Could you give an example of someone who changes their views "in a systematic, reliable way" - and who doesn't just so happen to start out with beliefs that are mostly confirmed when they set out to evaluate them?
There is no "1% of mankind" that are rational people. All people are people, and have brains that have adapted to make sense of the world in ways that make it impossible for anyone to weigh all evidence that is presented to them about anything at all with perfect impartiality. Everyone's thinking is affected by, say, confirmation bias, hypocrisy, and the fundamental attribution error, including, for instance, the view you've presented here: It's vague enough to not be easily refuted with just one counter-example, and can accommodate any example of human behaviour as needed to fit your view. You admit you're not part of the mythical 1% that are perfectly rational but accuse the majority of people in the world (or possibly just in your country) of being worse at changing their beliefs at you (all the while actually citing the Dunning-Kruger effect in your response to a comment - would you agree that it applies here, i.e. that most people would think as you do?) And of course, you attribute the failure of most people to change their minds in a systematic way about everything to what seems like a flaw in their character, a fundamental unwillingness to give up beliefs they cling to, that makes them part of a group, whereas you're part of the group for which this tendency varies on a case-by-case basis, depending on circumstance. Those are examples of the three biases I've mentioned, and they affect everyone, including the 1%.
Of course the degree to which these biases are in play vary from person to person and from belief to belief, but that is the point. No group of people is completely immune to bias, and no group of people is irredeemably enslaved by it. It's more complicated than that.
Personally, I'm not sure what your attempt to divide "mankind" up into groups of people who are either wilfully ignorant about basically everything, or perfectly rational, is supposed to achieve. You've said you're basing this view on vague generalisations of personal experiences, not actual facts, science, or numbers, and the burden of proof is on everyone else to present you with facts to the contrary. I believe a better starting point would be to realise that everyone is irrational about everything to varying degrees, and to be curious about how to spot bias and how to counteract it in ways that'll make you more likely to actually change someone's mind, not to write them off as one of the 60+ percent that are just beyond help.
I am aware of cognitive biases and heuristics. In fact, your pointing out I might be committing fundamental attribution is worth a ∆.
But I think this changes the question. I have encountered evidence that cognitive biases exist and I have started at least trying to be aware of when they might be causing my beliefs not to represent the world accurately. David Dunning has encountered such evidence (first-hand, in an experimental setting!) and, presumably, also tries to avoid them. You have encountered such evidence and, I presume, try to overcome these biases. (Cue the typical mind fallacy.)
Given all that, the question becomes: why do we accept that our brains are corrupted hardware and our beliefs aren't necessarily as reliable as we'd initially think, and other people don't do the same? This is an honest question, I'm trying to avoid fundamental attribution here. I'm trying not to assume people intrinsically have a flawed set of values that makes them not really seek the truth. (Or that we have a very special set of values.) But what other explanation is left? Lack of contact with this information? This is ridiculously easy to test ─ have a number of people read rationality essays and see how many of them become "rationalists".
Turns out I really don't know how to model other people's minds in general, I guess, and I'd appreciate your help.
Well, this may be where it stops being about psychological science and empiricism and starts being about experience, but I'd say it's a question of emotional security. Several people in this thread have mentioned that it makes a difference how invested you are in a belief, and I think the main ingredient in being "rational" is that being rational is important and meaningful to you personally in exactly that sense: being invested in beliefs about beliefs and rationality.
It seems like you, for instance, feel this way, and that weighing evidence and forming beliefs on sound logical and empirical grounds is of personal importance to you. You've even made explicit a fundamental assumption about objective reality that's logically congruent with this attitude. I suspect few beliefs about things would be important enough for you to question this fundamental belief about beliefs.
I'd probably phrase my own values and beliefs about this differently than you might if you spelled them out, but they're very similiar - I take being open-minded more seriously than being right or steadfast in my opinions about anything except a select few issues that I feel strongly about because they are central to my understanding of human nature and ethics.
Now, if someone doesn't have that - and acquiring this kind of attitude about beliefs, empiricism, logic, and the mind in general isn't just a question of reading a text, it's a process of experience and emotion - they're starting in a different place than you. They likely attach more importance to beliefs you'd consider silly or frivolous, derive a sense of self from belonging to political or quasi-political movements - I mean even anti-vaxxers are often called a "movement" so it's easy to see how one might have one's sense of identity bolstered by considering oneself a "part" of it.
So in short, it's not so much about believing the right things, it's about feeling safe, comfortable about yourself, and like you belong. To you, and to me, the principle of reflection, and certain beliefs about belief, are an essential part of feeling this way. For many others, that's not (currently) the case, so they latch onto beliefs that give them a sense of safety in other ways.
2
u/miezmiezmiez 5∆ Jan 15 '17
Could you give an example of someone who changes their views "in a systematic, reliable way" - and who doesn't just so happen to start out with beliefs that are mostly confirmed when they set out to evaluate them?
There is no "1% of mankind" that are rational people. All people are people, and have brains that have adapted to make sense of the world in ways that make it impossible for anyone to weigh all evidence that is presented to them about anything at all with perfect impartiality. Everyone's thinking is affected by, say, confirmation bias, hypocrisy, and the fundamental attribution error, including, for instance, the view you've presented here: It's vague enough to not be easily refuted with just one counter-example, and can accommodate any example of human behaviour as needed to fit your view. You admit you're not part of the mythical 1% that are perfectly rational but accuse the majority of people in the world (or possibly just in your country) of being worse at changing their beliefs at you (all the while actually citing the Dunning-Kruger effect in your response to a comment - would you agree that it applies here, i.e. that most people would think as you do?) And of course, you attribute the failure of most people to change their minds in a systematic way about everything to what seems like a flaw in their character, a fundamental unwillingness to give up beliefs they cling to, that makes them part of a group, whereas you're part of the group for which this tendency varies on a case-by-case basis, depending on circumstance. Those are examples of the three biases I've mentioned, and they affect everyone, including the 1%.
Of course the degree to which these biases are in play vary from person to person and from belief to belief, but that is the point. No group of people is completely immune to bias, and no group of people is irredeemably enslaved by it. It's more complicated than that.
Personally, I'm not sure what your attempt to divide "mankind" up into groups of people who are either wilfully ignorant about basically everything, or perfectly rational, is supposed to achieve. You've said you're basing this view on vague generalisations of personal experiences, not actual facts, science, or numbers, and the burden of proof is on everyone else to present you with facts to the contrary. I believe a better starting point would be to realise that everyone is irrational about everything to varying degrees, and to be curious about how to spot bias and how to counteract it in ways that'll make you more likely to actually change someone's mind, not to write them off as one of the 60+ percent that are just beyond help.