Misunderstanding as a commutator operator: https://johntinker.substack.com/p/misunderstanding-as-a-commutator
#ai #marketbubble #snakeoil #magicalthinking #criticalthinking #chatbots
#magicalThinking
I hope these liars making these projections aren't the reason Labour / TBI think AI must somehow be the magic key to productivity (because somehow the UK is destined to win?)
#magicalThinking #AGI #superIntelligence
bsky.app/profile/j2br...
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:tkbweudpy6tvzjqdiza4z3p5/post/3m4jusogu7k27
I think one of the things that is really bothering me, about the "post truth" reality/hellscape we're collectively living in. ISNT that we live in perpetual doubt.
It's that so many are choosing to embrace totally unhinged beliefs, or entertain them in the void that was previously occupied by the solid, firm ground of facts and reason.
Conspiracy theories, paranoia and magical thinking have expanded to fill the vacuum like air.
#uspol #disinformation #magicalThinking
Street Epistemology, Critical Thinking and Respectful Dialogue
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/21
Roman Tarasov, President of Street Epistemology International, is a leading advocate of respectful, Socratic-style dialogue for examining beliefs. Influenced by the rationalist community and inspired by Anthony Magnabosco, Tarasov promotes critical thinking and epistemic humility. With a calm and reflective style, he emphasizes rapport, empathy, and civil discourse to foster open-minded inquiry. He critiques common reasoning errors—such as overreliance on intuition, anecdotal evidence, and magical thinking—and sees dialogue as essential to mutual understanding. Tarasov also contributes to educational resources like the Navigating Beliefs course and highlights global efforts to expand Street Epistemology’s reach through videos, training modules, and community engagement.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Roman Tarasov is a prominent advocate of Street Epistemology and the president of Street Epistemology International, a conversational method for examining beliefs through respectful dialogue. Known for his calm demeanor and reflective questioning style, Tarasov engages individuals in thoughtful discussions that encourage critical thinking and epistemic humility. He contributes regularly to the Street Epistemology community through online videos, social media, and educational resources. With a background in philosophy and a passion for civil discourse, Tarasov emphasizes open-minded inquiry over debate. His work aims to foster mutual understanding and personal growth by helping others examine the foundations of their beliefs in non-confrontational settings. So what initially drew you to Street Epistemology? How did you get involved in the community?
Roman Tarasov: So I was already into learning about rationality, mostly from the LessWrong community—Eliezer Yudkowsky as an author, primarily, and others as well. And then I just bumped into Anthony Magnabosco’s YouTube channel and got inspired by it. That’s what got me into it.
Jacobsen: Now, what do you find people are generally good at reasoning about? And what do you find they are bad at reasoning about—either based on Magnabosco’s videos or the broader collective work of Street Epistemology?
Tarasov: Yeah, we already have a huge database—not just by Anthony, but by others conducting conversations, including myself. I would say the main problem people have is simply not understanding how science works. They do not know how to think in terms of hypotheses, testing, or designing experiments. As a result, they commit all kinds of fallacies. That, I would say, is the main issue.
As for what people are good at, I would say it is actually criticizing ideas they disagree with. The highest level of critical thinking I see—especially from people who are not well-versed or educated in the field—often comes out when they try to refute others’ views. I only wish they would bring the same fervor to challenging their own beliefs.
Jacobsen: So, in terms of the foundations of Street Epistemology and to your point, would that be a key reason why conversation and dialogue are so important?
Tarasov: I am not sure about that being the only reason. I would just say that conversation and dialogue are important, period, for all kinds of reasons. That is who we are. We have language—and that is one of the main powers we have as human beings.
Jacobsen: That is a good one. What do you think are common epistemological themes or patterns you notice based on Magnabosco’s long catalog of conversations—or the data you and others have gathered?
Tarasov: What do you mean by themes?
Jacobsen: I mean logical themes. Just like we were discussing earlier—how people are really good at criticizing others’ ideas, but do not apply the same level of scrutiny to their own beliefs. What kinds of fallacies do they tend to commit? What are the styles of faulty reasoning you commonly encounter?
