Orthodox privilege probably exists but, at least in the US, we also see a lot of people who fetishize independent-mindedness to a degree that's irrational as well.
> thinking for ourselves is over-rated in most cases. In most cases, for most of us, good science and pseudoscience, good history and pseudohistory are going to be equally convincing. Bayesian logic suggests that sticking with mainstream experts and consensus thinking is a safer bet than rolling the dice on the Galileo Gambit.
So PG seems to be arguing that orthodox privilege is bad and independent-mindedness is important while Scott Alexander seems to be arguing that conventional mindedness should be the default. They're both very convincing essayists. Who is saying something true that can't be said and who is saying something popular but false?
I have advocated before for epistemic learned helplessness (https://scienceforsustainability.org/wiki/Epistemic_Learned_...).
> thinking for ourselves is over-rated in most cases. In most cases, for most of us, good science and pseudoscience, good history and pseudohistory are going to be equally convincing. Bayesian logic suggests that sticking with mainstream experts and consensus thinking is a safer bet than rolling the dice on the Galileo Gambit.
So PG seems to be arguing that orthodox privilege is bad and independent-mindedness is important while Scott Alexander seems to be arguing that conventional mindedness should be the default. They're both very convincing essayists. Who is saying something true that can't be said and who is saying something popular but false?