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

81–90 of 145 posts

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

#81

Post by smiley1437 »

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.

Exactly - that dealer could be negotiating dozens of car deals a day, has a ton of experience, PLUS he knows much more about his side of the deal (actual costs and back end rebates, etc)

A typical buyer negotiates for a car only a few times in their life.

Who do you think is likely to come out on top?

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

#82

Post by version_five »

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 wrote "People like to use these as strawmen about look at all the nuts out there, we need to control what people can read"

The grammar was very poor. I meant the "look at all the nuts out there, we need to control what people can read" as the false conclusion that might be drawn by someone who believes conspiracy theories are rampant.

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

#83

Post by austincheney »

willvarfar wrote: post #2

The article opens with a couple of examples of people allegedly not doing research: 1. Most people make two trips or fewer to a dealership before buying a car 2. when picking a doctor, many individuals use recommendations from friends and family rather than consulting other health care professionals or “formal sources” such as employers, articles or Web sites And, of course, the last person I would look to for object…

What the article hints at but does not discuss is time to action. For example, a bad decision can be revisited but the time lost to indecision is forever gone.

Some people are comfortable making hasty decisions. Just because a person visited only one car dealer does not suggest a lack of prior research. A person may know exactly what they want and the price range they are willing to pay for it with features they want. The last time I bought a car I went to one dealer and told them I want these features. They called around to various other dealers on my behalf because they wanted my business and they knew what to look for.

Time to action stresses arbitrary decisions which may not be hasty (no planning or research). The goal of a well considered time to action is to act quickly but in balance for risk analysis. This means either having a remediation already available or transferring the risk to someone else in order to make a decision now consequences be damned.

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

#84

Post by greenail »

I think most people on this thread have jumped to apply this generally when I think it is intended to be focused on schizophrenia. I also think the research shows that bias intervention training doesn't really take over the long run and I question how useful this is for the average joe.

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

#85

Post by kergonath »

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... .

To me, “Jewish space lasers” is a slight hyperbole of the kind of rubbish we read from low-efforts trolls. I’ve obviously read about Marjorie Taylor-Green, but not being American I missed this gem.

That one could write that she did not quite say that, instead of the sane universe’s version that she did not say anything remotely like it truly is shocking. And horrifying.

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

#86

Post by mensetmanusman »

tgflynn wrote: post #39
mensetmanusman wrote: post #30

Conspiracy theories are a manifestation of skepticism. One insight recently in the political theater is to determine what your audience is skeptical of. Everyone is skeptical of something, and these biases, when pinpointed, can be illuminating. On any topic you can split skepticism into groups. Are you more skeptical of government? The pharmaceutical industry? Corporations? Which?

> Conspiracy theories are a manifestation of skepticism. They're a manifestation of biased skepticism. Conspiracy theorists tend to be skeptical of everything except their own favorite conspiracy theories.

All skepticism is biased by one’s background. The ‘quid est veritas’ of our age will become more difficult with all the noise, deep fakes, powerful interests, etc.

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

#87

Post by kergonath »

jcadam wrote: post #52
rmorey wrote: post #34

It's a "Jump to Conclusions Mat". You see, it is a mat that you put on the floor, and it has different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO.

That is the worst idea I've ever heard.

I envy you.

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

#88

Post by jeffbee »

willvarfar wrote: post #2

The article opens with a couple of examples of people allegedly not doing research: 1. Most people make two trips or fewer to a dealership before buying a car 2. when picking a doctor, many individuals use recommendations from friends and family rather than consulting other health care professionals or “formal sources” such as employers, articles or Web sites And, of course, the last person I would look to for object…

The last three times I bought or leased a new car I visited dealers zero times. I decided what I wanted then I faxed (yes, faxed!) my requirements to the dealer who seemed to have inventory with instructions where and when to meet me with the vehicle and paperwork. This seems to work, except the one time the dealer thought I wanted to negotiate over the price and I showed them the door.

Buying a car is all about understanding that dealers are usually pretty desperate.

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

#89

Post by rglover »

TigeriusKirk wrote: post #75
rglover wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> Mockery Maximization Principle

That's a great term.

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

#90

Post by kelseyfrog »

tinco wrote: post #50
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…

Something like this happened on Reddit, with the /r/the_donald subreddit. At first it was jokes at expense of the man, then it transformed into jokingly supporting his presidency. Then it became some quasi-intellectual support of his presidency. Then it became actual non-ironic serious support of his presidency through memes. And then when it actually happened, it became a sort of cult worship site that was eventuall…

That's an interesting narrative framing. I'm reading Berger[1] at the moment and of course the social reproduction of knowledge is a component of the work. Pg. 76-77(in the linked copy) parallel your description of this process though on a longer timescale. In social media spaces, the playfulness and joking nature of the progenitors, becomes habituated, and eventually institutionalized over time.

What's surprising is the speed at which this happens. In Berger's conceptualization is that this happens over the course of lifetimes, while in the social media space, this happens over the course of months.

My final point is that this is the reason why "jokes"[2] are insidious. They will attract people who earnestly believe they aren't just jokes which normalizes harassment.

[1] The Social Construction of Reality. Berger, Peter http://perflensburg.se/Berger%20social-construction-of-reali...

[2] A specific kind of harassment designed to habituate abuse while also taking advantage of plausible deniability by ostensibly also being a "joke".

Post reply on HN