Tarasov: Astrology is huge everywhere in the world, as are all kinds of other esoteric or magical thinking themes—that is a massive category, of course. But there are others. I do not think any of us have conducted a population-level poll to know which themes are the most prevalent globally or within specific demographics. But yes, magical thinking in general is widespread, and I consider it to be one of the biggest epistemological problems in the world.
There are also people who are relativistic, dogmatic, or who simply make the same types of reasoning errors in everyday life, even without invoking magical thinking. As for your second question about themes of reasoning: one of the main issues is that people place too much weight on personal experience and anecdotal evidence. They also rely heavily on their intuition, which, as we know, is not always reliable—especially when it comes to evaluating complex or abstract issues.
Unless someone has educated themselves in scientific thinking and the scientific method, their intuition is not designed—evolutionarily speaking—to solve these kinds of problems. And often, they do not even know that they lack the necessary tools or that they are reasoning incorrectly.
Jacobsen: So what is the role of empathy in Street Epistemology, and how do you handle highly charged or confrontational conversations?
Tarasov: The role of empathy is huge. Although, I would even say that instead of “empathy,” we often use the word “rapport.” That is because “empathy” can have at least two meanings: one is feeling what the other person feels—putting yourself in their emotional shoes. The other is simply understanding what the other person is saying and accepting them as they are.
We typically emphasize “rapport,” meaning that you need a friendly, respectful atmosphere to have a meaningful conversation. Without it, nothing really works. People have all kinds of psychological defense mechanisms. If you begin to question deeply held beliefs, many people get defensive—it is not necessarily conscious, it is just a natural psychological response. So it is very important not to pressure people, to be respectful and civil, and to build and maintain rapport throughout the conversation.
That rapport should also extend beyond the immediate interaction, because the nature of your overall relationship can significantly affect how the conversation unfolds.
I would say, if you find yourself in the middle of a charged or confrontational conversation, then you have probably already failed somewhere—you have likely made a mistake. You need to accept that and focus on mitigating the situation. The key is to fall back and try to rebuild rapport. We actually have tools for that.
Right now, we are working on an educational course called Navigating Beliefs. It is free and available online. We have already written and published a module titled Building and Maintaining Rapport—that is module number six. In the final section of that module, we cover tools for recovering rapport if it has been lost—what to do, how to approach it.
Jacobsen: Is the short answer that it is difficult?
Tarasov: Yes, of course—it is difficult. If someone is already defensive, emotional, or confrontational, one of the main strategies I recommend is to simply pause. Do not try to push through. Let things calm down. It might even be best to end the conversation for the time being and return to it on another day. That alone can be one of the most effective strategies.
Beyond that, it really comes down to respect, empathy, and understanding. You do not want to escalate anything. At least within the goals of Street Epistemology, if you aim to have a meaningful conversation—if you hope to help your conversation partner critically reflect on their reasoning or beliefs—you must maintain a civil, friendly atmosphere.
Jacobsen: I am picturing the proverbial cartoon character spinning on their heel, whistling, and walking away with their hands in their pockets. Do you find that religious beliefs, political beliefs, or personal beliefs—even beliefs about oneself—are the most difficult or challenging to pierce through, in terms of perception? I do not want to call it delusion, but perhaps a less accurate view of reality. How do you navigate those conversations?
Tarasov: I see two different aspects in that question. One is: what counts as delusional or mistaken? The other is: which topics are more difficult to discuss.
In terms of what is delusional, I would not use that term. We all have different political views, different perspectives on a wide range of issues. We cannot all be delusional. More often, it is just that some of us are more accurate or better informed than others in certain areas.
So, I would recommend not jumping to conclusions too quickly. One key mindset in Street Epistemology is being open to the possibility that you yourself could be wrong—not just the other person. If you enter a conversation only expecting your conversation partner to change their views, that can come off as hypocritical. And it simply does not work.
You need to be open-minded yourself in order to effectively model open-mindedness in others. That is essential. As for difficulty, yes—political views, for example, are among the most difficult subjects to discuss, as is anything closely tied to a person’s identity. You can think of beliefs in terms of core beliefs and peripheral beliefs. Some beliefs are closer to the core of someone’s identity—they see those beliefs as defining who they are.
