Point Out My Bias

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I don't think identifying bias should be done with the goal of elimination.

The realistic goal is to understand how it influences us and prevent it from distorting our judgments & discernment.

Edited 5 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Heaven]

2 minutes ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

Wow, now I got curious of this pattern, how it could lead to falseness?

Truth is unbiased so the more biased you’re the further you are from the Truth

[Ulax]

1 hour ago, integration journey said:

This is lowkey becoming a venting thread😂 take it easy guys. 

😂

[Asayake]

17 minutes ago, integral said:

I dont think thats the case, its just that perspective is a open system so its very difficult to navigate epistemicly.

In chess it takes years of training to be epistemicly accurate. That training only works because the chess board is a feed back loop of trail and error until the epistemology for chess is mastered. Bais = loss in chess, so its grinded out of you. 

In the real world there is no chess board to give feed back, a thought has no board to bounce off of, instead you have to audit yourself. That self audit is were all error happends. Or find people more conscious then you to train off of. 

Leo is one of the best epistemic chess boards you can train off of.

This makes identifying his bais very hard because you have to be in range of his epistemic rating. 

My question is how do you know that Leo is the best epistemic chess board if you have to audit your thoughts yourself, isn't that a bias? The chess example makes sense but the claim that Leo is the best epistemic chess board is hard to verify

[Hafiz]

You’re biased against socialism.

[Giancarlo]

@Leo Gura

You often criticize science and Christianity without acknowledging their benefits. I think acknowledging each of their relative strengths would be more holistic and actually make those criticisms sharper. For example:

• What are the strengths of science relative to animism/voodoo/religion when it comes to sense-making?
• What did monotheism get right that earlier religions didn't?

[integral]

38 minutes ago, Asayake said:

My question is how do you know that Leo is the best epistemic chess board if you have to audit your thoughts yourself, isn't that a bias? The chess example makes sense but the claim that Leo is the best epistemic chess board is hard to verify

While I'm not claiming his board is truth, only that practicing against his epistemic chessboard is a good board to practice on.

It also depends on your level. If you're at a 1000 rating, then Leo's chessboard is as good as truth, But at the higher levels, 2000, 2500, 3000 rating, that's when his chessboard won't be as beneficial for your training. And you need to rely on yourself a lot more.

Ideally, your own self-audit is epistemically perfect. But that's never going to happen because people are at a certain level of epistemic development. It tends to be very low and it's easy to deceive yourself because you're high.

Edited 4 hours ago by integral

[integral]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I don't think identifying bias should be done with the goal of elimination.

The realistic goal is to understand how it influences us and prevent it from distorting our judgments & discernment.

Right that's like a self restraint tactic. When you know you can't help having a bias or an emotional skew on something, then you can adjust the "i dont know" nob a few notches higher for that topic.

Feel into the unknown more. Instead of that feeling of conviction on a stronger built connection.

Knowing tends to boil down to a feeling you have where it feels strongly that it is true.

Chess will punish that feeling over and over and over again Until you only feel it When your intuition is aligned with truth.

Edited 4 hours ago by integral

[trenton]

35 minutes ago, integral said:

While I'm not claiming his board is truth, only that practicing against his epistemic chessboard is a good board to practice on.

It also depends on your level. If you're at a 1000 rating, then Leo's chessboard is as good as truth, But at the higher levels, 2000, 2500, 3000 rating, that's when his chessboard won't be as beneficial for your training. And you need to rely on yourself a lot more.

Ideally, your own self-audit is epistemically perfect. But that's never going to happen because people are at a certain level of epistemic development. It tends to be very low and it's easy to deceive yourself because you're high.

@integral I like chess analogies because I'm a chess player. I remember that chess courses are excellent but have diminishing returns once you are above 2000. Also to a beginner it is as if there is no difference between playing me, a world champion, or a computer because you will be crushed no matter what.

I would love to know how we would go about figuring out what my rating would be. Do you have an ideas for estimating this? Is Leo like a Grandmaster level, but not perfect? How would we figure out my epistemic rating? Maybe you can evaluate me after I make my summary of project Steelman in video format. The part where I get stuck a lot is metaphysics though. It doesn't look like thought and contemplation can get very far if it does not grasp the terrain on which it stands. Therefore on a metaphysical level, I run into I don't know quickly. I can get creative and come up with different interesting perspectives, but if I am starting from scratch and not taking anything Leo said for granted, then I don't get very far and I just don't know. What questions should I even be asking? Currently I am exploring whether or not control is an illusion, but I currently don't know.

