect that the cultural norm drift is much more volatile than that of genes because the pressure/change process is more randomly jostled around by individual leaders, discovery of mineral deposits, other cultures' historical changes, and so on (i.e. because human cultures are more chaotic and unpredictable). So we might guess that a cultural norm is less likely than a genetic adaptation to be preferable or even acceptable because the drift that might've caused it is probably more significant.
Absolutely. Plus the cultural drift contains self-reinforcing feedback loops, such as oppression or unsustainable consumerism. Not all that occurs naturally is good. Not all evolved phenomena are adaptations. I wish your comment had a lot more likes ;)
That's just the thing isn't it? If we've evolved to survive, that means we have had to (and currently must) adapt culture to what helps us survive in the context we live in. For example, following your passion and finding fulfillment is a big thing these days. Because we don't have a lot to legitimately distract us (I'm not counting mindless entertainment) it's easier for us to reflect on how happy/unhappy we are with our lives, especially in relation to others. Which can, in part, lead to things like depression and suicide. (I'm oversimplifying, but I think the point is clear.) If adapting keeps us alive, then, in that sense, tradition is actually the antithesis of survival because it tends to say "don't change - and damned with the consequences." That said, I do believe that we can pass down information that consistently helps the generations following us to survive. But if we seek improvement first (better and better ways to ensure survival), rather than seeking to maintain traditions, then we can find the things that are worth keeping around in some capacity and discard the things that are not. Unfortunately, that's an idealistic approach to examining tradition, considering that some people have selfish motivations and would seek to "improve" the world in ways that only help themselves. There is also the problem of some people being excellent at convincing others to belief in things that turn out to be nonsense decades or centuries later.
Tradition is not the antithesis to survival. Adaptation/evolution is a slooow process, and almost all mutations die off because the original genome was in fact better. So, the ideal society is one that is by and large traditional, but allows for small groups to experiment with new ways of living, in order to slowly replace/update tradition. But the big chunk of tradition-bound people is what keeps society from falling apart. Now, is some societies there may very well be too many traditionalists, but in others there may be too few. Many of problems of modern people could very well come from tradition changing too quickly - specificly I'm thinking of psychological problems here.
Think more the hardest way even if I feel uncomfortable to be stick close to your body.. Vs Think more its my wisest part to be satisfied under your secure
One of the other things I find important when contemplating tradition is the fact that we're not in a perfect world. Even if we want to make a change in the social fabric and remove a tradition, it takes a lot of time and effort to do so. Additionally, removing a tradition or replacing or what-have-you would alienate many individuals who enjoy the tradition for any number of reasons. Thus, for reasons of social coherence and maintaining positive interaction, it may be beneficial to continue in keeping with the tradition.
true, unless the tradition is so harmful that it should be replaced/changed. Also I think there can definitely be slow and small changes that result in a improvement to tradition, which is a way that I believe is the most likely to work.
Think more the quickest intuitively way with hope for little or advanced progression throughout the new week like the earlier weeks of a year.. Vs Think more the quickest intuitively way as simple as how I shouldn't forget how I start and conclude my each days of every weeks
Wish I found Julia’s work sooner. Now I’m using my unconscious bias towards what I believe is beautiful to learn about my bias towards what I believe is true.
Think more the hardest way as Activities that interspersed within each chapter to promote application-based learning Vs Think more the hardest way as Exercises to make tasks interactive and promote guided instructions
I saw a video of hers where she explains that she didn't know how to edit video back then and out of necessity had to do everything in one take ;) It resulted in some of the best one-topic videos about skepticism, I think.
Think more as wise as possible till 05:51 PM Vs Think more as wise as possible like a mind that clearly captured the intentional part of other people's minds through their actions
I am a guy and I have to self claim that my rational thinking has allowed me to gather the courage to not only have long hair but also wear skirts in public without fear, while just being a guy. If people are against what I do, they just simply haven't thought very much about their thoughts or opinions.
"She (custom), by little and little, slily and unperceived, slips in the foot of her authority, but having by this gentle and humble beginning, with the benefit of time, fixed and established it, she then unmasks a furious and tyrannic countenance, against which we have no more the courage or the power so much as to lift up our eyes." Montaigne, Essays I, Of Custom
Think more the quickest Intuitively way as how *Bonding is communicating* Vs Think more the quickest Intuitively way as how *Sharing our ideas, opinions, and thoughts with other individuals can bond relationships*
Correction: the taboo against promiscuity is not about birth control. If anything, promiscuity is good for spreading genes / exploring different combinations of them. Instead, it is about STDs. There are still societies where promiscuity is a norm but their population is small. Any large group promiscuity lets sexually-transmitted diseases to expand very quickly and make their victims infertile.
This would be true if humans used the "r-selection" reproductive strategy, where offspring mortality rates are high but maturity is quickly reached. However, since humans are more of a "K-Selection" species, promiscuity threatens the security and resource availability during the several years required for young to become self sufficient.