For instance, if religious faith is a central part of someone’s life, that conversation will likely be very challenging. But if someone says they have religious faith yet are fairly indifferent about it—they do not attend church or engage with it actively—then it is usually easier to explore those ideas with them. The same goes for political views. People who are highly engaged in politics tend to hold their beliefs very deeply. And since politics is inherently polarizing, it can easily trigger conflict.
If the topic is especially timely—something currently dividing public opinion—it becomes even more difficult. When people hold opposing views, both sides often think the other side is not only wrong but irrational or even unintelligent. Those are the most challenging conversations. I suggest being extremely cautious with them. Only engage in such discussions if you have enough experience and have already established strong rapport. Otherwise, start with something less emotionally charged.
Jacobsen: How many countries is Street Epistemology active in, given the name Street Epistemology International?
Tarasov: That depends on what you mean. If you are asking about the formal membership of Street Epistemology International, then it is a small group—currently about eight members. Most are from the United States, with one member each from Germany, Canada, and Russia—that is me. So the board or leadership team is limited in scope.
But in terms of reach and coverage, I believe Street Epistemology is active in most regions of the world. I know there are active communities in Germany, France, Russia, and the United States. There are also individuals and small groups practicing or teaching Street Epistemology in Australia and other countries. So yes, it is international—and we hope it will grow even more so over time.
Jacobsen: What programs do you currently have that people should look into?
Tarasov: As I mentioned earlier, we are working on the Navigating Beliefs course. You can find it on the streetepistemology.com website—there is a link there. It is free, and you just need to subscribe. We have already published six modules, plus an introductory module.
That marks the completion of what we call Phase One. We are currently working on Phase Two, and there will also be a Phase Three. Each phase includes several modules that build on each other, offering both theory and practical tools for conducting meaningful conversations.
That is the most current and, I would say, the best educational resource we have right now—but it is text-based and self-directed. So for other materials, I would highly recommend watching videos on YouTube. That way, you can actually see how experienced Street Epistemologists conduct conversations—not just with strangers, but also with friends or acquaintances. You can observe how they build rapport, ask questions, and help people reflect. It is very educational and often inspiring.
Jacobsen: Who would you consider the intellectual founders of Street Epistemology? And who do you consider the main torchbearers now?
Tarasov: I would say the main torchbearer and the most visible founder—for me, at least—is Anthony Magnabosco. But he was originally inspired by Peter Boghossian, who coined the term “Street Epistemology.” There are others who have followed in Anthony’s footsteps and contributed significantly. One person I would mention is Reid Nicewonder, who runs the YouTube channel Cordial Curiosity, which I also highly recommend. He is also part of our organization.
Jacobsen: Do you have any favorite quotes from Street Epistemologists, or from people they have spoken with—something captured in a video where a person reflects and maybe changes their mind or says something revealing?
Tarasov: That is a good question. In terms of Street Epistemologists themselves, I do not have a specific favorite quote—we use a lot of different tools, mostly Socratic questioning. These are polite, respectful, but very focused questions that aim at the core of what our conversation partner is saying. But when it comes to responses from the people we talk to, yes—some moments stand out.
One of the favorite things any Street Epistemologist likes to hear is something like: “Wow, I never thought about it that way. I’m going to keep thinking about this. Thank you.” You can often see it in their eyes—when they look off into the distance, and you know they are genuinely reflecting. Sometimes, it may be the first time they have questioned a belief they have held for years, maybe even their whole life. And now, through some carefully phrased questions, they begin thinking about it in a new light. That kind of deep reflection is exactly what we aim to inspire.
Jacobsen: What is the weirdest belief you have ever heard come out of Russia? Something just absolutely out there.
Tarasov: One that comes to mind: a young woman once said that she does not like to attend other women’s weddings because she believes it decreases her own chances of getting married. That was her reasoning.
Jacobsen: I mean, technically, it does not really affect the “market,” because two people just exited the pool. Honestly, she should go to a wedding between two women—that would actually increase the number of men available relative to women. Hooray! You are thinking rationally about it.
Tarasov: [Laughs] Yes, but she was thinking in terms of some stereotype she had picked up somewhere. I think she even mentioned something about catching the bouquet, but I do not remember exactly—I do not want to misquote her.
