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

People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 145 posts

Re: People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors

#71

Post by hannasanarion »

alistairSH wrote: post #23
RandomLensman wrote: post #12

That lake fishing example is terrible without any indication what "most" really means. If I take that to mean that 99% of all fish in one of the lakes are red, then seeing one red fish already makes me pretty confident which lake it is from. There is also this massive assumption in whole thing that investing time to study or decide actually increases positive outcomes. Might need to show that and then see if time spe…

I'd wager that's part of the puzzle - lacking information, you jump to the conclusion that 99% are single color in a given lake. But, "most" could be 51% or anywhere in between. How many fish do you need to catch to be relatively confident you've covered the 51% possibility? 2-3? 9-10? I'm sure there's a mathematic solution, but my gut tells me I'd want more than 2-3. Maybe as many as 10 or 20, depending on how frequ…

The confidence is pretty easy to calculate with Bayes rule. p(redLake|redFish)= p(redFish|redLake)*p(redLake)/p(redFish).

If you're doing multiple experiments, then you can say that p(redLake) is your belief and update it by multiplying by p(redFish|redLake)/p(redFish) every time you see a red fish, and its inverse whenever you see a grey fish.

If both of the lakes are 49-51, the update size is 0.51/0.50 = 1.02. Each red fish you see should increase your confidence in the red lake by 2% over whatever it was before, and vice versa.

Assuming your original assumption is 50-50: After you see one red fish, you can be 51% confident in the red lake. If you've seen 5 more red fish than grey, you can be 55% confident. If you've seen 10 more red fish than grey, you can be 60% confident. If you've seen 30 more red fish than grey, you can be 90% confident.

If the proportion of fish in each lake is more substantial, your bayesian update is larger and your confidence increases faster. If each lake is 90% one color, a single piece of evidence should give you 90% confidence.

Re: People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors

#72

Post by dfxm12 »

SamBam wrote: post #48
version_five wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always felt like the belief in a large group of "conspiracy theorists" is probably one of the biggest "conspiracy theories". A friend of a relative is an apparent flat earther - my relative is always saying things like "oh you wouldn't believe what this guy thinks, he says the world is actually shaped like a UN map, what a goof". In this situation, which of the two is actually the more gullible? From the situati…

> From the situations I hear described, it's pretty clear the guy just likes to tease, and enjoys the "intellectual exercise" This was the default assumption for plenty of people when they first hear about real flat earthers, but unfortunately it appears to quickly devolve into actual, very firm beliefs for many people. This whole phenomenon of "LARPing" your way into a conspiracy ( I'm going to start posting about t…

It's hard to get into peoples' heads, but in my experience, I've known people who were into conspiracy X, but did not want to admit that they believe in conspiracy X at first, so they told their friends that they were just joking, being edgy or learning more about it, etc.

After a while, they just grow tired of keeping up appearances, or maybe a famous person talks about conspiracy X, so they are no longer embarrassed by their belief, etc.

Re: People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors

#73

Post by johnnylambada »

david422 wrote: post #27
version_five wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah the car example did not resonate with me either. (a) I hate car shopping, in particular any interactions with the salespeople (b) I have the internet (c) I don't believe there is some special deal I can unlock, I think that is a mistaken belief that many dealers like people to hold so they can make them feel like their getting them a special deal, when in reality the "negotiations" are just a bit of theatre (d)…

c) - haha, that is probably true. I have a relative that just bought a new car. After a little negotiation, got a couple thousand (?) knocked off the price of like a $35k car. "Great deal" - but I'm pretty sure the dealer is prepared to offer a price that is only as low as a great deal for the dealer as well.

This is price discovery in action. From the dealer’s point of view it’s worth jacking up the price that they are willing to take because some consumers will just pay it. Other consumers will try to bargain and they’ll find a (slightly) lower price. When someone just pays the first price the dealer says, the dealer makes a few thousand more than they otherwise works have. This is the same reason there are food coupons. Very price sensitive people will go out of their way to use them but others will pay full price.

Re: People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors

#74

Post by umvi »

SamBam wrote: post #48
version_five wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always felt like the belief in a large group of "conspiracy theorists" is probably one of the biggest "conspiracy theories". A friend of a relative is an apparent flat earther - my relative is always saying things like "oh you wouldn't believe what this guy thinks, he says the world is actually shaped like a UN map, what a goof". In this situation, which of the two is actually the more gullible? From the situati…

> From the situations I hear described, it's pretty clear the guy just likes to tease, and enjoys the "intellectual exercise" This was the default assumption for plenty of people when they first hear about real flat earthers, but unfortunately it appears to quickly devolve into actual, very firm beliefs for many people. This whole phenomenon of "LARPing" your way into a conspiracy ( I'm going to start posting about t…

> but unfortunately it appears to quickly devolve into actual, very firm beliefs for many people.

Is it possible to quantify "many people"? Like, what percentage of people that are ostensibly flat earthers are actually genuine flat earthers vs. trolls? I would guess trolls make up the majority of internet flat earthers.

Re: People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors

#75

Post by TigeriusKirk »

rglover wrote: post #62
depaya wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are being way too charitable. While there certainly are people that fall into the category you claim... there are many who are full blown Jewish space laser, government ice wall, lizard people shadow government, 5g microchip tracker crazies.

