Hide table of contents

Note: This post discusses the concept of Naive Realism with specific references to youth social movements and advocacy for social justice, such as through the 1960s youth movement. Please note that my research is by no means substantive on this topic, so feel free to let me know if I have missed out or misrepresented something significantly.

Introduction

Naive realism is a psychological concept that refers to the tendency of individuals to believe that their perceptions of the world are objective and that others who disagree are misinformed, irrational, or biased. This perspective stems from the assumption that one's own interpretation of reality is accurate, and that anyone who has a different perspective must be wrong, not because they have different information or experiences, but because they are not "seeing things correctly.

Role in Social Movements

This concept plays a significant role in social movements and debates. People engaged in these causes often believe their perspective is the "right" one and struggle to understand why others don't share their views. Naive realism can intensify conflicts because it reinforces the belief that those who disagree are fundamentally flawed in their understanding, rather than simply holding a different point of view.

While Naive Realism helps explain the psychological underpinnings of why people become deeply invested in their causes, it alone doesn't fully account for the rise of youth activism in periods like the 1960s. The widespread social movements of that era, driven largely by young people, were shaped by a combination of factors. Economic prosperity after World War II, greater access to education, and the rise of mass media all played crucial roles in giving the youth a platform to challenge existing power structures. Living in a time of rapid societal change, young people were especially receptive to emerging political and social ideologies that demanded justice, equality, and freedom.

In this context, the youth’s attraction to social justice causes isn’t just about believing their perspective is inherently right, as it’s also about their openness to change, idealism, and willingness to challenge deep-rooted inequalities. Thus, a combination of such factors and components enabled young people to become key players in reshaping societal norms during this period of time.

Effective Altruism and Naive Realism

In a broader context, the concept of naive realism also helps explain some of the challenges faced by Effective Altruism. Just as youth movements are often driven by a strong belief in their cause, EA advocates may encounter resistance from those who firmly believe their approach or cause is the "right" one. Naive realism can make it difficult to engage with diverse perspectives, especially when people are deeply invested in their own understanding of what constitutes the most effective way to bring about change. By recognizing this bias, EA can foster more productive discussions and encourage a more collaborative approach to solving global challenges.

3

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Science just released an article, with an accompanying technical report, about a neglected source of biological risk. From the abstract of the technical report: > This report describes the technical feasibility of creating mirror bacteria and the potentially serious and wide-ranging risks that they could pose to humans, other animals, plants, and the environment...  > > In a mirror bacterium, all of the chiral molecules of existing bacteria—proteins, nucleic acids, and metabolites—are replaced by their mirror images. Mirror bacteria could not evolve from existing life, but their creation will become increasingly feasible as science advances. Interactions between organisms often depend on chirality, and so interactions between natural organisms and mirror bacteria would be profoundly different from those between natural organisms. Most importantly, immune defenses and predation typically rely on interactions between chiral molecules that could often fail to detect or kill mirror bacteria due to their reversed chirality. It therefore appears plausible, even likely, that sufficiently robust mirror bacteria could spread through the environment unchecked by natural biological controls and act as dangerous opportunistic pathogens in an unprecedentedly wide range of other multicellular organisms, including humans. > > This report draws on expertise from synthetic biology, immunology, ecology, and related fields to provide the first comprehensive assessment of the risks from mirror bacteria.  Open Philanthropy helped to support this work and is now supporting the Mirror Biology Dialogues Fund (MBDF), along with the Sloan Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and Patrick Collison. The Fund will coordinate scientific efforts to evaluate and address risks from mirror bacteria. It was deeply concerning to learn about this risk, but gratifying to see how seriously the scientific community is taking the issue. Given the potential infoha
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
 ·  · 14m read
 · 
1. Introduction My blog, Reflective Altruism, aims to use academic research to drive positive change within and around the effective altruism movement. Part of that mission involves engagement with the effective altruism community. For this reason, I try to give periodic updates on blog content and future directions (previous updates: here and here) In today’s post, I want to say a bit about new content published in 2024 (Sections 2-3) and give an overview of other content published so far (Section 4). I’ll also say a bit about upcoming content (Section 5) as well as my broader academic work (Section 6) and talks (Section 7) related to longtermism. Section 8 concludes with a few notes about other changes to the blog. I would be keen to hear reactions to existing content or suggestions for new content. Thanks for reading. 2. New series this year I’ve begun five new series since last December. 1. Against the singularity hypothesis: One of the most prominent arguments for existential risk from artificial agents is the singularity hypothesis. The singularity hypothesis holds roughly that self-improving artificial agents will grow at an accelerating rate until they are orders of magnitude more intelligent than the average human. I think that the singularity hypothesis is not on as firm ground as many advocates believe. My paper, “Against the singularity hypothesis,” makes the case for this conclusion. I’ve written a six-part series Against the singularity hypothesis summarizing this paper. Part 1 introduces the singularity hypothesis. Part 2 and Part 3 together give five preliminary reasons for doubt. The next two posts examine defenses of the singularity hypothesis by Dave Chalmers (Part 4) and Nick Bostrom (Part 5). Part 6 draws lessons from this discussion. 2. Harms: Existential risk mitigation efforts have important benefits but also identifiable harms. This series discusses some of the most important harms of existential risk mitigation efforts. Part 1 discus
Relevant opportunities