Urgh. Alas I have a very uncomfortable value judgement challenge ongoing. Historically I've done things like go out of my way to point out when companies have under charged me, or had difficult conversations with friends not paying their taxes fully according to law.
Over time I've softened as it's been clear how hard or even impossible it can be to be treated fairly by the state or large companies no matter how much effort you put into trying. That's the new data/evidence. I now often put less effort into seeking "the right" outcome with large orgs, a pragmatism over more rigid thinking: win some/lose some + considering effort vs scale of error. But I'm really struggling with the local government trying *really* hard to knowingly over charge me 1800% (~$15k vs <$1k) and feel myself much more willing to actively "screw the state" (take advantage when you can). I'm uncomfortable with that, it's beyond passive pragmatism. The effort and stress to seek correction has been huge (many days over more than a year) and not worth the money I gain back. I have justified it on the basis of civic duty, the state needs to be fought so it does but run amoc; I'm seeking a general change in behaviour. But I think I'm also fighting to hold onto a social contract I thought existed, the state and I both try and do the right thing even if mistakes happen. In any case I think I'm going to have to better surface and refactor a deep (oft subconscious) part of my value system. ((fwiw l I've been told that despite a barrister saying otherwise, this: +65(5): a correction may be made at any time must be read in the context of this: + 65(4): a correction must be made if requested with 28 days At which point it means: a correction must not be made if requested after 28 days. George Orwell to mind: War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength )) On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, 04:40 Jeremy Bornstein via Silklist, < [email protected]> wrote: > I'm not even sure I know to what that would apply. I suspect that anything > I feel to be a deeply held belief is likely to be a value judgment of some > sort, like "in general, it's a good idea to be nice to people." I guess I > would theoretically change that belief if it were brought to my attention > that acting on it has demonstrably overall negative results, but for that > kind of thing it seems unlikely that high-quality evidence would even be > possible to obtain. > > Perhaps anyone on the list who knows me reasonably well (I think there are > a few) might care to suggest some things that seem likely to them? > > It seems to me now that perhaps you are asking about things that people > take on faith, in that evidence is explicitly irrelevant to their position, > and on which evidence later causes them to abandon that faith, in that they > decided that evidence is more important than believing whatever it is. > Yes/no/maybe? > > > On Tue, 2024-04-30 at 06:56 +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 6:34 PM Jeremy Bornstein <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I think the answer to this is "anything, depending on the quality of the > evidence." What other answer is reasonable? > > I think the important trick is not to let one's own biases interfere too > much with one's ability to judge the quality of the evidence. > > > I agree with you, of course. In principle (of course!) - but I am curious > if you have any examples from your personal experience where you have > changed *deeply held* beliefs based on data. > > Udhay > > -- > > ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com)) > > > -- > Silklist mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist >
-- Silklist mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist
