2068

LESSWRONG
LW

2067
RationalizationRationality
Frontpage

6

[ Question ]

Asking for a name for a symptom of rationalization

by metachirality
7th Jan 2023
1 min read
A
3
5

6

6

Asking for a name for a symptom of rationalization
2Vladimir_Nesov
1joseph_c
1joseph_c
1metachirality
2Slider
New Answer
New Comment

3 Answers sorted by
top scoring

Vladimir_Nesov

Jan 08, 2023

20

The mere fact of having a belief is some evidence of its truth, robustly so in a well-maintained mind, when within scope of what the mind was actually trained on. Some beliefs don't have clear explicit arguments going for them, and that's not a reason to ignore them as evidence. Such beliefs are only rational evidence though, a personal argument whose truth is hard to communicate without it already being self-evident to others.

Add Comment

joseph_c

May 05, 2023

11

I think the old meaning of "bigot" is very close to this. From the 1828 Websters Dictionary:

BIG'OT, noun

1. A person who is obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, practice or ritual. The word is sometimes used in an enlarged sense, for a person who is illiberally attached to any opinion, or system of belief; as a bigot to the Mohammedan religion; a bigot to a form of government.

2. A venetian liquid measure containing the fourth part of the amphor, or half the boot.

Add Comment

joseph_c

Jan 08, 2023

10

I can't really think of a word that describes this. Maybe "dogmatic", "fanatic", "blind faith", or "convicted"?

Add Comment
[-]metachirality3y10

That's not really specific enough. I would describe it as someone being really angry about something, contingent on a certain belief being true, but then when you ask them why they believe that belief, its very weak evidence or something that is the opposite of an open and shut case or something that could vary depending on context and so on and so forth.

Reply
1 comment, sorted by
top scoring
Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 12:58 AM
[-]Slider3y20

Does "reasons" mean "things that led/lead to the belief" or "things brought up when challenged about the belief"?

In the thought causation sense it would seem to be a contradiction in definition. How do you "hold an opinion" in a different intensity than from where in your person it is coming from?

In the second sense it is important to understand that engaging with the stances as standing for something is likely to be pointless.

Reply
Moderation Log
More from metachirality
View more
Curated and popular this week
A
3
1
RationalizationRationality
Frontpage

What is the most specific word for the phenomenon of when someone holds an opinion very strongly on an emotional level but whose reasons for holding that opinion that seem very weak and don't evoke a strong emotional response?