Should I listen to people with low intellectual integrity?

[UpperMaster]

Intellectual integrous individual  (my understanding): Individuals that have minimal biases, hypocrisy, ideology in their ideas and work. People who actually value truth rather than just want to be right. 

I'm confused about whether I should consider viewpoints from people with low intellectual integrity. I read that Leo  completely discards viewpoints from creators or authors who lack intellectual integrity. But at the same time, in his advice for young people video, he encourages taking in different perspectives.

How can I embrace different perspectives when many come from individuals with low intellectual identity?

It also seems to me that very few people are fully intellectually honest, as they might be unknowingly influenced by ideology in subtle ways (examples being Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson).

What is the minimum standard of intellectual integrity I should look for when deciding whether to listen to someone and take in their perspectives?

I have recently become more aware on how the media that I consume affects my daily life and decisions,  I want to completely eliminate perspectives that hurt me (like blackpill) while also maintaining a healthy variety of perspectives for my growth. 

Edited October 12 by UpperMaster

[Leo Gura]

I have an episode about this topic coming soon.

You can study people of low intellectual integrity like chimps in a zoo, for epistemic lessons. Focus on the structure of what they say more than the content.

You can study Hitler without buying into his content. Basically any Tier 1 content is good grist for your Tier 2 mill.

Edited October 12 by Leo Gura

[mmKay]

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I have an episode about this topic coming soon.

You can study people of low intellectual integrity like chimps in a zoo, for epistemic lessons. Focus on the structure of what they say more than the content.

You can study Hitler without buying into his content. Basically any Tier 1 content is good grist for your Tier 2 mill.

I like observing myself observing others,  as the insights and  learning is happening real-time , making sense of sense-making

Tier 3 hobbies lol

Edited October 12 by mmKay

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, mmKay said:

Tier 3 hobbies lol

In your dreams 

[The Renaissance Man]

2 hours ago, UpperMaster said:

What is the minimum standard of intellectual integrity I should look for when deciding whether to listen to someone and take in their perspectives?

I feel this is too much of a black and white way of thinking about it. First, you're never going to have precise criteria to make this sort of evaluation, it's going to come from intuition and experience. You're never going to get a precise scale from 1 to 10, where above a 4 you listen and below it you don't. 

But on a more practical level, not every topic is polluted by integrity in the same way. For example, a chess world champion may be a rapist but provide the most amazing chess lessons. So even the content can be studied. The more the topic is "pollutable", the more careful you need to be.

An even better principle to go by is that you shouldn't trust anyone's word anyway. Even a person who really  values truth can have blind spots, sometimes out of simple ignorance about a topic. One of the most recent's posts on Leo's blog was just about the dilemma of understanding an ideology: either being detached but not understanding it fully, or being fully immersed but at a very high risk of becoming biased.

In summary:

• You can learn from people with lower intellectual integrity in some cases
• High intellectual integrity doesn't mean perfect and always accurate

So, always verify stuff in your direct experience anyway, since everybody is subject to self-deception.

-----

Re-reading your post I noticed that maybe I didn't answer your question, so I'm making an addendum: you asked about their viewpoints, not about chess knowledge. In that case this:

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Focus on the structure of what they say more than the content.

makes the most sense. But still, since everybody is subject to self-deception as I said, you can't 100% settle with the perspective of an individual with high intellectual integrity, you should still verify in direct experience and question everything.

Edited October 12 by The Renaissance Man

[UpperMaster]

11 minutes ago, The Renaissance Man said:

I feel this is too much of a black and white way of thinking about it. First, you're never going to have precise criteria to make this sort of evaluation, it's going to come from intuition and experience. You're never going to get a precise scale from 1 to 10, where above a 4 you listen and below it you don't. 

 

I agree that the process of finding intellectually integrous content is easy, but I think there are certain hallmarks for low quality information. Like ideology for example, there are hallmarks or patterns that exist in every ideology that makes it easy to identify and discard. 