@@rtvdenys The argument counters your argument that it isn't about birth control. Clamping down on promiscuity means that a woman has more control over who she gets pregnant with. This allowed women to choose male partners that would stick around during and after pregnancy, which in turn allowed more time and resources to be invested in the offspring. Birth control through these cultural norms therefore allowed human beings to evolve into a more intelligent form. This doesn't mean it isn't about STD's, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that both protection against STD's and birth control are improved by less promiscuous behaviour.
@@Pumbear I mainly agree with you but the real situation is clearly more complex. You can observe this in detail not only in human societies but also among other primates. Females do have a say in who would be their partner and promiscuity does not preclude choosing the best ones. However, a small degree of promiscuity does help them to secure support for childcare. The classic example is that a female gets pregnant from a high-ranking male (and so has support from him) but also has a relation(s) on the side with his rivals so that when a baby monkey is born all potential fathers see the baby as theirs and provide support.
Think more the hardest way of how I see the result if I constantly focus on something specifically from the beginning of a day till at the end of a day... Vs Think more the hardest way of how I valued what my hand worked in a day, before the four consecutive meals from breakfast till lunch
i think the reason monogamy is a persistent theme in human social order is because, for most, sex is correlated with love. love, or the idea of love, is centered around the idea of caring for another individual. humans tend to be very self centered and (because of mostly, in my opinion, cultural reasons) are very self conscious and insecure with themselves. We also have a drive to not be alone in life. Monogamy allows humans to establish a trust based relationship with just one individual rather than being forced to trust a group of individuals. because humans appear to have some level of machiavellian intelligence and understand how to use this intelligence in all of us, we seem to understand how to hurt and manipulate others. if somebody is attracted to you, it's easy to manipulate them with sex and easier to hurt them by having sex with another. this, i dont think, would not change if monogamy were to be 'abolished'. monogamy and marriage allow us to set boundaries and make promises with another person to not hurt or manipulate them in that way. in this sense, monogamy is a risk management tool for our emotional contentment. it can be helpful to those that have those insecurities or who dont feel the desire to have to trust many people at once. .... but since not every person has that feeling of insecurity and trust... and not every person has a desire to manipulate others with sex, monogamy isnt congruent with their way of life. this should be acceptable in society as well. monogamy only works when both parties involved want it to work. if one party doesnt have the desire to be monogamous, then obviously monogamy isnt for them... in that situation, monogamy becomes a control mechanism and is damaging. my point is, i agree that our opinions on these matters are not black and white but grayscale. our varying preferences are what makes an option right for one person and not right for another. so, i dont think there is a way to establish universal social rules for everything.....
yes and your profile pick seems like the perfect stance and demeanor for this set of circumstances you've described. So which you think is cause, and which is effect? Physical realities cause mental states or mental states cause physical realities? As long as you're willing to fight it out I suppose? So that winner takes all and unequal distribution of resources is compounded further? Or else be willing to fight to prevent that. Share and share alike or ELSE?
weewilly2007 nice...if you want to be taken seriously with your comments, try not starting them with ad hominem attacks about my looks ;-) the funny part is, you totally misunderstood the point i made. re-read it and try again... but be a bit nicer this time.
Apologies for gruffness, although I can hardly be blamed for your misreading of my comment. What I was trying to call out was tones that can be set via non verbal cues. Something that I'm quite certain was intended with your profile pic, perhaps for strategic advantage? I'd prefer if we left posturing to gangster rappers, thus my own rather blunt tone. So long as you don't knife or spray those who don't agree with you am I right? Peace out!
weewilly2007 I'm a married stay at home dad ;-) no, I understood your comment just fine... the posturing in my picture was for a purpose, you're correct about that, but you misread the purpose. *shrug* you just assumed from a picture (and assumed it was me... it is but you're online. dont be that naive). facebook haha... phhht... go right ahead, if that sort of thing is important to you.
Think more the hardest way as how *Interpersonal communication forms the basis of all our learning mechanism* Vs Think more the hardest way as why Self knowledge refers to the awareness of the learner's own cognition and his/her ability to use this knowledge for customising the learning context...
@ja maguire english is not my first language so i dont rlly care abt it hehe, anw if its based on the knowledge/experience/historical record than thts not exactly changes, because tht means they just repeating whts alrdy been done.
Think more the Hardest way as why *Accuracy* is one of the most important qualities of journalistic writing. Vs Think more the Hardest way as how the term "literary writing', we instinctively associated it with characteristics such as artistic merit, creative genius, and the expression of mankind's noblest qualities
Unfortunately, journalism has clearly lost the "accuracy" quality from it's credentials. Most journalism is propaganda nowadays - but that's a whole other can of worms 😩
I can't fully explain it but partly from my parents and partly because I work hard on building a strong healthy body. Either way, it's just something I have to deal with, you know?
