To think more objectively, become less allied.
That is Robin Hanson, the rest of the post is interesting as well. Don’t forget that: "people ignore info more when they feel powerful."
I also like this (older) sentence from Megan Non-McArdle:
Once you believe your opponents are disproportionately powerful liars, you have completed the Devil Shift.
Here is more.
Aphorisms are fun:
One takes an obscure and inexplicable thing more seriously than a clear and explicable one…. A matter that becomes clear ceases to concern us.
the vowel challenged Nietzsche
The fewer allies you have, the less data you attract. So you can think more objectively about the three datapoints you have, but you don’t have the support of a wide range of values of your key IVs.
“A professor shutting down a grad student in a group, simply by disagreeing with them. People tend to assume that the professor is right 100 percent of the time, and the student 0 percent. A more accurate breakup in my experience is 60/40.”
I’d say 40% is a bit optimistic for the prof
Besides, it’s probably more like 10/10/80, where 80 is both being wrong. Bias is essentially the major reason for the scientific method it seems to me. I.e., no science by anecdote, consensus, etc. Science by demonstrable, repeatable facts.
I like Justin’s comments above.
My thoughts:
Would that include becoming less allied to “thinking objectively”?
If so, we have:
“To think more objectively, become less allied to thinking objectively.”
If not, then we have to ask whether wisdom and virtue may suffer from being overly allied to “thinking objectively.”
it is a pity
It is enlightening!
Comments on this entry are closed.