 

 

[UpperMaster]

24 minutes ago, The Renaissance Man said:

An even better principle to go by is that you shouldn't trust anyone's word anyway. Even a person who really  values truth can have blind spots, sometimes out of simple ignorance about a topic. One of the most recent's posts on Leo's blog was just about the dilemma of understanding an ideology: either being detached but not understanding it fully, or being fully immersed but at a very high risk of becoming biased.

 

That’s so true! I totally get what Leo is saying. I remember watching blackpill ideology, and it felt really strange. I kept feeling like I was avoiding it, but at the same time, I knew that the more I exposed myself to it and tried to understand it, the more I risked becoming indoctrinated.

Edited October 12 by UpperMaster

[The Renaissance Man]

11 minutes ago, UpperMaster said:

I agree that the process of finding intellectually integrous content is easy, but I think there are certain hallmarks for low quality information. Like ideology for example, there are hallmarks or patterns that exist in every ideology that makes it easy to identify and discard. 

@UpperMaster Ok now I get more of what you're talking about. I found that quite hard. What helped me most was Leo's material on epistemology to be honest. If your goal is to assess the level of integrity of a person you need to know what integrity looks like and self-deception mechanisms, plus I noticed that unless I'm above or really close to that level myself, my judgment is not accurate, because in my direct experience I'm still to immature to evaluate certain people and their perspectives. I can learn from them, but the assessment of whether the perspective is a good one or not is not accurate. This is my experience with this problem. And my solution (I try my best) is to not come to conclusions too quickly (I saw in another post that you're familiar with not-knowing) and be ready to find myself being wrong and let go of that and change idea for the better. I make mistakes in judgment all the time but.. what can you do. The best I have is to not be attached to ideas.

Edited October 12 by The Renaissance Man

[UpperMaster]

9 minutes ago, The Renaissance Man said:

nd be ready to find myself being wrong and let go of that and change idea for the better

This. Sooo hard to do. Great reply, I can defenitly relate.

[The Renaissance Man]

@UpperMaster Oh, I'd add that cross referencing, or stydudying from lots of sources, will automatically reduce this issue 10 fold. Regardless of their quality. Even if you're totally ignorant and just use some basic judgment to filter out the basic crap.

How could I not mention this! This is the simplest, most powerful solution, while more nuanced ones are the ones I talked about before.

I've still not appreciated the full power of this, and it's reflected by settling for a single source too often. But every time I learn from multiple sources, even if the original source was Leo himself, it's so illuminating. I should really make it a requirement for myself to study deeply from at least 3-5 sources before even thinking of coming to any conclusion.

[UpperMaster]

@Leo Gura Can't wait for the video. I just read your blog post about social systems. Very interested on the insights you have on how to study ideology and social systems in the best way. I have personal experienced difficulties you describe in the blog when watching blackpill content. It's like you don't truly understand what they are saying until you immerse yourself in the content itself. But at that point, you can see yourself starting to actively defend blackpill worldview, even if that's at the expense of your development.

 

Also, fascism and racism is somewhat on the rise in Europe, one of my best friends, as great as he is, is very ideological and is incredibly anti-migrant. I can see how belief systems like Fascism have spread, I even know because I am in so close proximity to him, how it feels to be very racist. It's the exact same thing. It feels as thought you can only truly understand fascism and racism as an ideology at the expense of becoming ideological. 

Edited October 12 by UpperMaster

[UpperMaster]

4 minutes ago, The Renaissance Man said:

I've still not appreciated the full power of this, and it's reflected by settling for a single source too often. But every time I learn from multiple sources, even if the original source was Leo himself, it's so illuminating. I should really make it a requirement for myself to study deeply from at least 3-5 sources before even thinking of coming to any conclusion.

I agree with you, but it’s also important to consider that the other sources you check might share the same biases as the original one. Even when you search for different perspectives, the answers might still be similar because they come from the same cultural or ideological background, carrying the same biases.

I think you're right. It's probably important to explore sources from different fields or cultures. For example, two psychologists might have similar opinions on solving a problem, but a psychologist and a successful entrepreneur could have radically different views because they come from different experiences and backgrounds. It’s not the best example, but you get the idea.