Are you able to estimate my rating relative to whatever Leo would be? Also what do you think your rating is and why? How can we improve?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Try not to derail too much all

[integral]

@trenton

As Lord Natasha has said we should not derail but this is an amazing topic.

Let's discuss what people's epistemic rating is in a different thread.

[Thought Art]

I will hide this, but I do think it would be really cool if for Leo it was just a pure thread listing perceived biases. Maybe we could start a convo thread to discuss this one, and then clear out all the non-bias clutter posts here.

[Judy2]

In your series on Conscious Politics, I found your position on gun regulation interesting, as I am European and biased in the opposite direction. Essentially, you talk about drastically reducing access to guns, but then you go on to reassure (American) listeners that their weapons will not be taken away completely and they may still use them to "defend themselves". This seemed to me like a cultural adaptation you may have repeated, instead of really thinking from scratch and asking if weapons are even necessary for the average citizen.

It was just a half sentence and not an elaborate argument you made, but I found it striking when I listened to you.

Edited 2 hours ago by Judy2

[Ajay0]

12 hours ago, Vido said:

Also since India has been a colonial or ruled by someone for over 1000 years, people naturally try to find loop holes, meet their needs and move on. So there is not that much pressure to choose a side like in America

Do your research before making half-baked conclusions.

There are many democratic parties in India competing with each other, such as the AAP, BJP, Congress, Communist pary, and others which
caters to almost every spectrum of the political bandwidth.

Competitiveness between them has noticeably increased with time rather than decreasing, and this is visible during the elections when the voters are bombarded with brouchures, social media influencers, visits by political party leaders, canvassing campaigns, large posters and flex boards, and so on.

The US has only two parties, whereas there are many parties in India,  which increases the competition and hence the quality as well. Every flaw or error of the government is pounced upon by the large opposition, which keeps the government on its toes rather than being complacent.

It's very hard for pompous guys like Trump  to be voted to power in  India, and it is usually guys from the lower classes like Lincoln or Jimmy Carter who can be elected to power in India as they are more relatable to the majority. 

In the US, it is usually the rich and wealthy who can get into elections and be the senator or president due to the high costs of campaigning. The poor from the middle/lower classes have no chance no matter how idealistic and competent they may be.

India is an ancient civilization many milleniums old that is still standing when the persian, egyptian, assyrian,babylonian, mayan, and other ancient civilizations have collapsed.

Emperor Ashoka the Great (304-230 BCE) has been recognized by world historians as one of the greatest sovereigns the planet has had, and a model for political leaders at present.

Just as the ancient greek and roman civilizations collapsed in europe due to the invasions of other countries, similarly India had been invaded by other nations during the later phases of its civilization even though India has an ancient martial tradition.

 These invasions happened because Indians became arrogant, intoxicated with power and decadent after enjoying sovereignty and prosperity for milleniums and felt that they had nothing to learn from other nations whom they considered barbaric and uncivilized.

Consequently they were invaded by much younger nations who had superior tactical and technological doctrines.

After independence , India has developed its conventional and nuclear weaponry, and now stands as the fourth strongest military power on earth after the US, Russia and China.

It has the second largest army on earth and its air force is placed at third position globally ahead of the chinese.

However it is true India has adopted a non-aligned stance with respect to the global superpowers during the cold war.

This is because a nuclear war and holocaust can wipe out the US, Europe and Russia from existence any moment, so we felt that a non-aligned stance would help to create a dispassionate space favoring dialogue and diplomacy through neutral third parties.

Also India has nuclear weaponry as well but has adopted a no first strike policy due to ethical and humanistic reasons.

This is in sharp contrast to the US, UK, France, Russia which has a first strike policy which makes the situation very volatile and unstable.

Hence a non-aligned neutral stance does not mean passivity but indicates better self-regulation and space for due process and nuanced judgement instead of relying on broad generalizations that has the potential for strategic failure.
 

Edited 15 minutes ago by Ajay0

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Ajay0 This is not a debate thread. Please do not use it as such.