61–70 of 143 posts
For example, trotting out cognitive biases in a rhetorical situation is often very effective, particularly when your opponent is operating in a dialectic mindset.
Know thyself, but also know thy situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting; can you expand on that?
Sure. For instance, I had a buddy that was sure Bernie would win the NY democratic primary since Bernie had such huge rallies and people were excited. I trusted the polls. We both made small bets on PredictIt - I even bet Clinton would win by at least a 15 point margin, since that's where the polls were. I won, and he now trusts poll aggregates more.
This is cool, although the real trick is knowing when and how to employ methods that will mitigate the problems caused by cognitive bias to accurately identify and resolve conflicts and facilitate clear decision-making. This is the purpose of courts, the purpose of peer review, the purpose of debate. Generally, it is not necessary to understand every single type of cognitive bias in a nuanced way to mitigate the prob…
Ideally. But keep in mind: not for everyone, and it would be in the interests of those primarily concerned with power and manipulation to convince those concerned with truth and the greater good that this is the case.
This is cool, although the real trick is knowing when and how to employ methods that will mitigate the problems caused by cognitive bias to accurately identify and resolve conflicts and facilitate clear decision-making. This is the purpose of courts, the purpose of peer review, the purpose of debate. Generally, it is not necessary to understand every single type of cognitive bias in a nuanced way to mitigate the prob…
Interestingly, he won his nobel prize in the field of economics, but he's a psychologist, not an economist. His research was so influential that it changed business strategies (esp. around how meetings are held) forever.
I can't say enough good things about Thinking Fast and Slow. Go read it.
I posted this article in reply to another comment in this thread, but I think many will find it interesting and useful. It's a good jumping off point into his research and why it's important.
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/frontal-cortex/why-smart-peopl...
I wonder, are there different groups of HN readers with different attitudes towards psychology? Or does the treatment also depend on the presentation, e.g. in the form of a scientific publication vs. a brain hacking tips or cheatsheet.
This is cool, although the real trick is knowing when and how to employ methods that will mitigate the problems caused by cognitive bias to accurately identify and resolve conflicts and facilitate clear decision-making. This is the purpose of courts, the purpose of peer review, the purpose of debate. Generally, it is not necessary to understand every single type of cognitive bias in a nuanced way to mitigate the prob…
If you are interested in learning how your brain makes decisions, where biases and error come from, and a whole lot more, I highly recommend this book by Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp... Interestingly, he won his nobel prize in the field of economics, but he's a psychologist, not an economist. His research was so influential that it changed business s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting; can you expand on that?
Sure. For instance, I had a buddy that was sure Bernie would win the NY democratic primary since Bernie had such huge rallies and people were excited. I trusted the polls. We both made small bets on PredictIt - I even bet Clinton would win by at least a 15 point margin, since that's where the polls were. I won, and he now trusts poll aggregates more.
And once you know you are wrong, you can now start figuring out what you did wrong.
I find the treatment of psychology on HN to be perplexing. On one hand, there have been attacks on psychology as a field [1] due to legitimate concerns related to replication. On the other hand, blog posts such as this come up every few days that take the same results for granted and frame them in everyday terms. I wonder, are there different groups of HN readers with different attitudes towards psychology? Or does t…
I find the treatment of psychology on HN to be perplexing. On one hand, there have been attacks on psychology as a field [1] due to legitimate concerns related to replication. On the other hand, blog posts such as this come up every few days that take the same results for granted and frame them in everyday terms. I wonder, are there different groups of HN readers with different attitudes towards psychology? Or does t…