Think more just as wise as how you know it's not about hugging, or holding or dragging closed to each other every nights Vs Think more it's about how much will you be willing to show up for me in reality as well as how much will I be willing to show up for you in reality
Think more the hardest way as how Intra-personal Communication occurs within an individual, usually for the objective of interpreting ideas or situational analysis... Vs Think more the hardest way as *Self Concept* as the First *Function of Interpersonal Communication*...
Think more but to rationalise the value on what I have been wasted so far in the past... Vs Think more though they seems to teach me the rooted investment lesson
Think more the hardest way as why an int Databtype where its purpose which included (Short in: To represent short integer,)(long int,: To represent long integer) Vs Think more the hardest way as Float Databtype where its purpose is to store numbers with decimals
Think more as wise as how I know what's its like to appreciate your work when no one else are there to encourage you.. Vs Think more just as wise as how I keep moving on with my everyday's newday updating information
Think more the hardest way as how *there are four basic types of constants in C which includes the integer constants, floating-point constants, character constants and string constants* Vs Think more the Hardest way as how *Integer and floating-point constants represent numbers*
This video is my ground after watching Joradan Peterson and Sam Harris discussion series (it is great, watch it!). Sam being the rationalist who butchers the traditions and Jordan being the traditionalist (as he describes himself) who tries to show the value of traditions through history, biology, and mythical stories that are entangled with them, it was tough to decide who was "right" in the end. They both had great arguments, but Julia sums up my take-away from both of the them the best. I wish she was there as a "moderator" in their conversation (though the other two moderators did a great job too).
Think more not to be fool by those who think I posted for them, commented for them etc Vs Think more but as I grow old, I'd rather have one specific treasure that satisfies my reasoning questions
Think more this is why one thing that made me disagreeing with others... Vs Think more the hardest way with one reason that I cannot forcefully forced others
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as A is for *Autofocus* again Vs Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as how an auto focus uses sensor, a control system and a motor to focus on an automatically or manually selected point or area
Think more the quickest intuitively way as O is for *Orchid flower* again Vs Think more the quickest intuitively way as P is for *Passiflora flower* again
I take the harm reduction approach I am for whatever works for someone and doesn't do unnecessary damage to others in general. It pretty much near impossible to go thought life not stepping on someones toes but with little effort you can step on few peoples toes. The real problem is when other people insist on stepping on your toes that were problem comes in.
Wouldn't you say that this depends very much on whether we are talking about a rational empiricist or a rational idealist? It is my assumption at least that some form of idealism, such as german idealism for instance, can be wholly rational and still embrace convention and tradition. Look at Ficthe for instance, he thought that the German people were the instantiation of the eternal logos in the world. On the other side there are rational empiricists such as the british like Hume, where what you're saying makes much more sense. So whatever our assumptions either about experience or 'the ideal' (which could be argued for rationally) seem to determine the extent to which tradition and/or convention get dismissed or embraced, and perhaps we should consider those assumptions instead. Anyways, love your videos! Greetings from Mexico!
Think more the hardest way as how I constantly question everything about the fact that why you are still not married, or having kids if how do you apply your law as your ethically dealing with anyone as a woman... Vs Think more the hardest way of how you I openly let you know about me in detail constantly
Think more the hardest way when I'm wise enough to think of somebody who took care of us when we became old... Vs Think more the hardest way how much have I contributedly supporting to my old parents till my 30 as unmarried man...
Think more the hardest way as Step 1. Open BlueJ and click on the Project menu -> New Project... option Vs Think more the hardest way as Step 2. The new project dialog box appears. Write a file name in the File name: box and click n the Create button
Think more the wisest way to rationalise that being aware as an individual with money matter, by not attaching what I specifically reaped with the kind of businesses that others yearn for. They may be having more/less than what I had, yet at the age of 31, it's a matter of concern to find out what that's supported me for a living as an individual... Vs Think more although every week a weekly based Rs 15/- employment newspaper, apart from what we found on different kind of advertising sources, provided different kinds of job placements, opportunities, schemes, urgent need employees, job interviews, trainings, the related information based on educational qualifications, professions, skills payments, salaries, experiences etc
Think more the hardest way with good habits intuitive patterns I motivated myself... Vs Think less with self meditated or over expressively communicated prayer
Think more as wasted stuffs preserver Vs Think more as a person who reduced to visit grocery stores, shops, markets, malls, super-market, show-room etc
Think more as wise as how I shouldn't feel homesick once being a home with you always Vs Think more as wise as how I know I should not cry, once you decided to not let me keep in touch with my friends, family members, colleagues, relatives, neighbours etc
Think more as wise as possible when I know what I'm working on privately is not actually a stuff that disturb everybody... Vs Think more as wise as possible when I learnt how to justify with systems in reality
Think more the hardest way as the last moment I had a conversation with any death people before they die, which might be my relatives, friends, classmates, etc Vs Think more the hardest way as the first moment I talked to any kids who are able to talk after a year or two after their births which might be my nieces, nephews, friends' children, relatives' children, etc
