For the purposes of this thread, a dangerous idea is not something assumed to be false, but which might be true. Examples from The Edge magazine have included:
Everything is pointless.
(Susan Blackmore)
The fight against global warming is lost.
(Paul Davies)
The human brain is incapable of understanding all truths about the universe.
(Karl Sabbagh)
Some principles (such as war or retribution) are incompatible with a scientific understanding of human behaviour.
(Richard Dawkins)
Groups of people may differ genetically in their average talents or temperaments.
(Steven Pinker)
I posited (and then later discovered that sf writer David Brin had independently come up with the same concept) that birth control may be ultimately self-defeating; that it will eventually select for people who want to breed. Discussion here: Is birth control ultimately self-defeating? - #33 by Lumpy
Don’t worry overly much about the species human making an utter botch of it. It will all work out in the end. Somewhere in the universe an individually intelligent but socially interwoven species will make a definite go of it and work out their antipathies and antisocially competitive tendencies and become truly a voluntarily cooperative, egalitarian, politically participatory responsible species. It may not be you folks. Probably not, based on current trajectories, but it will happen elsewhere to some other intelligence so don’t fret.
No deity is looking out for our safety or well-being
(in the US) no matter who you vote for, corporations control the country and won’t give up power.
Less educated and lower IQ people have more kids, which brings down overall intelligence of the species.
Positions of power over others and over society (law, politics, law enforcement, military) are attractive vocations for dysfunctional, self centered people.
Dr_Paprika misquoted Dawkins: “Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour” (from Edge.org). There is no mention of war
Related to this, mine is: I suspect no human who ever lived has understood the true nature of the universe. Not mystics, not religious leaders, not philosophers, not people who meditate, not people on psychedelic drugs who think they see “reality”. No one has ever known the true nature of reality. People throughout the ages have claimed to do so, but were either deluded or outright lying.
I could not say what he was thinking. My quote was from a secondary source which could be mistaken.
The brain interprets reality but can make up stuff to fill the gaps. This was best showed in a clever study using expert sommeliers who were given two glasses of wine, one white, one identical white (unknowingly to them) dyed red. The descriptions of these identical glasses of white and red wine were completely different and none of them realized they were identical.
I have seen that the time to prevent changes and unrest has passed, but that view (so helpful in reality for the ones that don’t want to stop treating the atmosphere as a sewer) avoids the evidence that shows that not changing will eventually make those changes and unrest that are already here or coming, to become even worse.
If only that was the level where racialists like Pinker would stay…
I’d say the first two are the only ones that count as “dangerous because they might be true”. They can generally be summed up by that first one. Yeah everything might be pointless, either for practical reasons( e.g.: we are all doomed by global warming whatever you do), or more philosophical reasons (e.g. is free will an illusion, does anything actually exist?). Those may well be true but if you choose not to do something “good” because of that then that idea is ultimately bad for everyone.
The others are not dangerous “because they might be true”/ The human brain being incapable of understanding all truths about the universe is not really dangerous, even if true then there is still a shitload of stuff we can understand, and know way of know what we can’t understand, so it doesn’t change our behavior at all.
The war or retribution being incompatible with a scientific understanding of human behaviour is a weird one. For starters I see absolutely zero evidence that might be true. And I’m not sure what negative consequences would be if it was? I guess it might discourage attempts to scientifically understand human behavior. It seems a very unscientific thing to say (if your model of human behavior has gaps you should say “I need a new model” not just “oh well I guess those things are just unknowable shrugs”)
This one I object to strongly: 'Groups of people may differ genetically in their average talents or temperaments." Saying that is dangerous because it might be true is bs. Its dangerous because of the things people who believe that, despite the evidence to the contrary do based on that belief (e.g. holocaust, the transatlantic slave trade, segregation, etc.) If it turned out to be true (for the sake of argument, its not) we wouldn’t collectively go “oh I guess we own Hitler an apology”.
Motivation experiments show that offering big rewards for simple tasks work beautifully, but when intellectual power is needed in a task, then big rewards are not conductive to increasing performance.
That has been known in Psychology and Economics for a while.
IMHO when one takes that effect into sociology matters, is where I think it becomes dangerous for many that want to keep things as tey are.
As the narrator mentions it, after a certain point, the lack of performance for more rewards observed in humans, sounds like something a socialist would point out, but I think that is not the dangerous part.
Most educated and more economically independent people are the ones that usually understand the benefits of more socially minded solutions, (Government bailouts, stimulus checks, to prevent depressions) while the ones that do more physical work and are less wealthy react better to simpler solutions and incentives. (A more capitalist mindset)
There are exceptions, but the experiments explain a lot in my opinion regarding the failure of many socio-economical solutions attempted in the past and present. For example, a fraction of the well-to-do that do not like a change for the better, then can misrepresent to the less well off a good solution to a problem. Resulting in voters, voting against their own interests.
The dangerous part for those opposing change is when the less wealthy figure out that the wealthy are the ones using a lot of “evil” socialist solutions and getting all the dough, while the less wealthy get the crumbs.
