Rob Wiblin: belief

Transcript context

…You do a version of it yourself. I do this to some extent, so I’m not sure why there isn’t more competition, but please don’t join in and compete with us. [laughter] Years ago, you wrote that, in order to enforce a level of epistemic humility on yourself, which you think is appropriate, you tried to be extremely reluctant to move your credences out of the range of 40 percent to 60 percent, on controversial issues at least. I found that that really stuck in my head for many years and became a bit of a rule of thumb to me, that when I see my credences moving out of the 40 to 60 percent range, I have to stop and really pause and think about whether the evidence is strong enough. Do you still try to follow that principle? And if so, how do you go about it? I try all the more. I think the best way to go about keeping epistemic humility is to try to write out the arguments of the side you disagree with it. In part, I use Marginal Revolution as a vehicle for that. It’s a selfish use for me. When you try to write out someone else’s argument or even just present it orally, it’s like your own ego forces you to produce the better version. You don’t want to sound or come across like an idiot. But as you produce the better version, you become a bit invested in it. That’s irrational that you’re invested in it, but it’s countering your other irrationality of not liking it so much, and you’re setting off one passion against another, to use Madisonian language. I think that mostly works. Always try steel manning, not Straw manning, but put yourself in the position of having to pass the ideological Turing test. Can I express this as smartly as possible?…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.