The entire "Jewish space laser" thing was never actually said. She mentioned names of people who are Jewish, but that terminology/connection was made by the media. Nothing she said illuminated this connection in any way. Was her point grounded in reality? Hell no. But the exact point being made above is highlighted by your comment. Her original post: https://politizoom.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Greene-las... .

The phenomenon of the exaggerations of "Jewish space lasers" and "horse paste" is an interesting topic.

There's a perfectly reasonable point to be made in each case, but many of the people making it feel the need to overstate the case and make it even more absurd.

I think it's because mockery spreads faster on the internet than a simple debunking. And so the thing being debunked is turned into its most extreme form. Perhaps even a step or two beyond a valid interpretation of what's being asserted by the subject.

So with the Mockery Maximization Principle, you get a meme that can spread very quickly and discredit the target at the same time.

The problem with this technique is that it can backfire if people start repeating it as what was actually being asserted. For example, the horse paste meme has backfired when it came to Rogan and the CNN doctor. When this happens, now the debunkers are on the defensive and they don't have a great way out of it since they're no longer on the side of accuracy and truth.

Re: People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors

#76

Post by motohagiography »

helen___keller wrote: post #69
motohagiography wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting one because the pandemic policy response divide is right on the line where it created an unlikely coaltion of superstitious villagers, with 2+ stddev intelligence people in the habit of checking their priors and rejecting perceived obvious untruths. To extend the metaphor, perhaps it's a coalition of people beyond a stddev in both directions, who together form a huge cohort, if not even potenti…

Discussing pandemic policy here is off-topic, but going back to my previous post: > This increase in attention feeds news stories about conspiracy adherents (and anybody that can be lumped in with them, even if it's not warranted). Emphasis on the last bit: whether your contrarian position is "+2 sigma" (as you state) or -2 sigma, you will definitely be lumped in with the other group by some targeted news program. >…

So we're not talking past each other, your example of conspiracy uncles was attitudes toward masks, which is pandemic policy, so it is precisely on topic as an example.

Conspiracy theories are rooted in (if not defined as) the logic of uncharitable interpretations, and I'm saying the source of that is whether the subject of the theory is viewed as a protagonist or antagonist. Conflating the dumb and the smart in that stddev/sigma view is an artifact of that uncharitable thinking as well, where the average person has been trained to think the common are stupid and the exceptional are insane.

Optimistically, we can dislodge that, and I'd emphasize this uncharitable cognitive bias as the source of the divide.

Re: People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors

#77

Post by flipflip »

version_five wrote: post #38
motohagiography wrote: post #17

"Jumpers," as described mostly just lacked a fear of consequences of being wrong and were presented with an incentive to guess. Not to be conspiratorial, but one can't help but notice a recent preoccupation in mainstream outlets with pathologizing conspiracy theorists, dissenters, and now, "jumpers." Referencing Khaneman and Tversky's "system 1 and system 2" from their bestseller Thinking Fast and Slow without credit…

I've always felt like the belief in a large group of "conspiracy theorists" is probably one of the biggest "conspiracy theories". A friend of a relative is an apparent flat earther - my relative is always saying things like "oh you wouldn't believe what this guy thinks, he says the world is actually shaped like a UN map, what a goof". In this situation, which of the two is actually the more gullible? From the situati…

> we need to control what people can read

Why do we need that? I find this type of control suffocating and it is just a patch for deeper seated problems, mistrust of authority for example.

Re: People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors

#78

Post by Consultant32452 »

alistairSH wrote: post #68
Consultant32452 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this behavior. Did you think you added something valuable to the conversation by replying with a special case?

You claimed we'd be fine with a mediocre doctor, I was providing a counterpoint - the risk of a botched repair was permanent loss of hand function - why risk that with a mediocre doctor?

Expecting every person to couch every statement with the exceptions is bad social behavior. Most fractures are set in the ER or even urgent care, maybe a cast, you are fine.

Your "gotcha" response of a relatively rare case of a hand fracture requiring surgery with a specialist is not a meaningful response.

Re: People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors

#79

Post by flipflip »

flipflip wrote: post #77
version_five wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always felt like the belief in a large group of "conspiracy theorists" is probably one of the biggest "conspiracy theories". A friend of a relative is an apparent flat earther - my relative is always saying things like "oh you wouldn't believe what this guy thinks, he says the world is actually shaped like a UN map, what a goof". In this situation, which of the two is actually the more gullible? From the situati…

> we need to control what people can read Why do we need that? I find this type of control suffocating and it is just a patch for deeper seated problems, mistrust of authority for example.

I think the people falling for conspiracy theories are thoroughly demoralized. They are so far in the rabbit hole that they cannot even acknowledge reality any longer. That won't be fixed by stopping people to read things. I think it will only add to the underlying mistrust and make it worse.

You need to find out why that happened and fix that.

Re: People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors

#80

Post by travisgriggs »

This describes my world in programming. I have learned to be careful and deliberate in software efforts, and it pays. But I work with quite a few type 1 jumpers that spend countless wasted hours trying to solve problems because they jump too fast to conclusions. FD, I’m often accused by friends and family of overthinking things.

I’m curious if there’s a correlation between type 1 jumpers and people who are more entrepreneurial risk takers.

Post reply on HN