If you’re intellectually honest you should be able to steelman a position even if you disagree with it.
What are the best points you could put forward in support of a position you ultimately disagree with?
I’d like to read a blog written by people who disagree with the main point they’re making.
As it is said, there are always two sides to an argument and although the truth may lie somewhere in the middle it would be intellectually dishonest to take a stand against a point one believes in except in the way of some type of ingenuous exercise.
I prefer to read those who are invested in their position. If I want to hear from the other side, then I can do that through another speaker/author.
*disingenuous
I find that it really helps me stress-test my beliefs to argue for the other side
Or... you may be schizophrenic lol.
I also can hold two sides of a position in my head at the same time if thats what you mean. Take abortion for example. I can agree that the woman has a right to decide, and yet I also see that it is murder of the unborn.
Its easier to see both sides when the positions are very much disparate instead of gray and fuzzy.
Yeah, I think holding two sides in your head is a good first step.
I find that, for me, new stuff always comes up once I start writing.
e.g. in your example, does life begin (murder occur?) at a certain moment or is it more of a continuum? good to articulate your beliefs as specifically as possible to figure out what you specifically believe
You asked, so I'll answer.
Life begins at conception. My reasons for this are such. No male feels like a murderer when he wastes semen and no woman cries about lost eggs during menstruation, but after conception it is possible to emote over a loss of that life say after a miscarriage or abortion.
OTOH, humans have little problem ending other human life at any stage if it suits them through abortion, murder or war and their conscience will forgive them, which given enough time it always does.
As I mature I find that my opinions ossify, so that writing and speaking do not alter them.
I think your reasoning here is sound.
I guess I don’t find my opinions so ossified on most topics. I’m still open to changing my mind on most things, though the threshold gets higher the more I’ve thought/written about something.
Interesting thought experiment.
I mean, the best way to be able to properly debate someone whose ideas you disagree with would be to construct their argument yourself.
Then, you can efficiently reverse engineer it having fully thought it through.
Yea, that’s basically where I’m coming from. Right now I’m writing up a piece tentatively titled “Steelmanning Ethereum”. I want to lay out the best arguments I can in support of Ethereum even though I’ve concluded the opposite. Also, I’m open to seeing what I find out through the process of writing (i.e. the process of thinking).
I'd love to read it when you finish it.
I feel there is a lot of intellectual dishonesty in the Bitcoin space. For starters, financial freedom technology naturally attracts individualists, so a rich diversity of opinions is only natural. Yet somehow the discourse is heavily circumscribed.
I guess bitcoin appeals to a certain type rn. I may be largely “that type”, but I don’t buy all the narratives. More bitcoiners should push back against bitcoin dogma. e.g. it’s okay to be vegan if that’s your thing, even though it’s not my thing
love this!
The “staying humble” piece of Stay Humble, Stack Sats is just lost on some, I guess.
We are all - every one of us - potentially experts on one thing…and two or three, if we are extraordinary outliers.
Most of the off-putting hubris is from online NPCs and it is a reflection of a couple influencer-types who profess to be, or whose attitudes suggest because they have “figured out the money” (read a couple books and can parrot author talking points): their word is the gospel on all subjects.
Most Bitcoiners I’ve met IRL are as humble as they come.
No one can be a true expert in Austrian Economics, and Bitcoin, and Nutrition, and Politics, and Coding, and Seed Oils, and Fitness, and Human Rights, and Social “Science”, and Biology, and History, and Vaccines, and Literature…
The person who puts themselves out there on all these topics with authority is an expert in bullshit, but that’s about it, I think.
I spent most my time in this world feeling out of place amongst people who own btc. At least the online version of them.
I’m going to try and not let that bother me. I always assume most folks will mute me anyway.
Identifying as a Bitcoiner effectively circumscribes which financial freedom technologies are available for consideration. Was the discourse more open and more intellectually honest in the pre-Bitcoin era?
I think you can be a bitcoiner and be open to considering various forms of freedom both financial and otherwise.
e.g. a lot of bitcoiners are talking about ecash and various forms of stablecoins/stablecash these days. I even know hardcore bitcoiners who are developing stablecoin solutions that touch alternative L1s. this kind of stuff seems to more commonly discussed in private
I think there were fewer lanes of opinions considered reasonable pre-internet. There are vastly more lanes that people will express now. That opens up to better discovery of fundamental truths we may have missed before.
There’s more tribalism online now than there was pre-bitcoin. The online platforms were much less algorithmically driven pre-bitcoin. I think that’s the biggest change.
Well done, you have nailed my underlying intention with L1 needing to be on the table and tribalism addressed. One thing with L1 is the time factor, as the right L1 could effectively present with faith accompli. Do you have suggestions as to how to access the private discussions?
In any event, thanks for this well-considered response, and in particular for the positive note that in fact more lanes of inquiry are now open, and the whole principle that there can be yet more fundamental truths still needing to be uncovered via free discourse.
Love this. followed. from a person who has always been on the minority side of philosophy i truly respect this
