Autumn was busy and I did not finish any of the posts I started. I won’t do that now either, but at least I can try to soothe my guilty conscience by getting my rougher than usual thoughts out with hope of updating and polishing them later.

I expect it doesn’t take much effort to dig up words younger me wrote full of misplaced certainty and eagerness to set things right . No doubt I can still display both of these “virtues”, but I try not to and to limit the damage I use few psychological tricks such as postponing reply when possible, concentrating first on non-contentious parts when it isn’t and asking questions to help me understand how probable it is that I am wrong and what is driving my response. I’ve been compiling questions and this is what I have so far:

Do I want to believe in the result or position? Does it benefit or suit me?
You can always be wrong, but there’s better than usual chance of this when your beliefs coincide with your incentives whatever those are ^[1] .

How do I feel about a problem if I replace the group A in it with some other group B?
Do I feel or think differently about an issue if it involves a stranger instead of a friend or gays instead of women? If yes, then why? Are reasons substantial and substantiated or do they point to a prejudice?

Why am I trying to say this?
Not what I am trying to say! It’s easy to have an opinion, but I avoid voicing most of them by being sufficiently busy. So when I do want to speak up I try to understand the motives driving me since they are also the source of biases.

Is it a matter of a principle or degree?
I see this mistake most often when new technological developments are judged on assumptions that may (soon) not be true anymore, but the problem is general. When disagreeing with something I try to imagine conditions under which I wouldn’t and the likelihood of those conditions. Their likelihood not only tells me how fundamentally am I disagreeing with something, but also how likely I think it is, both of which can lead to new insight ^{[2] .}

Can I be persuaded?
I can’t be on every issue and am suspicious of those who can be. If I can come up with a realistic set of conditions that would change my view, then I have something to test it against. If I can’t, then stop since I am not having a dialog.

I don’t always run through all these questions, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who wishes I did. This unordered list is not exhaustive and I plan to add to it over time. Suggestions are also welcome.

1. Or as Upton Sinclair put it: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ↩
2. Example: unrealistic view of humanity makes communism and libertarianism equally absurd. ↩