I Changed My Mind About David Deutsch

[Elliot Temple]

http://www.curi.us/1567-i-changed-my-mind-about-david-deutsch

I have changed my mind about some things I have communicated about David Deutsch. I think the responsible thing to do is to say so.

When someone puts forward ideas in public, and persuades people, but then changes his mind, he ought to tell people. They shouldn't go by his old ideas with no chance for an update and to maybe change their minds too.

For example, if Thomas Szasz had decided he was mistaken that mental illness is a myth, then he would have been responsible for publishing a retraction and correction, and explaining why he changed his mind. Not doing so would have been immoral and irresponsible.

I do not know exactly what I have communicated about David Deutsch over the last decade, in public. This is partly an issue of memory, partly an issue of some things being communicated inexplicitly (without directly saying them, but they still come across), and partly an issue of trying to remember what was said in private or in public.

Let me clarify my relationship with David. I have known David for over a decade and had many, many discussions with him. For David's book _The Beginning of Infinity_, I provided over 200 pages of especially appreciated comments and edits. I made and own the website and discussion group for the book. David is a founder of Taking Children Seriously (TCS) and Autonomy Respecting Relationships (ARR). I own the dicussion groups for both of those, too.

We no longer associate closely. Things changed. I have learned a lot from David and I used to think we agreed more than I now think. I now regard David as rejecting some important good ideas. For some of these ideas, I had thought I learned them from David, but I've changed my mind about that.

Here are some things I have changed my mind about.

I believe I have communicated that David is a world class expert on TCS, ARR, and some other parts of philosophy. I thought he was. However, he has stopped talking about a lot of that stuff and has said things exposing misconceptions. So I've changed my mind.

I think have communicated that I consider David a better philosopher than myself with higher status and more knowledge. I have changed my mind.

In the past I think I basically said David is always right. I did not mean it literally but I did mean something, and I have changed my mind.

I believe I have communicated that David is super rational. That I endorse him and his ideas pretty much without exception. That I'm a big fan. I've changed my mind.

I've said that David is a fan of Ayn Rand. He made this claim to me and I accepted it. I've changed my mind.

The list of issues I now know that I disagree with David about includes qualia, mirror neurons, Edmund Burke, Thomas Szasz, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, William Godwin's economics, deduction, hard to vary, meta discussion, justificationism, the value of school and academia, the value of having plenty of critical discussions on email lists in order to learn. Note that I have left some out to respect David's privacy.

Despite David's TCS reputation, and arguments against school, he actually has a a much more favorable opinion of university and academia than I do. His position on school is incompatible with TCS.

I believe I have communicated that David has the utmost intellectual integrity and responsibility. He does not. I thought he did; I was surprised when he acted otherwise; I've changed my mind.

People can seem more rational than they are as long as they are right frequently. This can happen when they already know a lot of things, but are not learning new things. When there are serious criticisms of their thinking then they are put to a harder test. Critical challenges can be particularly revealing about someone's character. David has done poorly on several.

I still consider _The Fabric of Reality_ and _The Beginning of Infinity_ to be very good books. They are world class. And there are other things David has written that are good.

I made every effort to avoid this outcome. For example, I tried to help David by explaining his misconceptions and offering him new ideas.

I have learned from this. In the future I will hold people to a higher standard. Many of my comments about David were years past, and I have improved my judgment.

-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/

[Sarah Fitz-Claridge]

In my view it would be much more accurate to say that David has the
greatest mind ever to have existed. His thinking is breathtakingly logical
and brilliant. His ideas have changed the world and will do so even more
profoundly in the future. I have never met anyone more pure, more
truth-seeking and more open to criticism than David. But he has never
claimed to be infallible or perfectly rational in any sphere of life.
Indeed, if anything he is too quick to warn that he might be mistaken or to
say that he is irrational in a given respect, and may be in others. His
fallibilism extends to his own psychology: he actually believes that he can
be mistaken. He doesn't fall into cocksureness, and he has always wanted
his ideas to be judged by their content, not by their source. He never
argues from authority!

David knows that even without super-human infallibility and rationality in
all spheres, human beings can make progress. While some define others by
any irrationality and mistakes apparent in their thinking, David sees the
good without being blind to the bad. For example, David has always spoken
glowingly of Ayn Rand's contribution while also having significant
criticisms of some of her ideas. Similarly, if anyone could be said to be a
fan of Karl Popper it would be David, and yet he is positively scathing
about two of Popper's books, and has criticisms even of *Objective
Knowledge*, one of his favourite books by Popper.

David has always pointed out that one important difference between
homeschoolers and TCS parents is that homeschoolers won't let their
children go to school and get very angry at the TCS idea that children
should have a genuine choice whether or not to go to school. If a child
wants to try school, go to university, or get a PhD in Women's Studies
despite your criticisms of the idea, what do you do? The TCS parent does
everything in his power to support that choice and to make the experience
fabulous and valuable for the child. One reason is that you are fallible.
You might be mistaken, even about the value or lack thereof of academic
education. The TCS parent strives to avoid channelling his child into his
preconceived vision of what the child must want and do and think and be,
instead striving to respect and nurture the child's autonomy.

--

Sarah Fitz-Claridge
Founder, Taking Children Seriously:
http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/

[Anon Too]

Your TCS website hasn't been updated in 6 years. Neither you or David have done anything for TCS in 6 years or more. Elliot is the only person who still actively stands for TCS.

[Alan Forrester]

This seems unfair to David. In BoI David explained the theory of anti-rational memes, which is important for TCS.

Alan

[Elliot Temple]

It's unfair to the guy who made this (not me):

http://fallibleliving.com/



David's static/dynamic meme idea is more than 6 years old. I think a lot more. If his focus was more on TCS, he could have published these ideas a long time ago instead of saving the material for BoI.

Static/dynamic memes is a good proposal, well worth knowing about and considering. But I'm not sure how useful it is to TCS until after the main problem in meme theory is solved. The problem is about the conflict between ideas about memes and about responsibility. Until that is addressed, I consider the conclusions of meme theory largely unknown.

-- Elliot Temple
http://curi.us/

[Alan Forrester]

Any given static meme is limited in its reach. Adapting it to new situations requires creativity. So every time you have to adapt it you have a choice between using your creativity to adapt it or using your creativity to deal with that problem rationally. Also even the static memes require that you take responsibility for doing static stuff well: you're supposed to punish yourself for not doing it well. So there's always a conflict between saying you should do static stuff well and saying you shouldn't reconsider it: if you're responsible for it you can reconsider it.

Alan

[Rami Rustom]

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Alan Forrester

What do you mean "supposed to punish yourself for not doing it well"?
Are you saying that that is part of the meme? And how does one do it?
Do you mean like "I'm a bad person, I'm stupid, etc."?

Is this what people are referring to when they say "don't beat
yourself up about it"? Like "beat yourself up" is punishing yourself?

Whats the point? Is it to make yourself feel bad? And somehow that is
supposed to act as your motivation to improve?

WOW! So by being punished by parents and school, some kids learn to
punish themselves using the same methodology and reasoning, which is
to make yourself feel bad so that you'll have motivation to do better
(by the standards of the meme or something), because if you didn't
make yourself feel bad, then you wouldn't have motivation to improve.
LOL!

-- Rami

[Elliot Temple]

Regarding that last paragraph: It's sort of conceivable (I'm skeptical) but regardless you have no argument for it. It is not implied by anything above. You're just making stuff up and asserting it (again).

-- Elliot Temple
http://beginningofinfinity.com/