You're such an essentialist

Julia Galef from http://www.measureofdoubt.com explains essentialism, and why it's damaging to your rationality -- and your happiness.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• philosophy
• rationality
• bias
• psychology
• happiness
• essentialism
• Paul Bloom

[measureofdoubt]

Any requests for my next video blog? Is there a question you'd like me to weigh in on, or a topic you wish I would address? Let me know, in comments or in a direct message.

(Also: thanks for being such great commenters! I'm impressed with the level of discussion here, which is high compared to the internet in general, but -- let's be honest -- especially compared to Youtube.)

[measureofdoubt]

@BelascoBlack You're right that there's a spectrum of appropriateness for labels. And our brains always simplify reality to some degree, when we think or talk about it -- It would probably be impossible to even function in the world if they didn't! I just think essentialist language is more likely than most language to smuggle in false or exaggerated ideas.

[kasuskasus]

@1MCOPE Haha, I didn't see your post before I wrote mine, and I just noticed it now. That's funny.

[kasuskasus]

I recommend reading Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika if you haven't already.

[1MCOPE]

I'm probably not the first to point this out, but this is pure Madhyamika Buddhism.

"Things derive their being and nature in mutual dependance and are empty of essence." said Nagarjuna, ca 200CE.

[Sharukurusu]

@5:17"Unfair to yourself as a rationalist?" ESSENTIALIST!

[BlindSoothsayer]

The map is not the territory.

[aDarkRage27]

...to define them according to that characteristic in that particular moment. It doesn't mean that one is making a judgment on the permanent or "fixed" character of the individual (the opinion that it does could just as easily be seen as an irrational bias on the part of he/she who would form that opinion, even though such a person might be more often right than wrong in such a view). Still, the point is well taken.

[aDarkRage27]

I don't think there's anything innately wrong with what you call essentialist terminology, but as a rule, sure, it does carry with it the tendency to bias people in the direction of making overly rigid judgments about people and circumstances. But to the degree to which someone is acting, say, obnoxious, I don't think it in any way irrational, fundamentally speaking, to refer to that person as obnoxious. If a person embodies a certain characteristic in a given moment I don't find it illogical...

[zacthebold]

That was very eye opening. You just earned yourself another sub.

[Turgor]

I'm not sure I agree that labelling is such a bad thing. But I think assigning certain negative connotations to a label, and then applying that label to something mainly to connect it to those negative aspects is wrong.

But labelling someone who (for example) thinks the earth is 6000 years old as an idiot is just a way to filter posts. Should I read every next post by this person with the same attention that I pay to something that a person with a better grasp of the hstory of our planet has?

[RuinSonic]

@measureofdoubt There's also a discussion to be had on simply what issues are important, such as if a false belief is something always worth attacking. But I question the real motives of many who argue. I think of your video on rationalization, many atheists for example have this "holy war" against religion as the reason for ridicule but are they really caring about these people seeing truth or are they often just angry at them and trying to make themselves feel better?