Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)
1–10 of 34 posts
Re: Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)
#2[deleted]
Re: Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)
#3Scouting as described in this article is exactly what we need to foster in today's false news world. I am doing all I can to drive this point home with my children.
Re: Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)
#4Simple explanation for why we think we're right even when we're wrong: we perceive what we believe. Not the other way around. Even when we're dead wrong.
In psych they call this confirmation bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Scott Adams wrote a fantastic book on the subject, in the context of Trump's election to the Presidency. https://www.amazon.com/Win-Bigly-Persuasion-World-Matter/dp/...
Re: Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)
#5But how do we know that the scout's belief is right? Seems like the author has already come to the conclusion that its always going to be right. Doesn't that just bring us back to the mindset of the soldier?
Maybe we just have to accept that part of the experiment of living in a democratic and free society is allowing people to create their own values, and accepting that people are going to get it wrong. Their values are going to conflict with ours, and that's good because we need to be sure our values are actually worth holding.
Re: Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)
#6This is very interesting.
>Julia Galef is a writer and co-founder of the Center for Applied Rationality, a nonprofit organization devoted to helping people improve their reasoning and decision-making, particularly with the aim of addressing global problems. She is also the host of the Rationally Speaking podcast.
Re: Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)
#7But how do we know that the scout's belief is right? Seems like the author has already come to the conclusion that its always going to be right. Doesn't that just bring us back to the mindset of the soldier? Maybe we just have to accept that part of the experiment of living in a democratic and free society is allowing people to create their own values, and accepting that people are going to get it wrong. Their values…
No, I think the point is that both are right for different circumstances.
If the foot soldier cannot be trusted to place the Drayfus in prison without having to look through all the evidence himself, he's a useless soldier.
Similarly, if the Scout is told to believe there's always a bridge if you need it, and is gone for months trying to find a bridge over the river, he's a useless scout.
Often, the best leaders have a bit of both - open mindedness to find the best solution until they've made the decision, then steadfastness to defend that decision.
Re: Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)
#8"Julia Galef is a writer and co-founder of the Center for Applied Rationality"
So the author has definitely heard the term "confirmation bias". Why make up a new term for it?
Re: Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)
#9"Julia Galef is a writer and co-founder of the Center for Applied Rationality" So the author has definitely heard the term "confirmation bias". Why make up a new term for it?
She probably does know about cognitive bias, but you can't seriously be suggesting that her bio establishes that with certainty. People who write and set up organizations are a very mixed bunch. Galef is not exactly a high-powered scientist or philosopher.
"Motivated reasoning" has it's own Wikipedia page: it's fine to talk about it as something distinct from cognitive bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
Re: Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)
#10"Julia Galef is a writer and co-founder of the Center for Applied Rationality" So the author has definitely heard the term "confirmation bias". Why make up a new term for it?
She probably does know about cognitive bias, but you can't seriously be suggesting that her bio establishes that with certainty. People who write and set up organizations are a very mixed bunch. Galef is not exactly a high-powered scientist or philosopher. "Motivated reasoning" has it's own Wikipedia page: it's fine to talk about it as something distinct from cognitive bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_re…
"Motivated reasoning" is the product of confirmation bias. That's where the distinction ends.