It's kind of ironic to promote the cause of "truth over all else" by such lists of arbitrary items. They always remind me of Borges' classification of animals (http://www.multicians.org/thvv/borges-animals.html).
Let's just look at the last point: "Your opinion doesn’t much change after talking with smart folks who know more." It is so full of subjective judgment. You can hardly tell when you are yourself in such a situation (does the other guy really know more? is he really that smart? has your opinion changed enough?), much less accuse others who might reasonably differ on any of these points.
The list consists of signs that indicate when you might want to evaluate the basis of your opinions. It is not claimed that the list items, taken individually or collectively, are necessary or even sufficient for self-identifying your biases. The list does not say, "If your opinion does not much change after talking with more knowledgeable people, your opinion is reflective of your bias." Rather, it's merely that should you find yourself unswayed by seemingly knowledgeable people, some introspection may be in order: do you have a reason for disagreement beyond mere conviction?
"It is not claimed that the list items, taken individually or collectively, are necessary or even sufficient for self-identifying your biases."
So, basically, you're saying the list is useless. I agree with that. Or maybe we are to take its precepts as Zen koans, to be meditated upon despite their paradoxes?
I think your problem is in thinking that the list is intended to be a litmus test for opinions. For instance you said "much less accuse others who might reasonably differ on any of these points." which indicates that you want to be able to point to one of these items and tell someone they're wrong.
This list is just a starting point for you to question your own opinions. Of course it's subjective, I don't think introspection is ever intended to be objective. As a starting point for introspection the list is fine; as something you could ever apply to someone else you're right it's completely worthless.
Also, what paradoxes were there? In your first post you complained that the list was subjective (which it is) but now you're saying that it contains paradoxes without ever saying what those paradoxes are.
The author has stated as his main purpose the acquisition of truthful opinions, and avoiding delusion with groupthink and such. "Objectivity" is, I believe, the generally accepted name for such a pursuit; and introspection with such an object is a perfectly valid activity. Hence the main paradox of the article, which is that the author doesn't seem to have engaged in any form of such introspection before writing down these unstructured, and pretty much useless, musings.
No. Consider these as symptoms. A cough is neither necessary nor sufficient to prove you have a cold. You may have a cold without a cough; you may have a cough without a cold. Yet, you wouldn't assert that a cough is a useless piece of evidence when trying to diagnose an illness. Why then should you dismiss this list as useless just because it does not definitively answer a question for you?
No, actually, it is not, and you surely know this. People may be asymptomatic yet still have an illness. People may have all of the symptoms of a particular illness and yet not have it. And lists of symptoms are not (cannot truly be) exhaustive.
If such cases occur often enough, then the list of symptoms is not particularly useful. It can only have some use as a warning, if there are non-symptomatic tests available, but such is not the case here - you can't lab test your brain cells for the source of your opinions. What you seem to suggest is looking for more symptoms if you already experience some - but that "method" is flawed, and known as medical student's disease: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_students_disease .
In any case, if someone could reasonably check off all the items on the list, but be a very objective person; or respond to none of the items, and base his opinions entirely on groupthink; then I maintain my belief that the list is useless.
Things are not black and white like that. Someone might be intelligent, and have lots of evidence, but maybe they're trying to deceive you. Alternatively, even very intelligent and very well informed people are sometimes wrong about things that are within their field of expertise. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelv... .
This happens even in the exact sciences. Move to a field like economics, and you'll find lots of smart and knowledgeable people who can't even agree on the basic principles.
You're shifting your justification. In the comment I responded to, you argued that it was difficult to determine the appropriate level of knowledge. Not that people are sometimes wrong.
I think you're missing the larger point here. The OP is offering a set of heuristics to determine when one might (unconsciously) be adopting positions for the wrong reasons.
These are not general rules, and offering counterexamples is not relevant. If you were to argue that "no, in general, if you find yourself unmoved by the opinions of disinterested experts, you're probably just more awesome than they are", that would be a real objection.
My point is that the heuristics in the list are so general as to be useless. They fit somewhere in a category between tautology, platitude, and plain old stream-of-consciousness nonsense.
Any honest attempt at attaining objectivity through introspection will, I believe, be written in the first person. See the introduction to Descartes' "Discourse on the method" for the classical example. This list looks more like the author being pissed off after some arguments, and gathering a collection of what he believes are his opponents' repelling personality traits.
I find that I have a too "sure" worldviews. There isn't much doubt within me, because I don't know what I don't know specifically.
It does seem to me that the more I know, the better grip I get on my true state of knowledge. For example, within programming, I knew that I lack many abilities and strength. It's humbling to me.
In some area I am really weak in, I know that I lack social skills. I am unsure what's the rule of engagement in some of the social situation that I dealt with.
The only one I disagree with is: "You care far more about current nearby events than similar distant or past/future events." That just seems rational to me. I spend more time developing opinions about things that are happening near, spatially and temporally, because those are the things I am most likely to be able to affect for the better.
Most current news already happen too fast for me to affect things for the better or is outside of my influence.
By learning from past, when everything is settled down, I can prepare for future changes. By improving myself, I can expand my sphere of influence and make better decisions for things that I can affect within my influence.
That sounds nice, but I'd appreciate some concreteness. Personally I don't think "history" has much to teach you unless you are a general, world leader, or someone who likes learning things for their own sake. There's not much actionable content back there for normal people.
How exactly are you "improving yourself" and "expanding your sphere of influence"? And have any of those had more concrete results than attending city council meetings or telling your friends to vote for legalization?
How exactly are you "improving yourself" and "expanding your sphere of influence"?
Start a Tim Ferris style business, improve fitness(to increase lifespan), learn economic analysis, build social network and social skill and lot more.
And have any of those had more concrete results than attending city council meetings or telling your friends to vote for legalization?
My opinion is that I am unlikely to have concrete positive impact by voting in elections. I prefer to look for way to disrupt the democratic process and the current balance of power. That's a hard thing to do. (Some people might think I am evil for opposing democracies though)
Let's just look at the last point: "Your opinion doesn’t much change after talking with smart folks who know more." It is so full of subjective judgment. You can hardly tell when you are yourself in such a situation (does the other guy really know more? is he really that smart? has your opinion changed enough?), much less accuse others who might reasonably differ on any of these points.