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

Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

slatestarcodex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 232 posts

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#171

Post by brlewis »

esafak wrote: post #161
brlewis wrote: post #56

The world's lack of good tools for assessing the truthfulness of arguments is my fault. Some things came up that stopped my work on the next iteration of https://howtruthful.com/ but only temporarily. Expect some big changes in 2024.

If you think you have good ideas write a position paper and open it up for comments. A wiki even. Your site currently has little food for thought.

There's an "intro" link to a video at the bottom of the site. Comments can also go on this essay: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/f2CftRRndH97RpAwL/how-i-got-...

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#172

Post by helicalmix »

pdonis wrote: post #106
helicalmix wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha yeah, I've been to rationalist meetups too, and have come to the same conclusion that I don't like them very much. Too much IQ stroking for my tastes. Scott specifically though, has an established history of thinking through arguments that I find much better than most, and I still think someone who trains at this stuff will do better. To extend my analogy a little further from before, if you go to a boxing gym o…

> Scott specifically though, has an established history of thinking through arguments that I find much better than most He has an established history of writing down detailed articles about arguments, yes. Unfortunately, a significant number of his articles contain schoolboy errors that anyone who wants to claim they are better at thinking through arguments than the average person should never have made. I'll mention…

Have you considered that it's possible that both you and Scott are particular good at reasoning, and it's everyone else that is much worse at this stuff?

You're pointing out a bunch of errors, but it's not clear to me that they're schoolboy errors (i.e. errors a schoolboy wouldn't have made). I would also venture to guess that the average educated person would make much more egregious mistakes.

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#173

Post by jancsika »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #81
pixl97 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law >Why is it assumed that someone who is convinced by arguments is prone to wrong ideas? To put this a different way, if humans actually behaved in this manner in any significant numbers then humanity should have discovered the sciences and been uplifted a long time ago. Instead that's not what we see at all. A more likely reason is Bullshit Asymmetry, that is, humans th…

> Bullshit Asymmetry If we could solve the Bullshit Asymmetry problem, imagine the progress we could make as a species. Someone reads that "ACKCHYUALLY, if you're operating a car for personal reasons, and not for hire, then you're not actually 'driving', you're just traveling, and you're not legally required to have a driver's license or car registration! The cops and the courts have it wrong!" just one time, and it'…

Keep in mind that the normal learning process involves students asking questions out of left field, surprising and frustrating even long-time experts who might need some time to consider how to answer even if the expert has the knowledge to notice the fallacy.

If removing bullshit puts an undue burden on that learning process that causes students to refrain from asking the questions that will help them understand the topic, then you didn't ACKCHYUALLY remove it, you only moved it. :)

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#174

Post by growingkittens »

com2kid wrote: post #164
growingkittens wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem we face is being a culture of many specialists, with few generalists. Generalists are capable of managing a wide range of information and have the ability to transfer skills and knowledge between domains. You don't have to model an entire system in your head to understand the dynamics. That's a specialist, systematic point of view. The technology will only help if we change the culture and change how we e…

> The problem we face is being a culture of many specialists, with few generalists. Generalists are capable of managing a wide range of information and have the ability to transfer skills and knowledge between domains. Sadly different fields of science can each take a lifetime to master, and even closely related fields use different jargon[1] internally, meaning that a person can be an expert in something, read a jou…

You're describing a procedural problem - different words for the same concepts. This is one way science is not systemic. As a result, experts end up solving the same problems in different silos.

Generalists can spend time "translating" between subjects, find the common threads, and find missing pieces from other domains. Most domains have developed independently from each other, and there are a lot of missing pieces.

Specialists are important, but specialists without generalists gets us to where we are today.

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#175

Post by zaphar »

twelfthnight wrote: post #152
zaphar wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think at some level for certain topics and areas there is a minimal level of knowledge and information you need to know in order to evaluate or even understand advanced arguments about the topic. In a sense you won't become closer to the truth until you reach that minimum level of understanding and before that you will just ping pong between positions without a real understanding of whether you are correct or not.…

> you won't become closer to the truth until you reach that minimum level of understanding This might be my misunderstanding of the article. How do you gain knowledge at all without considering new arguments you hear? > Doing the work to adequately evaluate an argument in every domain is probably not worth their time Sure, but why not admit you just don't know then instead of "sticking to your prior" and believing so…

If you "admit" you don't know then you by definition aren't convinced by the argument and thus not falling into the trap. But it doesn't help you make decisions any easier for stuff that is relevant to you and therefore requires you to make a decision. In that case you are going to have take a leap of faith so to speak. And choosing the way you leap might be better informed by consensus by experts in the field rather than speculative investigations on the fringe.