[The Renaissance Man]

2 minutes ago, UpperMaster said:

I agree with you, but it’s also important to consider that the other sources you check might share the same biases as the original one. Even when you search for different perspectives, the answers might still be similar because they come from the same cultural or ideological background, carrying the same biases.

Yes this is true, but if you're unable to make an accurate assessment on one source, using multiple will still reduce the risk by a lot. Then I guess you could also use AI to ask for the main perspectives in a field and explore the counterpoints they make. But this would be tedious and I don't know if I would have the wisdom to follow through and actually explore them right now.

Even if your multiple sources are all biased they won't be identical anyway, and if you don't study passively, but instead try to find a solid overall coherence, any inconsistency between the sources is going to lead to more exploration, and if the sources are actually wrong, the inconsistencies should be more numerous. In a way, if you're really going after true understanding the issue shouln't be as bad.

[Davino]

5 hours ago, mmKay said:

Tier 3 hobbies lol

There are almost no documented cases of Tier 3. There's only one being that is supposed to have been in solid Tier 3 and just his life story shows how remarkable this achievement really is. The ammount of factors that came together to make it possible is almost a miracle.

Shivapuri Baba was born in 1826 AD in Kerala, South India.

He lost his parents at the age of 9, so his grandfather Achyutam who was a well known scholar in the court of Tipu Sultan and a reputed jeweler with considerable wealth, looked after him.

The family was very learned as well; Sanskrit was their family language. When his Grandfather retired and wanted to spend the rest of his life in a forest doing Spiritual Sadhana, Shivapuri Baba accompanied him. He stayed with him till his death. Thereafter, he entered deep into the Narmada Forest, surviving alone, with one goal in mind: The Quest for God. After nearly 25 years of severe solitary dedication, God Realization happened, the final destination wich, Shivapuri Baba said, every human being must reach.

Then, he set out to travel, as wished by his Grandfather with all his inherited wealth, for the great journey: The round of the world, (80% on foot), and fortified his knowledge about this world. 

Quote

An unknown Indian mystic with deep penetrating eyes and a hypnotic presence arrived in Rome in the late eighteen hundreds. He had already travelled on foot through Afghanistan, Iran, Jerusalem and Turkey, and through the Balkans into Greece, before finally reaching the Italian capital. There he received an invitation from Queen Victoria herself to visit Buckingham Palace and stay there as a royal guest. Queen Victoria had developed an interest in Indian mysticism, and wanted to explore its deeper realms. After hearing that a mystic of divine countenance had come to Europe, she wanted to meet the yogi and learn the nuances of mysticism from him. He accepted this royal invitation and lived in Buckingham Palace for four years (he met various European heads of state), and had eighteen private meetings with the queen, in which she received direct teachings on yoga from him.

Victoria had asked him not to leave England while she was alive, so he lived in the palace and became her spiritual guide and counsellor. After the queen died in 1901, the Sage again continued his pilgrimage on foot. After spending three years in America (meeting U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt), he went to Mexico and continued his journey all by foot on to South America, and then to New Zealand and Australia, and reached Japan in 1913. Then he went to China and Tibet, and finally reached Nepal in 1926 after crossing the great Himalayan range.

This, I imagine, enabled him to synthesize wordly knowledge with Spiritual achievement. Probably, this helped him to explain about Right Life to any sort of seekers belonging to different religions or atheists who could understand his Teaching very well.

Quote

 

What is the gift of Right Life ? ”It is very simple , to carry Body, Intellect, Mind and Soul to perfection”.

He said that every living being must reach this Goal to become 100% free. How to achieve this? By practicing the three disciplines, Physical, Mental and Spiritual.

Physical discipline: It takes the seekers Body and Intellect to perfection by making his body healthy. At the same time restricting himself to his chosen DUTY and never straying into useless and harmfull activities, make his life successful and wealthy. He becomes happy and lives his life as a King, but he cannot achieve the Highest , God.

