[extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality

[Brett Paatsch]

Eliezer wrote:

>>> you say:  "If people mostly disagree because they systematically violate 
>>> the rationality standards that they profess, and hold up for others, 
>>> then we will say that their disagreements are dishonest."  (I would 
>>> disagree with your terminology; they might be dishonest *or* they might 
>>> be self-deceived. ...

Robin replied:

>> I was taking self-deception to be a kind of dishonesty.

Eliezer again:

> Life would be so much simpler if it were.  Being honest is difficult and 
> often socially unrewarding, but halting self-deception is harder.

FWIW. I also have some trouble with this use of the term dishonesty
Robin.

Perhaps disingenuous rather than dishonest is the appropriate term.

A person may be unwittingly or unconsciously self-favoring in their own
biases and still able to spot and dislike self-favoring biases in others and
object to them without being what I'd normally consider dishonest.

I think your definition of dishonesty would catch a larger class of
persons than most peoples ordinary definintion of dishonesty would.

I wonder if the your paper Are Disagreements Honest? Might not
be better entitled Are Disagreements Sincere? And accordingly
if your test might not be better as a sincerity test rather than as an
honesty test.

Just a thought.

Brett Paatsch