You might still be wrong but your chances are probably improved in the correct direction most of the time.

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#176

Post by pdonis »

helicalmix wrote: post #172
pdonis wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Scott specifically though, has an established history of thinking through arguments that I find much better than most He has an established history of writing down detailed articles about arguments, yes. Unfortunately, a significant number of his articles contain schoolboy errors that anyone who wants to claim they are better at thinking through arguments than the average person should never have made. I'll mention…

Have you considered that it's possible that both you and Scott are particular good at reasoning, and it's everyone else that is much worse at this stuff? You're pointing out a bunch of errors, but it's not clear to me that they're schoolboy errors (i.e. errors a schoolboy wouldn't have made). I would also venture to guess that the average educated person would make much more egregious mistakes.

> it's not clear to me that they're schoolboy errors (i.e. errors a schoolboy wouldn't have made)

If this is the case, IMO it's more a reflection of the awfulness of the schooling in our time than anything else. No schoolboy in the US of a century ago would have made such egregious historical errors, because they would have been taught some actual history instead of what students in the US today get taught.

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#177

Post by pdonis »

hindsightbias wrote: post #144
pdonis wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Scott specifically though, has an established history of thinking through arguments that I find much better than most He has an established history of writing down detailed articles about arguments, yes. Unfortunately, a significant number of his articles contain schoolboy errors that anyone who wants to claim they are better at thinking through arguments than the average person should never have made. I'll mention…

> the Left? You mean the GOPs modern definition of a leftist, or the vast majority of the times definition of a leftist? https://encyclopedia.densho.org/Norman_Thomas/

The Democratic party in the US, at least since Woodrow Wilson, has been on the Left. I don't think that is a matter of any serious dispute.

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#178

Post by c1ccccc1 »

caditinpiscinam wrote: post #115
bongripper wrote: post #3

>I don’t think I’m overselling myself too much to expect that I could argue circles around the average uneducated person. Like I mean that on most topics, I could demolish their position and make them look like an idiot. Reduce them to some form of “Look, everything you say fits together and I can’t explain why you’re wrong, I just know you are!” Or, more plausibly, “Shut up I don’t want to talk about this!” > And th…

The 10 Principles of Rationality: 1. Your beliefs and assumptions are facts and logic; other people's beliefs and assumptions are emotions and biases 2. If someone describes an experience you can't relate to, it's an anomaly and you should ignore it 3. You know more than other people (except for third-parties who agree with you: they are an unquestionable authorities) 4. Never engage with issues in the context of rea…

This comment is interesting in that it itself exemplifies principle #5.

(And also principles #6, #7, #9 to some extent.)

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#179

Post by wharvle »

pdonis wrote: post #162
digital-cygnet wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While Scott does make errors, I've found he works hard to avoid making them and forthright when he does (e.g., not everyone has a Mistakes page in the main navigation bar of their site[1]) What you're missing in your example is that, in context, the state-sponsored violence he's talking about is "against one's own people" (e.g., he also refers to it as a "reign of terror" a few times, like those of Robespierre, Stali…

> haven't gone through the kind of reign of terror that Scott's interlocutors claim they should have I'll comment on this separately because it goes deeper into the central claim of the arrticle. If you're going to make this claim, you need to ask whether the UK and US have actually avoided such things, or merely made sure they happened in other countries instead. The US under Woodrow Wilson enabled the Soviet Union…

I think you'd have to make some outlandish claims if you wanted to connect most of the material you're trying to bring in to the direct topic of this piece. Re-read the pieces Scott is responding to if you want to see what I mean—the topic of this piece is fairly narrow, and most of what you're proposing to bring in is non-sequitur without some pretty wild connective tissue added, which connective tissue I doubt you'd want to try to defend. Stuff like "leftward-trending liberal democracies tend to become more and more permissive of egregious domestic political violence in other countries over time" would be the minimum to make any kind of even oblique sort-of connection to the actual topic of the piece, and... surely not, right?

Re: Epistemic Learned Helplessness (2019)

#180

Post by 0xdeadbeefbabe »

nineplay wrote: post #29
0xdeadbeefbabe wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Creationism was nice and neat and logical Also requires less faith

To some degree the idea of a Creator is easier to wrap one's head around than the idea of nothing-->something. Of course it really just rolls the question uphill since you're now faced with 'Where did the Creator come from?'. Happily there are no academic theories on this matter so there's no need to engage with it. Ultimately satisfaction doesn't come from the belief itself, satisfaction comes from the feeling of be…

> Happily there are no academic theories on this matter

Why happily? Evolution seems like a good academic theory. Is Pascal's wager academic enough? What about Occam's razor?

Post reply on HN