Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2013)
slatestarcodex.com
Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2013)
1–10 of 64 posts
Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2013)
#2I'm curious to query the HN crowd: How do we mesh this learned helplessness on subjects for which there are no definitive studies for? (eg. is the purpose of a human life to produce more humans? How does one formally prove that, and how does one prove those proofs are valid, and the organizations that prove the proofs are valid are also valid?)
Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2013)
#3I'm curious to query the HN crowd: How do we mesh this learned helplessness on subjects for which there are no definitive studies for? (eg. is the purpose of a human life to produce more humans? How does one formally prove that, and how does one prove those proofs are valid, and the organizations that prove the proofs are valid are also valid?)
I feel like people who study subjective topics like the value of human life (philosophers) have already internalized "learned helplessness". It's empirical-oriented people like us who have a harder time grappling with the idea of not knowing everything
Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2013)
#4This resonates with me strongly. I remember reading G.K. Chesterton writing about how the most certain people in the world are locked up in the asylum, absolutely certain of completely false things ("I am Napoleon") while the rational among us grasp even our religious beliefs with a certain amount of healthy uncertainty.
Political comment threads strikes me as a good example of people on every side of every issue being 100% convinced of things that could not possibly all be true.
Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2013)
#5> I don’t think I’m overselling myself too much to expect that I could argue circles around the average uneducated person.
Everyone thinks they are better than average ;)
Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2013)
#6"Epistemic Learned Helplessness," is simply shorthand for, "We are all finite and have an incomplete understanding for everything, yet we must still pragmatically make our way in the world."
You don't have to instantly believe arguments. Sit back and gather data to assess the predictive power of the model.
Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2013)
#7> I don’t think I’m overselling myself too much to expect that I could argue circles around the average uneducated person. Everyone thinks they are better than average ;)
Not I. I'm sure that my humility and self-doubt are WAY higher than average! ;)
Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2013)
#8There is a connection in his last paragraph to entrepreneurship - I can't place a finger on the exact phasing but I've seen before on HN an essay about the need for an entrepreneur to be "all in" and genuinely swayed by their own arguments. I've definitely observed that in successful business people around me, and observed that I can't seem to do that to myself. While I'm not an entrepreneur, I've often thought to start businesses, but I can't ever seem to summon the self-certainty to commit to any ideas that I suspect are good and would generate value.
Put other way, if you are susceptible to argument, you must be willing to accept the risks, or unaware that there are risks in committing fully to an argument and a premise. This seems particularly suitable to startups where oftentimes evidence of demand, market size, or growth is conspicuously absent at the moment of inception.
Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2013)
#9> Arguments? You can prove anything with arguments.
This reminds me of a very interesting (and accessible!) article by the mathematician Terence Tao about what major mathematical results tend to look like, and how to be more skeptical of your own work: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/be-sceptical-of...
> If you unexpectedly find a problem solving itself almost effortlessly, and you can’t quite see why, you should try to analyse your solution more sceptically. In particular, the method may also be able to prove much stronger statements which are known to be false, which would imply that there is a flaw in the method.
Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2013)
#10I'm curious to query the HN crowd: How do we mesh this learned helplessness on subjects for which there are no definitive studies for? (eg. is the purpose of a human life to produce more humans? How does one formally prove that, and how does one prove those proofs are valid, and the organizations that prove the proofs are valid are also valid?)
I feel like people who study subjective topics like the value of human life (philosophers) have already internalized "learned helplessness". It's empirical-oriented people like us who have a harder time grappling with the idea of not knowing everything
It's empirical-oriented people like us
Translation: People who have spent so much time playing with highly abstracted and greatly simplified models, they've lost their grasp on how messy and complicated the real world can be.