My beliefs have changed since I was young. In every case, I believed I was right until new information made me change my mind. Afterward, I once again believed I was right until the next time something made me change my mind again. I never much regretted changing my mind, but I occasionally wished what I believed before had been right. The old belief was more comfortable or comforting than the new belief. If I could still believe what I believed before I wouldn’t have changed my belief.
I’ve seen people argue that commonplace irresponsibility shows why political government is necessary. They never explain how these naturally irresponsible people who won’t govern their own lives can be expected to responsibly govern the lives of thousands or millions of others once getting elected.
This episode features a talk by philosophy professor Michael Huemer from 2013. Evidence from psychology and history teaches two main lessons about authority: (a) that human beings have a variety of strong, pro-authority biases, and (b) that socially recognized authority is an extremely dangerous phenomenon.
Krugman‘s apparent embrace of this growth agnosticism is doubly puzzling. After a lifetime of study, a brilliant Nobel laureate still lacks anything useful to say about fostering growth? How is that even possible?
I’ve been observing and listening to what people around me are saying concerning recent events. It’s been interesting.
Xi Jinping and Ali Khamenei prefer Joe Biden to Donald Trump. Vladimir Putin prefers Donald Trump to Joe Biden. That’s according to William Evanina, Director of the US National Counterintelligence and Security Center. “Many foreign actors,” he says, “have a preference for who wins the election, which they express through a range of overt and … Continue reading The “Election Interference” Fearmongers Think You’re Stupid →
Out of all the major political movements on Earth, none is more Orwellian than “social justice.” No other movement is so dedicated to achieving the opposite of what its slogans proclaim – or so aggressive in the warping of language. While every ideology is prone to a little doublethink, “social justice” is doublethink at its core.
Last week, I was part of the Cato Institute’s book forum on Laurence Siegel’s Fewer, Richer, Greener: Prospects for Humanity in an Age of Abundance. Here’s my commentary on the book.
It is far more efficient to deal with identifying the errors in logic than the errors in fact (though correcting all kinds of errors are important). Logic works by a series of first principles that everyone can learn and no one can evade. Contradictions, fallacies, false equivalencies, and other errors in thinking are much easier to dislodge than disputes over evidence (often evidence can be ambiguous).
I used to think people could change their beliefs. I thought if people were presented with better information which showed the flaw in their belief, they would change their belief to fit the new information. I thought the process would be almost automatic.