Intellectual Honesty

[Razard86]

This is a topic that needs to be discussed in schools. Society is a mass discussion. This discussion includes arguments. These arguments are often laced with intellectual dishonesty. 

One of the greatest forms of intellectual dishonesty is appeals to authority and focusing on the messenger over the message.

All arguments should be focused on the truth. The truth is everything that has happened. It is the recognition of patterns. It is the understanding that when we engage in probabilities that probabilities aren't truth, they are assumptions and predictions.

Too many parts of society argue using power tactics aimed at personal attacks, status, and turn discussions about functionality into politically motivated psychological interpretations. For example when someone disagrees with you instead of bringing up your points they make claims about your personage (your personal identity) and turn the focus on the messenger and not the message. 

In America we focus more on identity politics, smear campaigns, and our media loves to half report the truth about the topics. Collectively if we do not demand better nothing will change. This is what happens when you do not make intellectual honesty an important value.

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by Razard86

[Princess Arabia]

This will be very challenging to change as these topics usually involve personal survival strategies, prejudices and biases. Unless we start to elect conscious leaders and the marketing industry stops catering and manipulating consumers through fear tactics and stop catering to their insecurities, people will not be equipped enough intellectually to see through these factors on a more holistic level and will mostly, if not always, base their decision-making on their personal experiences and their own agendas. 

Most people aren't interested in the truth, relatively speaking, but in their own survival mechanisms and how they can manipulate their way around society to make that as comfortable as possible. So, if they see the message as a threat, they'll also see the messenger as a threat because if you see yourself as a separate entity anything that's not you is seen as a potential threat. 

Edited August 27, 2023 by Princess Arabia

[Ajax]

Problem is, we train human parrots. They just repeat what they hear from an authority or popular/common agreement or opinion.

They train kids to sit down, shut up and listen. When these kids go out into the world the look for someone to tell them to sit down, shut up and listen(SSL).

When they have learned something they they think is of value (usually from an authority) they will practice (SSL) on other people and it goes viral. They only way they can communicate is with(SSL) mentality.

That is why it is so important to speak your truth and speak your mind. People haven't learned to think for themselves. If you try to get them to think for themselves, they start getting confused because you are doing something that is totally alien to their way of thinking and the resort to (SSL) way of communicating.

I know it is annoying as hell and frustrating, but unfortunately that is the condition of the world.

It is as if they don't know what intellectual honesty is and how to do it.

[ValiantSalvatore]

It's very rare and I find it unholistic to not criticize someone for their lifestyle and persona, if we all would life in a rational dream land, that would be great. So much goes hiding if we would all be so rational and fair, it's like forgetting history and saying nah, that never happened that is not logical. 

In theory it sounds great to gather facts and data and arguments and be truthful, yet even that creation can be false and riddled with lies and smeared with data being abused and falsified. That for me is the bigger issue of the U.S to much "pop-science" real science and that truth is also an issue, people derive also to different conclusions based on different arguments and data for example black crime, not being systemic. Tbh for me it's more important not that arguments are being made, yet seeing and having meta-systemic causations and not blaming a single factor analysis and evaluations like this, this foster this kind of big picture thinking is better than to reductionsitcally focus on a single truth, so much goes missing searching for a True root cause & solution even if there is one. Just stating, facts & data when I see some rationalists they often get debunked by better scientists etc. The U.S has a good way of hiding their systemic impact imo & being in denial about this. 

I dislike super rational truth seeker's it often turns toxic. Interpreting data & seeing trends is a more important skill imo, than stating facts and arguments if data is continuously messed with & multi-systemic thinking. We are just very lazy as humans imo. Going to good experts etc. is fine imo. This is why I like very good moderates for example very nuanced and more big picture viewpoints.

Then to even be that change and do smith. about it the level of subtle gaslighting is real. AOC is a great example of what the result of any kind of education can look like, also Hilary Clinton even if there are small scandals that people even appeal to Trump in the U.S just shows you in a sense how power hungry the U.S is this is not truth, imo. 

Also, with the amount of data smearing and think-tanks and corrupt science it's obvious that good-hearted people can become outraged. When I see the so called "rational claims" about black ppl, especially many get ill, my professor's would turn in their graves not looking at true alternative data, yet how much time & effort that takes to make these distinctions yeah many turn into meritocracy based lunatics & the good ones continue to do good & more good. It would be better to have better data interpretators first of & then multi-systemic causation oriented thinking, paired with nuance and room for error & a culture of empathy.

I still think what you say is correct, yet for me that would be more a value of respect & intellectual honesty, people definitely should be allowed to be criticized, also psychologically. Just Personal attacks out of nowhere for clicks and excitement this has been a general issue. To sort of gaslite people openly and shame them publically etc. I dunno. This is also why podcasts I presume also are so trendy, there is more intellectual honesty often huberman lab & lex Friedman etc. 

