It's bias if you decipher a logical point, and continue to believe something that is counter to it, without providing countering logic.
Deciphering a logical point may or may not happen depending on the context. It's more likely to happen in an HN thread than by listening to a crazy person.
Efficiency would necessitate not blind rejection, but a decision to simply not judge. Rejection is a judgment. Judgment without logic is a bias.
The "blind rejection" comment you originally replied to, was pretty clearly referring to judgment without logic. This is something different from intellectual efficiency, which would simply be deciding to not form a judgment at the time, if one reasonably decided that there was not enough information available at that moment to do so, and the importance doing something else outweighed the importance of judging the idea in that moment.
So, while I agree with a concept of efficiency or temporary non-judgment, I disagree that it's the same thing as auto-rejection, which is judgment.
By countering a counter to a comment advocating auto-rejection of ideas, you seemed to be advocating auto-rejection of ideas, as opposed to advocating non-judgment.
I guess auto-rejection is also technically an "efficient" approach, but it is definitely intellectually lazy. Non-judgment is not intellectually lazy, if actually used for the sake of efficiency and not avoidance.
Now I see that our disagreement is over definitions. To me, "blind rejection" of a quote is "I don't care what this quote contains because of who said it. I have stopped listening." Maybe that's what thrownaway2424 and jrajav meant, respectively, or maybe not. By the principle of charity, that's what jrajav should have considered thrownaway2424's comment to mean, but of course it is also possible that jrajav didn't consider that interpretation.
In any case, by "blind rejection" I meant "automatic disregard", not "automatic disagreement". I certainly agree that automatically disagreeing with a person, regardless of what they say, is a losing strategy except in the very specific case that you've encountered and conclusively identified the fabled Omniscient Lying Labyrinth Guard.
Deciphering a logical point may or may not happen depending on the context. It's more likely to happen in an HN thread than by listening to a crazy person.
Efficiency would necessitate not blind rejection, but a decision to simply not judge. Rejection is a judgment. Judgment without logic is a bias.
The "blind rejection" comment you originally replied to, was pretty clearly referring to judgment without logic. This is something different from intellectual efficiency, which would simply be deciding to not form a judgment at the time, if one reasonably decided that there was not enough information available at that moment to do so, and the importance doing something else outweighed the importance of judging the idea in that moment.
So, while I agree with a concept of efficiency or temporary non-judgment, I disagree that it's the same thing as auto-rejection, which is judgment.
By countering a counter to a comment advocating auto-rejection of ideas, you seemed to be advocating auto-rejection of ideas, as opposed to advocating non-judgment.
I guess auto-rejection is also technically an "efficient" approach, but it is definitely intellectually lazy. Non-judgment is not intellectually lazy, if actually used for the sake of efficiency and not avoidance.