[HSO]

I like how everybody thinks this applies to others and they should change.

When in fact this entire genre should be read and addressed exclusively for oneself.

It reminds me how I was passionately discussing sth like this with a (former) friend and it seemed we agreed on the principles. When suddenly through some offhand remakr or turn of phrase it turned out he was thinking of others while I was thinking of myself

Meaning, he thought how easily others were misled (naturally, he himself was perfectly immune, his worldview correct) while I was talking about how I needed to protect myself from being seduced by agreeable nonsense.

Again, this genre applies to the reader, it is not a lecture material for you.

We have no business judging others`s beliefs when we have enough trouble keeping our own sane.

What we can do is short or bet against them if we are so convinced that we are right. Place your bets and stick to yourself. If you are as right as you are convinced, you should do well over time. Physical and economic reality >> fantasy and cope.

[Fezzik]

> We have no business judging others`s beliefs when we have enough trouble keeping our own sane.

Assessing other peoples’ beliefs and ideas is, in my experience, one of the best ways to stay sane and learn. Ideas are ultimately independent of the people that hold them. I feel like it is people with unfounded ideas (religions, historically) that try mightily to stop other people from critically assessing them.

[mapontosevenths]

> Ideas are ultimately independent of the people that hold them

That's a nice thing to believe. I disagree.

The difference between good people and bad people literally is the things they believe. Nazis aren't born evil, they are made evil by naziism. Its not only OK, it's necessary to your survival to judge them by that metric.

[mapontosevenths]

> We have no business judging others`s beliefs when we have enough trouble keeping our own sane.

A kinder way to say "judging" is perhaps discrimination. As humans we must discriminate between the good and bad opinions of others, and even good and bad people, or we are doomed.

If you were to learn only from your own mistakes, or try to pretend that there is no such thing as a bad person, you would live a short and brutal life of victomhood.

We must judge kindly, but we must judge.

[Root_Denied]

> We have no business judging others`s beliefs when we have enough trouble keeping our own sane.

I agree with you except for this part here, because what other people believe can, and does, materially impact you when they vote. There's an incentive to try and influence others' beliefs when they're harmful to you or your communities.

[HSO]

Sure but then it also pays to be clear what you are doing: It it not about "truth" or epistemology but about influence/propaganda/persuasion/pick your own euphemism.

And the literature on this is completely difft and, more to the point, vastly more effective than the one on philosophy of science or striving for truth.

Not saying one is better than the other. My point is only those are difft and Sagan is not a good guide to make masses of people vote or act how you want.

[xanth]

> What we can do is short or bet against them if we are so convinced that we are right. Place your bets and stick to yourself. If you are as right as you are convinced, you should do well over time. Physical and economic reality >> fantasy and cope.

In a world with bad faith & ill-informed missionaries (meme-ssionaries?) this is an inadequate political/societal perspective. We should all have the humility to be wrong but the conviction of our current beliefs and tomes that represent them