When you start looking deeply into the various worldviews people hold, one of the issues is they all seem to capture at least a sliver of reality. Rather than just arguing with people, it's more useful to try to understand what sliver of reality they're aware of that you're not.
3/ Instead of “I am an X”, if we can frame and phrase our beliefs about the world in less identitarian, personalistic ways, our beliefs could be more fluid and more closely track with evidence and reason. Then we could, perhaps, see less divergence with reality.
1/ Much of our beliefs are tribalistic. We believe what we believe in order to fit in or stay in with our in-group and to avoid being cast into the out-group. One says, “I am an X” (insert political party, religion, academic theory here).
10/ This is just some brainstorming off the top of my head, but the larger point is we need to put more serious thought and effort into this. Because from our ideas flows everything else.
1/ There should be a greater emphasis on finding ways of creating microcosms in society in which the free exchange of ideas and filtering of bad ideas from good ones can flourish.
9/ From there, we could follow the chain of reasoning that led to one convincing the other and perhaps people would be more open to hearing that reasoning if they trust the AI models in question.
It is not so much that a free marketplace of ideas guarantees that the best ideas rise to the top. It’s simply that a lack of one guarantees that they do not.
A successful marketplace of ideas requires correcting for this market failure. Success would oil the machinery of the marketplace of ideas and ensure it not simply a battle of “might makes right”.
However, as I said, it is a spectrum. Humans are tribalistic by nature, so it is unreasonable to expect us to totally de-identify with our ideas. But it is possible for us to lean toward the “ideas as ideas” side of the spectrum.