Anyway, he has a lot to say on the subject and on incentives and human psychology broadly.

A better way to phrase it would be a year when you don't challenge your idea is probably a failed year. It might still win the challenge.

Or, another way of looking at it, your knowledge of so many areas is superficial and a deep dive into any one would let you know how you weren't even wrong, as the saying goes.

You can find people doing it in any HN thread about almost anything - often shows up as "why didn't they just do X". A non-domain expert with a "obvious solution" is almost always missing something major.

Three mentioned in the article: * Enigma of Reason * The Knowledge Illusion * Denying to the Grave

Actually, everything contemporary mentioning egregores is probably relevant - they're also called 'AI autocults', but the concept existed long before group communication became enmeshed with computer infrastructure - though the dynamics are different now than in enlightenment-era Europe, and the pre-Newtonian assumptions of the older publications throws most modern readers off.

http://stephendavies.org/writings/mitterederEtAl.pdf

We referred to it as "issue alignment" but its gone by other things, IIRC. Basically, in theory, one could end up supporting positions that would make 0 sense outside the context of "well, I support "X" cause "team green" supports "X."

I've seen it happen often online, a lot less IRL.

Jordan Peterson’s zebra story