Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)

ideas.ted.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 34 posts

Re: Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)

#21

Post by theoh »

king_panic wrote: post #10
theoh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. If anything confirmation bias is a consequence of one particular case of motivated reasoning.

I think you will need to make a much stronger case if you want to convince anyone that this distinction is not useful (and that, therefore, the dismissive comment I initially replied to was justified.)

Re: Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)

#22

Post by dahart »

jumpman500 wrote: post #20
dahart wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But how do we know that the scout's belief is right? I feel like the assumption in the article is that neither is right, but that the scout is searching for right, and the solider is defending 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? I don't think so. The mindset distinction isn't between right…

I like this. I think you have a better interpretation than my initial one. If it is sort of probability based than it can't be right or wrong, just sort of incomplete until we observe the consequences of the action. More often than not the scout will probably be right, and I can concede that. But that doesn't imply that the soldier will always be wrong either.

> But that doesn't imply that the soldier will always be wrong either.

Completely agree! I maybe implied too strongly that soldiers claim to be right against contrary evidence, which isn't what Julia said. Not only are soldiers often right, people often defend their stance and stop looking for the right answer precisely because they are right and know it. The risk is just that sometimes that decision is made prematurely.

Personally, I probably revert to soldier when I think I'm being a scout more often than I want to admit.

Re: Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)

#23

Post by LiquidSky »

tombert wrote: post #13

I have tried to employ the strategy of "I'm probably wrong all the time". It's not perfect, and occasionally I'll get defensive about something that I find out is wrong later (I was staunchly against unit tests for example), but having a mentality that your mind is fairly fallible is a good way to avoid yelling at people, at least for me. I do wish it were more politically acceptable for politicians to adopt this min…

Unfortunately that's just the reality of how people think. The person who is making confident declarations is going to come across as stronger and more inspiring than the person who is being careful and thoughtful, no matter who is actually correct.

It's not really a liberal or conservative thing, either. Someone making a passionate progressive speech is going to appeal to those inclined that way more than someone making a careful, nuanced progressive argument.

Politicians know this and so will always hedge towards appearing decisive and "strong".

Re: Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)

#24

Post by jtbayly »

tombert wrote: post #13

I have tried to employ the strategy of "I'm probably wrong all the time". It's not perfect, and occasionally I'll get defensive about something that I find out is wrong later (I was staunchly against unit tests for example), but having a mentality that your mind is fairly fallible is a good way to avoid yelling at people, at least for me. I do wish it were more politically acceptable for politicians to adopt this min…

Perhaps you ought to assume you are wrong that you were wrong about unit tests. :)

Re: Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)

#25

Post by tombert »

jtbayly wrote: post #24
tombert wrote: post #13

I have tried to employ the strategy of "I'm probably wrong all the time". It's not perfect, and occasionally I'll get defensive about something that I find out is wrong later (I was staunchly against unit tests for example), but having a mentality that your mind is fairly fallible is a good way to avoid yelling at people, at least for me. I do wish it were more politically acceptable for politicians to adopt this min…

Perhaps you ought to assume you are wrong that you were wrong about unit tests. :)

I just try and not hold any viewpoint with any dogmatism now. I'll admit that maybe people will come back and realize that unit tests were stupid, but this time at least I'll know that I was neither a staunch defender or detractor.

Re: Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)

#26

Post by jumpman500 »

jmcqk6 wrote: post #16
jumpman500 wrote: post #5

But 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…

>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. There is a difference between choosing your values and choosing your facts. We have a big problem in not being able to distinguish the difference between our opinions and facts - and values are more akin to opinions tha…

I don't think values and facts can be so easily separated from each other. You have to value the scientific method to actually believe its facts are true. To me the problem isn't that people mix up fact and opinion, it's more that a lot of people don't value the scientific method, its institutions and its accomplishments. We need people to value the methods that got us to where we are today.

In the age of the internet when you can find a community online that values almost any non-sense this is going to be increasingly hard. I can agree with that.

And I can agree that we do need to come together and agree on some base minimum values, but we have to accept that we need some people in society challenging them. If there's one thing that human history has shown it's we sometimes don't realize when we hold toxic values. We need people challenging them to be sure that the values we hold are actually good.

Re: Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)

#27

Post by [deleted] »

theoh wrote: post #21
king_panic wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Motivated reasoning" is the product of confirmation bias. That's where the distinction ends.

No. If anything confirmation bias is a consequence of one particular case of motivated reasoning. I think you will need to make a much stronger case if you want to convince anyone that this distinction is not useful (and that, therefore, the dismissive comment I initially replied to was justified.)

[deleted]

Re: Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)

#28

Post by king_panic »

theoh wrote: post #21
king_panic wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Motivated reasoning" is the product of confirmation bias. That's where the distinction ends.

No. If anything confirmation bias is a consequence of one particular case of motivated reasoning. I think you will need to make a much stronger case if you want to convince anyone that this distinction is not useful (and that, therefore, the dismissive comment I initially replied to was justified.)

I'll let you make my case: Do you make a decision before or after you gather and interpret information?

Re: Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)

#29

Post by mcgwiz »

"What do you most yearn for — to defend your own beliefs or to see the world as clearly as you possibly can?"

Before you answer the latter, ask yourself when was the last time you admitted to someone you were wrong about something significant to you both? Can you do so more often?

Re: Why you think you’re right, even when you’re wrong (2017)

#30

Post by jfengel »

theoh wrote: post #9
kgwxd wrote: post #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?

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…

She's not herself a high-powered scientist or philosopher, but she does spend a lot of time around them. For some time her co-host on her podcast was Massimo Pigliucci, a philosophy professor of some moderate note, and whose PhD is in biology. A great many genuine scientists and philosophers are guests.

That association does not in itself, of course, give her any accreditation, but she's widely regarded as somebody who takes the philosophy of science seriously, including by organizations like the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP).

Having heard her speak many times on her podcast, I'd say she's not the greatest interviewer or the most insightful thinker. But she is more than competent in the domain.

Post reply on HN