tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post8689628237121368509..comments2023-10-09T04:11:47.358-07:00Comments on Not A Potted Plant: A Proper Response To Judicial ImmodestyBurt Likkohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16060980744675990412noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-5194051745623398202008-10-28T05:56:00.000-07:002008-10-28T05:56:00.000-07:00I can't exonerate anyone, myself includedThis is l...<I>I can't exonerate anyone, myself included</I><BR/><BR/>This is like saying "yes, even I too breathe."<BR/><BR/>My accusation isn't really that big of one. I don't know how you could go about testing this, but rationalization is just part of how we think. It isn't something we can avoid. All those complicated Yudkowsky posts at Overcoming Bias are really focused on trying to inject rationality into your thinking process because it doesn't come naturally to any of us. It's not like being a bright guy or getting a fancy degree (or even reading Overcoming Bias) will save you. It's only through rigorous application of the principles that Yudkowsky has spread through an enormous number of posts--including the ones he has yet to write and including the ones he probably never will. Figuring out how your own mind works is *hard*.<BR/>---<BR/>In any case, misrepresenting your own views in the voting booth just to stick it to the Supreme Court is petty. Using gay people to do it when you believe they have a moral right to marry to accomplish the same is something I can't imagine anyone doing if they genuinely believe they have a right to marry.<BR/><BR/>I should point out that I am not accusing him of latent discrimination. I don't claim to know his reasons for supporting prop 8. I just can't imagine the reason presented is really it.bobvishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11498316988120125641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-63651479129667158642008-10-27T21:17:00.000-07:002008-10-27T21:17:00.000-07:00I understand where you're coming from and in a lot...I understand where you're coming from and in a lot of cases, I'd agree with you. But not with this guy. I've asked for his permission to repost what he said with minor alterations because I think he's sincere -- I know from working with him that he can readily distinguish between the methodology used to make a result and the result itself. I just think that he's had the wrong reaction to an objection to the method, which is to throw out the result along with it.<BR/><BR/>If that's a rationalization on his part of a deep-seated prejudice against gay people, then it's deep-seated enough to be called "unconscious." I can't exonerate anyone, myself included, of unconscious reactions to things, I suppose. I hope he allows me to post his statement, so you can react to it yourself.Burt Likkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16060980744675990412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-19350970009002578442008-10-27T20:39:00.000-07:002008-10-27T20:39:00.000-07:00I didn't read his e-mail and I don't know the guy,...I didn't read his e-mail and I don't know the guy, but my remote psychoanalysis meter reads that your buddy is undergoing some sort of rationalization. His argument for voting for the proposition is bizarre. In my non-expert opinion, his explanation is too bizarre to be something his conscious mind cooked have cooked up reasoning rationally--yes, even a lawyer.<BR/><BR/>I'm highly resistant to leveling this kind of accusation (note the disclaimers above). Still, the stench of rationalization on this argument is too much to bare.bobvishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11498316988120125641noreply@blogger.com