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

Cognitive bias cheat sheet

betterhumans.coach.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 143 posts

Re: Cognitive bias cheat sheet

#101

Post by BeetleB »

taeric wrote: post #72
thaw13579 wrote: post #65

I find the treatment of psychology on HN to be perplexing. On one hand, there have been attacks on psychology as a field [1] due to legitimate concerns related to replication. On the other hand, blog posts such as this come up every few days that take the same results for granted and frame them in everyday terms. I wonder, are there different groups of HN readers with different attitudes towards psychology? Or does t…

I actually get the impression that most of the articles that are "liked" by HN are somewhat grass roots. Take this one. It is a "hacker" that is spending time to try to improve biases held. It is somewhat ironic, to me, that I am basically accusing us of having an anti-intellectual bend. However, it is not unique to psychology. There is a similar slant against "academic" computer science.

>Take this one. It is a "hacker" that is spending time to try to improve biases held.

Funny, the other day there was a thread about Cialdini and his books (including Influence). He has a chapter on this phenomenon (I think he called it Social Proof).

We are more receptive to ideas if it comes from "one of us".

Re: Cognitive bias cheat sheet

#102

Post by BeetleB »

wyager wrote: post #80
hairy_man674 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On replication, this same criticism has recently been directed at physics, chemistry and biology, among others. [1] Psychology, with view to its practical (non-research) use has not helped me, but at least three people I know say they benefitted from cognitive behavioural therapy. Perhaps in the future, medicine and science will subordinate it to the same role of philosophy to better explain human behaviour and think…

The psychology replication crisis is much worse than any other field. http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/05/if-you-cant-make-predic...

>The psychology replication crisis is much worse than any other field.

The article doesn't get into this.

Coming from a physics background, I will not say there's a crisis, but:

1. Few research is replicated.

2. We who did physics research were very unconcerned about whether our results could be replicated. Our journal papers were very concise, and it was common practice not to give all the details needed to replicate, partially due to paper size concerns, but very often also to keep the "secret recipe" to ourselves as a means to prevent others from conducting future research that we want to conduct (need less competition for grant money).

3. Pick any researcher in any field of physics, and ask them: "Can you list a few papers published in the last 15 years that are highly cited that you think are completely wrong?" Everyone will have a list like that. Everyone.

Re: Cognitive bias cheat sheet

#103

Post by BeetleB »

Goladus wrote: post #45

This is cool, although the real trick is knowing when and how to employ methods that will mitigate the problems caused by cognitive bias to accurately identify and resolve conflicts and facilitate clear decision-making. This is the purpose of courts, the purpose of peer review, the purpose of debate. Generally, it is not necessary to understand every single type of cognitive bias in a nuanced way to mitigate the prob…

>Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist, recently posted a terrific video on the the issue viewpoint diversity on college campuses-- specifically, the lack of it.

As someone who just finished reading his book, I must ask for clarification. Is he talking about lack of diversity in the student body, or in the faculty body?

I know he has published work showing a bias against conservatives in his field...

Re: Cognitive bias cheat sheet

#104

Post by mrcactu5 »

there are so many cognitive bias we see them on the street, in popular music, homeless people, university professors, alcoholics, politicians... everyone exhibits more than a few of these.

So many in fact, I just look at the list overwhelmed and curl in bed and suck my thumb

Re: Cognitive bias cheat sheet

#105

Post by ensiferum »

I learned a long time ago already not to trust my memory. For example I'm trying to find a piece of text in a book, or a specific story in a newspaper my memory might give me a clue, which would be something like "it's on that page next to that "red thing" or "there's a story on the opposite page about xyz". I never trust this anymore it's a wild goose chase.

A good thing to think about how biased your brain is, is to think of that time when you were witnessing that wonderful sunset and you decided to take a photo. Later you look at the photo and it doesn't look at all like you remember. Why? Because it's your brain playing tricks on you. You have a built in image filter in your brain that adjusts the image and your memory of it whereas the camera sees it "objectively."

Once you become aware of all the cognitive biases you just get tired of listening to people talk (about anything really), when it's full of logical holes and anecdotes. In fact it becomes painful especially when listening to some electoral candidate / politician talk about stuff that might actually matter. sigh

Re: Cognitive bias cheat sheet

#107

Post by DINKDINK »

>We notice flaws in others more easily than flaws in ourselves. Yes, before you see this entire article as a list of quirks that compromise how other people think, realize that you are also subject to these biases.

I found this section was written very pourly. /s ;]

Re: Cognitive bias cheat sheet

#108

Post by taeric »

BeetleB wrote: post #101
taeric wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually get the impression that most of the articles that are "liked" by HN are somewhat grass roots. Take this one. It is a "hacker" that is spending time to try to improve biases held. It is somewhat ironic, to me, that I am basically accusing us of having an anti-intellectual bend. However, it is not unique to psychology. There is a similar slant against "academic" computer science.

>Take this one. It is a "hacker" that is spending time to try to improve biases held. Funny, the other day there was a thread about Cialdini and his books (including Influence). He has a chapter on this phenomenon (I think he called it Social Proof). We are more receptive to ideas if it comes from "one of us".

Amusingly, I skipped out based on the headline of "Pre-suasion." Just sounded stupid. Will have to relook at it, now.

Re: Cognitive bias cheat sheet

#109

Post by a_plastic_bag »

taeric wrote: post #72
thaw13579 wrote: post #65

I find the treatment of psychology on HN to be perplexing. On one hand, there have been attacks on psychology as a field [1] due to legitimate concerns related to replication. On the other hand, blog posts such as this come up every few days that take the same results for granted and frame them in everyday terms. I wonder, are there different groups of HN readers with different attitudes towards psychology? Or does t…

I actually get the impression that most of the articles that are "liked" by HN are somewhat grass roots. Take this one. It is a "hacker" that is spending time to try to improve biases held. It is somewhat ironic, to me, that I am basically accusing us of having an anti-intellectual bend. However, it is not unique to psychology. There is a similar slant against "academic" computer science.

Sounds like we have a serious case of in-group favouritism and with a hint of bandwagon effect

Re: Cognitive bias cheat sheet

#110

Post by LeifCarrotson »

thaw13579 wrote: post #65

I find the treatment of psychology on HN to be perplexing. On one hand, there have been attacks on psychology as a field [1] due to legitimate concerns related to replication. On the other hand, blog posts such as this come up every few days that take the same results for granted and frame them in everyday terms. I wonder, are there different groups of HN readers with different attitudes towards psychology? Or does t…

It's possible to be interested in a field's subject matter while being critical of the methods.

For example, US space research at NASA may be awash in politics, crippled by a lack of long-term vision, and overly focused on military applications, but space is still cool.

The workings of the mind and the results of cognitive biases are fascinating, but that doesn't excuse poor statistics and a lack of rigor.

Post reply on HN