Mental discipline: This discipline tames his mind as a result of which it comes to possess The COMMANDING (directing towards the best) and CONTROLLING (steering, working) POWERS over his senses and their objects. He becomes free from his Likings and Dislikings ; He does not stray into speculation and unlawful desires and actions, in this way he becomes happy and accomplished yogi with full of occult powers. But still he is short of GOD. With his death all his accomplishments disappear.

Spiritual discipline: The last discipline enables him to acquire divine qualities, bereft of his identification with his body, intellect and mind.-his false « I »- the cage in which he was imprisoned till then. After this he comes to know his real « I ». Infinity. GOD, Reality, bestows ITSELF GRACE wich makes him fit enough to fly to ITS KINGDOM, its birthplace, its birthright, its GOAL, One becomes The GREATEST.

Truly One becomes OMNIPRESENT, ONNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT, ETERNALLY BLISFULL AND IMMORTAL.

Shivapuri Baba implores every human to achieve this; reccomanding the practice of the three Disciplines, simultanousely, not dissociated. In the begining, the first two will be predominant. At the end, the third becomes Predominant.

 

Completing his world tour, Baba eventually arrived in Nepal in 1926 at the ripe old age of one hundred. After a short stay in Varanasi, he left for his hometown, Kerala, to inquire about his twin sister, the only surviving member of his family. After seventy years, the yogi had returned to his own home as a wandering sannyasin, to find that his sister had died a long time ago. Then he finalized a few family affairs, and retired to the Shivapuri forests of Nepal. He lived on the Shivapuri hill for thirty-seven years. The saint became synonymous with the Shivapuri hill, earning him the name of Shivapuri Baba.

Shivapuri Baba left his body on January 28, 1963. His final message was: “Live Right Life, Worship God. That is all. Nothing more.” He took a drink of water then said “Gaya” (I’m gone), laid down on his right side and passed away. The sole purpose of human life is to find the Ultimate Truth, or God, and to this end a certain code of life is required—a spiritual, mental, and physical order.

[mmKay]

@UpperMaster sneak peek appetizer

https://www.actualized.org/insights/learning-from-partially-false-perspectives

@Davino my ego says my ego is tier 3 so it can't possibly be wrong

Edited October 12 by mmKay

[Emerald]

There's one story that I'd heard that really resonated with me regarding this question.

I think it was a story that involved Plato and his student Aristotle.... of perhaps it was Plato and another student.

And Plato said to the student that, sometime over the coming year, he would be sending a teacher with an important teaching. And the teacher that was carrying this important teaching from Plato could be anyone... a child, a woman, a man, a beggar on the street, etc.

And so, Plato's student started treating everyone as the secret teacher that Plato was sending because he didn't know who it was going to be. 

And at the end of the year, Plato approached this student. And the student expected Plato to quiz him about what he learned from the secret teacher.

But Plato just revealed to him that no secret teacher had been sent, but rather he was teaching the student that you can learn from anyone and everyone as all are possessing of their own perspective and wisdom.

[Loving Radiance]

22 hours ago, UpperMaster said:

How can I embrace different perspectives when many come from individuals with low intellectual identity?

Transcend your own limitations over time. Look back on your former more-limitation-self and feel what POV you had and why you had it. Now, notice and feel the limitation of other people. Notice what their POV offers and lacks. Notice what it offers your POV and how it adds to your POV when integrated.

22 hours ago, UpperMaster said:

What is the minimum standard of intellectual integrity I should look for when deciding whether to listen to someone and take in their perspectives?

Depends on the current moment. Sometimes it is worthwhile to stay listening and eventually notice something that is valuable and adds to your POV, and sometimes the possible gold nugget is not worth spending so much time. Over time you will develop a taste for it and will be very quick in filtering out people.

I for myself listen to my intuition (= inner knowing) because it is better at judging/predicting if someone is worth listening to or discussing with. My mind has all sorts of good reasons to continue or break with a person, but ultimately it always came down to what my intuition said. - The advice of listening to intuition is only good when you have questioned your intuition again and again and when you have developed your ability to hear it.

Edited October 13 by Loving Radiance

[Basman]

Anything beyond just reaching tier 2 is desert in my opinion. Too much jerking off to obscure eastern religious figures.