I want to defend the inerrant rationality of my fellow man from the attacks of Bryan, experimental psychologists, and philosophers.
(1 - Linda) If you read the article Bryan linked to, we see that humans are not committing the conjunctivist fallacy, but simply intuiting that option [1] should actually read "Linda is a bank teller *and onl…
I want to defend the inerrant rationality of my fellow man from the attacks of Bryan, experimental psychologists, and philosophers.
(1 - Linda) If you read the article Bryan linked to, we see that humans are not committing the conjunctivist fallacy, but simply intuiting that option [1] should actually read "Linda is a bank teller *and only a bank teller (not a feminist)*." Incidentally, this makes perfect sense: nobody in real life (except an expiremental psychologist who is trying to trick you) ever asks you to make inane confirmations about the basic laws of probabilities; they ask you interesting things like whether someone with a certain set of characteristics is likely to be a feminist or not.
The subjects of Tversky and Kahneman graciously ascribed to the question, and to their questioners, a basic notion of common sense and decency, and their reward for this was being labeled "irrational."
(2 - Workplace) There is zero contradiction in answering "always" in poll #1 and "not always" in poll #2. If you answer "always" to poll #1, you are not committing to the position that it should "always" be legal to say *all* inappropriate things, just that it should always be legal to say *some* inappropriate things. You can therefore be perfectly justified in saying that it should "not always" be legal to say sexually inappropriate things.
To show that I'm not merely being pedantic, suppose you answered "always" to both polls. Now suppose I said to you, since you answered "always" to poll #2, I suppose you want to abolish slander laws in this country, since you think it should always be legal to say *all* sexually inappropriate (and potentially slanderous) things. But this is absurd. When you answer "always" to poll #2, you are clearly answering that it should "always" be legal to say *some* sexually inappropriate things.
(3 - Free Speech) "the right to speak freely about whatever you want" is a garbage elicitation of preferences because you can interpret it as whatever *I* want to speak about, not whatever *anyone* might wish to speak about. So there is no contradiction in answering that "the right to speak freely about whatever you [I] want" is super important, and then agreeing with a ban of any type of speech that *I* don't want to speak about.
I dislike this whole exercise of getting people to agree with some vague description of a notion, then getting them to agree with a specific example that goes against said notion, and using the whole game to declare that people are irrational rubes or victims of SDB or something. Maybe they simply agree with some notions *in general, but not in all cases*.
I want to defend the inerrant rationality of my fellow man from the attacks of Bryan, experimental psychologists, and philosophers.
(1 - Linda) If you read the article Bryan linked to, we see that humans are not committing the conjunctivist fallacy, but simply intuiting that option [1] should actually read "Linda is a bank teller *and only a bank teller (not a feminist)*." Incidentally, this makes perfect sense: nobody in real life (except an expiremental psychologist who is trying to trick you) ever asks you to make inane confirmations about the basic laws of probabilities; they ask you interesting things like whether someone with a certain set of characteristics is likely to be a feminist or not.
The subjects of Tversky and Kahneman graciously ascribed to the question, and to their questioners, a basic notion of common sense and decency, and their reward for this was being labeled "irrational."
(2 - Workplace) There is zero contradiction in answering "always" in poll #1 and "not always" in poll #2. If you answer "always" to poll #1, you are not committing to the position that it should "always" be legal to say *all* inappropriate things, just that it should always be legal to say *some* inappropriate things. You can therefore be perfectly justified in saying that it should "not always" be legal to say sexually inappropriate things.
To show that I'm not merely being pedantic, suppose you answered "always" to both polls. Now suppose I said to you, since you answered "always" to poll #2, I suppose you want to abolish slander laws in this country, since you think it should always be legal to say *all* sexually inappropriate (and potentially slanderous) things. But this is absurd. When you answer "always" to poll #2, you are clearly answering that it should "always" be legal to say *some* sexually inappropriate things.
(3 - Free Speech) "the right to speak freely about whatever you want" is a garbage elicitation of preferences because you can interpret it as whatever *I* want to speak about, not whatever *anyone* might wish to speak about. So there is no contradiction in answering that "the right to speak freely about whatever you [I] want" is super important, and then agreeing with a ban of any type of speech that *I* don't want to speak about.
I dislike this whole exercise of getting people to agree with some vague description of a notion, then getting them to agree with a specific example that goes against said notion, and using the whole game to declare that people are irrational rubes or victims of SDB or something. Maybe they simply agree with some notions *in general, but not in all cases*.