While it's definitely true that humans are psychology (and not some ideal rational being imprisoned by all the biases), I feel like there's a little chiseling still possible.
Every time I've had a major "wow" moment, I feel like I've dropped something that was in my way, and became a little more of who I'd rather be. I've added a few bits of clay during my life, and sometimes its nice to chip it off, and be able to see a little clearer.
Rather than eliminate, say, the representative heuristic (which would then require us to seek out large amounts of data to be sure of our position) to make ourselves more 'rational', should we instead use the representative heuristic by searching out small datasets that may be artificial but accurately represent what large-scale trustworthy studies have discovered? I don't know how this fits into the marble/clay analogy, unfortunately, but I feel like this is what the quoted piece suggests.
searching out small datasets that may be artificial but accurately represent what large-scale trustworthy studies have discovered
This seems to be what's done by thought-experiments of the form, "If all the world's people were represented by 100 people, then X of them would have condition Y" (e.g. wealth, region, religion, access to resources).
I didn't down vote but I think its useful to quote from here:
When you believe things that are perceived as crazy and when you can't explain to people why you believe what you believe then the only result is that people will see you as "that crazy guy". They'll wonder, behind your back, why a smart person can have such stupid beliefs. Then they'll conclude that intelligence doesn't protect people against religion either so there's no point in trying to talk about it.
If you fail to conceal your low-status beliefs you'll be punished for it socially. If you think that they're in the wrong and that you're in the right, then you missed the point. This isn't about right and wrong, this is about anticipating the consequences of your behavior. If you choose to talk about outlandish beliefs when you know you cannot convince people that your belief is justified then you hurt your credibility and you get nothing for it in exchange.
You are violating this guideline so severely that it makes me think about the last time we met and wonder about your mental health. Most people don't violate norms of intelligibility nearly as much as you do in the down voted comment. I had to google to recognize the Heraclitus, and finding out that it was Heraclitus honestly wasn't very comforting. If I question the normal background assumption that you're not simply philosophically confused and tone deaf then your writing kind of looks like a symptom of a serious problem. I've known a number of people who sort of wobbled on that line and were very good people before, during, and after, and your text kind of reminds me of their speech.
If you are seriously questioning your own basic mental health, please seek assistance from a wise and competent family member or close friend. If you're uncertain whether or not you're crazy, and don't want to disrupt your reputation with friends and family if it turns out you're just confused and rude, you might try tests like these.
If you are very certain that you're not having a serious mental problem then please stop disrespecting the community and yourself with communication acts full a confused pastiche of theologically inspired language.
ETA: Fiction using similar themes! I just noticed this and upvoted it. Good solution to the problem :-)
I wrote a really long essay in response to your comment, but it became ranty. In that essay I painstakingly signaled my quite detailed understanding of the relevant social psychology and signaling games. Take it on faith that I am not "tone deaf". Nor am I exactly consciously-defecting against local norms of communication; it's more that I don't have the psychological-motivational resources necessary to go along with them despite knowing that they exist and that I am treading on people's toes by not following them. (The marginal external cost for...
Michael Vassar has been known to say that humans are not 'corrupted' by heuristics and biases and other elements of modern psychology. Humans just are psychology.
Robert Kurzban puts this rather eloquently in his new book:
Michelangelo is famously quoted as saying, "I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free." Some economists are, in some sense, like this. They start with theories in which agents - people - have some idealized, rational mind minus the stuff that economists carve away - thus we see terms like 'biases', 'heuristics', and 'irrationality'. They document departures from (supposed) perfection - rationality - much as a sculptor chips away marble, hoping that when they are done, human nature is left, like Michelangelo's angel.
I see no reason at all to proceed this way, as though human psychology is perfection minus shortcomings. My view, the modular view is more like clay than marble. Like sculptors who add bits of clay, one after another, until the product is done, natural selection added - and changed - different bits, giving rise to the final product. We'll get done with psychology not by chiseling away at human shortcomings, but by building up a catalog of human capacities working together - or in opposition - in various contexts.