Editing Load-Bearing Fictions (section)

{{stub}}

<blockquote>
''I think there’s some contradictions that we legitimately—even lies. I talk about [[Load-Bearing Fictions|load-bearing fictions]]. We have to have some number of [[Load-Bearing Fictions|load-bearing fictions]] in any society because you can’t actually just do everything in broad daylight and hope that everything that we want can be harmonized. Some people are gonna have to accept that there are trade-offs who can’t intellectually accept that there are trade-offs, and they will require [[Load-Bearing Fictions|load-bearing fictions]]. For example, we do convict innocent people using our system of justice. And there’s nothing magical about 12 people on a jury being able to decide what actually happened. But if we don’t have some kind of mysticism around the wisdom of a jury of our peers, we won’t be able to mete out almost any justice at all. So I don’t think that we can hope for a sort of child’s vision of an honest society. But what I find really impressive is the rent-seeking aspect of keeping it so expensive to investigate something that it’s impossible. So you talked about a system of selective pressures where if you raise certain questions, you won’t be employed and therefore through directed survivor bias, there’s nobody at the top of a profession who will speak about something openly and in public.

- '''Eric Weinstein''' on [[4: Timur Kuran - The Economics of Revolution and Mass Deception|The Portal Ep. 4]]
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
''There was, once upon a time, a heuristic that said the best way to have a multicultural society is that you have to have some [[Load-Bearing Fictions|load-bearing fictions]]. Like "all religions are equally problematic in all ways"—there's no way that's true. Jains are not equally problematic as Jews, Jews are more problematic than Jains—and I'm able to say that because I'm Jewish.

''As a result, those sharistics hardened into dogmas because they were necessary to keep our society operating. We have to believe at the moment that a jury of 12 people knows how to convict somebody based on guilt, even though the DNA evidence shows that that's not a real rubric. I mean, it's a heuristic. Maybe it works some of the time, right? So as these sort of heuristics have been breaking down, and these heuristics of the left are on top of the ones that are necessary for civil society—they, the desire to maintain this complex of ideas like, "trade is always good"—no, trade is not always good for all people. That's, it's beyond moronic!

- '''Eric Weinstein''' on [[7: Bret Easton Ellis - The Dark Laureate of Generation X|The Portal Ep. 7]]
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
''I have to admit that I have a couple of odd theories about this. And I was curious how you might find them, one of which is that in some sense, the normal world which I understand you call the civilian world, the civilian world is almost hypocritical and in denial by design, that is, we aren't supposed to have an accurate picture of human sexuality. Because our society is based on what I call [[Load-Bearing Fictions|load-bearing fictions]] that people are supposed to present as relatively asexual. Their default assumption that they go around with is that they are not sexual beings and you're supposed to hide this aspect. And then there are contradictory expectations. So for example, you might be expected to wear cosmetics in a workplace environment as a sign of professionalism, but the cosmetics, in fact, may be sexualizing. But then you're not supposed to admit that the cosmetics may in fact be sexualizing. So in some sense, the civilian world is a mess by design, because we're not supposed to see ourselves accurately, and that the world of sex workers is bizarrely a truth telling world, a world in which people are far more honest. And there's another one of these, which I think is the world of evolutionary theorists.

- '''Eric Weinstein''' on [[21: Ashley Mathews (aka Riley Reid) - The mogul and brains behind America's Sweetheart|The Portal Ep. 21]]
</blockquote>