Jacobsen: Well, maybe she keeps catching bouquets and is afraid she’ll catch something else—like a venereal disease. Anyway, Roman, thank you very much. It was nice to meet you.
Tarasov: Nice meeting you too, Scott. Thanks for the conversation.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#beliefExamination #civilDiscourse #criticalThinking #epistemicHumility #magicalThinking
If only charlie had his own gun, he would've become invincible and gotten all the bad guys.
Spiritual Influencers Say ‘Sentient’ AI Can Help You Solve Life’s Mysteries
literally called up as soon as i wrote this never stop posting #magicalthinking
#Fascism runs on #ignorance and #magicalThinking
The upside- if there is one - might be that science doesn't stop just because the #Fascist #Theofascist #Oligarchy defunds it.
They tried/convicted Galileo for heresy - and he lived out his life under house arrest- but the earth is still orbiting the sun, not the other way around..
But wow, it sure is depressing to face retiring into the dark ages instead of the enlightenment...
Magical zygotes are only on a continuum of magical thinking, and given our unlimited imaginations anything is possible.
People take actions that are bad for the rest of us; and when one takes that action and extrapolates some uncontrollable characteristic of that person (e.g., hair color) to be the root cause/marker for the bad action, and then uses it as a proxy for the bad act and then calls those people evil...
congrats, they've fucked up and broke society by being a lazy bigot.
Oh man. THIS.
#Religion spoils every human relationship.
#Brainwashing
#magicalThinking
All the isms
#sexism #Patriarchy #Racism #Narcissism
#Colonialism #Jingoism #Isolationism
The Most Absurd #Beliefs People Actually Follow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1DI5yN2B_8
#Atheism #ReligiousHistory #Philosophy
Why do so many people still cling to beliefs that defy #logic, #evidence, and basic #commonsense?
In this video, we dive deep into some of the most #bizarre, #irrational, and downright #absurd beliefs that millions around the world still take seriously — from ancient #superstitions and #magicalthinking to modern-day #religiousdoctrines that contradict #reality.
I realized I didn't wear #yubikey on chain on my neck for 8 days (because of circumstances). And this is absolutely record for me, it was never so long until now!
Does it mean I have a problem? :neofox_laugh_tears_256:
I have it on me now. I couldn't feel so... naked? without armor? anymore.
"Makary, RFK Jr., & MAHA want the appearance of science without the accountability."
Thats it right there..
Overwhelming positive response to anthropomorphizing natural phenomena; heavily implying sentience to atoms, electrons, the universe.
While this obviously helps many people comprehend high-level observations, it is also highly misrepresentative of the underlying nature of reality.
This is how we get religion.
#science #sciencecommunication #physics #education #magicalthinking
#EverythingIsARemix and the majority set of #MagicalThinking is #culture, #normal, and #mainstream.
https://www.mixcloud.com/ASARadio/
#Atlanta #StreetsAlive #music #people #CityByFoot #biking #scooters #dogs #strollers
Short but sweet bit of #ScienceJournalism.
Magical thinking: it's either all-in or... Poof! The magic vanishes. This is why #MagicalThinking can turn violent, I suppose. All -must- believe lest cognitive dissonance becomes painful.
"In a 2013 paper, Fulcheri suggested some saints, interred in many-layered arrangements (a coffin inside a sarcophagus inside a cold stone tomb), might have been “confined in a particular microclimate” hostile to putrefying microbes."
https://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/incorrect-relics-why-some-corpses-dont-decompose/
The entire #AI industry is based on #magicalthinking. Heck, most consumers today don't even care how cars, computers, or phones work.
It's in the interest of corporations that consumers have no clue how anything works. Just pay more money to keep the magic flowing.
MAGA and the Republican party is based more on fantasy and magical thinking rather than reality.
They will contort themselves to believe the lies, gaslighting and machinations to be true, and in their minds, it will become so.
Donald Trump is literally the emperor with new clothes.
#maga #trump #fantasy #magic #magicalthinking #Republicans #gaslighting
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes
https://www.amazon.com/Emperors-Clothes-Illustrated-Christian-Andersen-ebook/dp/B0BLHXSJ2W
Client Info
Server: https://mastodon.social
Version: 2025.07
Repository: https://github.com/cyevgeniy/lmst