[jafaku]

> Have strong values and stick to them, no matter what.

What if someone shows me evidence, a better reasoning, or anything I didn't know, that goes against one of my values? I disagree with this point.

[brugidou]

Your values have nothing to do with evidence, reasoning and/or facts. You can change your opinion, increase your knowledge, admit you were wrong about facts but this won't change your values.

[hnriot]

Of course it does. One's values can be affirmed by evidence, or shown to be based on untruths. For example, I might have competition as one of my values, believing that its always good to be competitive and do one's best and strive to win. Then one day wake up and take stock of the accumulated evidence and realize that maybe this wasn't a good value to have held after all. It's nonsense to say values have nothi to do with evidence.

[roryokane]

This disagreement is a result of using the single word “value” to mean two different types of values. The values you describe are “instrumental values”. The values brugidou describes are “terminal values”. Here is a description of each: http://lesswrong.com/lw/l4/terminal_values_and_instrumental_...

[dbecker]

You are interpreting the word "value" very narrowly.

For instance, one could hold a value of relying on evidence rather than preconceived notions.

[justinpombrio]

Until someone showed strong evidence that those relying on preconceived notions were right more often than those relying on evidence. Then one'd be stuck ;-)