I've never seen pure rationality work and be happy & satisfied. Like questioning the believes of others is important, is that an argument? 

Edited August 27, 2023 by ValiantSalvatore

[Razard86]

Criticism is one of the egos favorite past-times so the focus shouldn't be on criticism. There is a way to point out discrepancies in a respectful manner what I call constructive criticism. Constructive criticism needs to also become an area of focus as that actually promotes and creates an environment of intellectual honesty.

If a push for change is absent of compassion and empathy it will fail everyone. The key to understanding other is to understand yourself. You all know when someone corrects you through patience, kindness, and understanding you learn more productively. 

Criticism without these aspects will just lead to unnecessary conflict focused on the injury incurred (received) from the criticism. It will be perceived as a personal attack and the mind will close. Pay attention to the people around you and you will notice that trend.

[Nilsi]

13 hours ago, Razard86 said:

One of the greatest forms of intellectual dishonesty is […] focusing on the messenger over the message.

All arguments should be focused on the truth. 

Focusing on the messenger is an extremely potent methodology for getting at deep truths.

Nietzsche calls this the genealogical method, meaning what the message reveals about the underlying psychology of the messenger.

This idea has been expanded upon by postmodern/critical theorists like Deleuze — to discern whether a message is motivated by slave morality (reactive forces), or master morality (active forces) — and Foucault, to tease out the underlying power dynamics in all claims on truth.

This has nothing to do with identity politics, where you intentionally appeal to different group identities, to sway public opinion in your favor (i.e. propaganda).

Geneaology = revealing deep truths; Identity politics = obscuring the truth.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Nilsi

[ValiantSalvatore]

On 27.8.2023 at 6:03 PM, Razard86 said:

Criticism is one of the egos favorite past-times so the focus shouldn't be on criticism. There is a way to point out discrepancies in a respectful manner what I call constructive criticism. Constructive criticism needs to also become an area of focus as that actually promotes and creates an environment of intellectual honesty.

If a push for change is absent of compassion and empathy it will fail everyone. The key to understanding other is to understand yourself. You all know when someone corrects you through patience, kindness, and understanding you learn more productively. 

Criticism without these aspects will just lead to unnecessary conflict focused on the injury incurred (received) from the criticism. It will be perceived as a personal attack and the mind will close. Pay attention to the people around you and you will notice that trend.

People really need to want feedback and see it as constructive, it's similar to reinforcement learning and coopling this with compassion and empathy, this costs a lot of energy and often people rest to the default of though love, my way or the highway. Mindfully and empathically engaging with someone, instead of critical rationality takes mind, spirit & intuition into account. Also simply asking questions and good questions, also critical questions are a type of honesty, yet if it disrupts the entire process of making connections, I'd deter from doing it. 

Generally what is most effective in business is reflecting someones own words back at them, is the most strategic way to be "intellectualy honest" with many ignorant people. Also admitting not knowing, also what future evidence can bring, especially with inutition as well as what possibly has been burned and denied. 

I don't know if conscious communication also dovetails with intellectual honesty, as you'd in a tier 2 relationship IIRC, constantly speak your mind and do things that stage orange demonizes as needy, and many men will see this as weak. Still, when I did this with friends, especially female friends and best friends, there was a very natural intuitiveness to this. David Deida speaks about this. It has nothing to do with vulnerabillity, yet more with consciously leading & communication & beign also compassionate with masculine compassion and feminine compassion. Anyway, also a high level of non-judgement obviously.  I did one or two workshops with this conscious communication for some it takes practice & I don't recall, anymore there is also a serious issue. I personally thought I was pretty good at it, yet ultimately I did not know as my partner talked a lot & we just practiced. 

Constructive criticism comes close to me with constructing a healthy ego and image at times, when I ask for it, I've felt I burnt out asking for constructive criticism sort of perfecting my persona & generally many did not care, they cared more about authentic in-depth character building & happening. I don't know if this is interesting in terms of intellectual honesty.

Quote from a medium article:

Quote

Epistemic humility is the willingness to admit that we may be wrong and not know everything. It allows us to embrace the inherent complexities and nuances of the human experience, recognising that there are often multiple valid perspectives and that we can learn from one another, even in disagreement

This also might be interesting, altough it's rather unrelated it's something I find very evident in intellectual people generally, a certain level of vanity, contempt and hatred, especially if they see themelves as though. 

https://integrallife.com/how-self-hatred-can-lead-to-self-transformation/

Edited August 29, 2023 by ValiantSalvatore