21–30 of 104 posts
> Cognitive biases refer to the identifiable and indexable errors that are found in our judgment in a predictable and systematic way. Ok. Clicking through to the first one: > The Barnum effect is a cognitive bias that induces an individual to accept a vague description of personality traits as applying specifically to themselves. Then they give an example story of something reading like a horoscope. The story could r…
Why are there so many of these cognitive biases? Can we infer they persist widely because they confer some benefit?
For the vast majority of our time evolving the biggest issue was spotting a stalking predator or hidden danger before it could hurt us or spotting food better than other chimps/homo */lizards (at various points on the evolutionary history). For that quick efficient pattern matching is what you need not solid reasoning about large groups so that's what we've got.
What’s the use of this really? Many of these are used as ammunition for arguments vs. clarifing reasoning.
Using shields (against self-sabotaging traps) as ammo to destroy others is very dumb, but yes it happens.
Is there somewhere a guide for preventing and/or overcoming these cognitive biases?
She is a co-founder of the Center for Applied Rationality & host of the Rationally Speaking podcast.
Apex Fallacy is not listed again: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Apex%20Falla...
I wouldn't exactly call the urban dictionary a reliable source. Doing a DuckDuckGo for "apex fallacy" turns up a bunch of incel and mgtow sites. Is this even a _real_ fallacy?
I can see why that's not included in most lists of fallacies. It's just a specific example of cherry picking, a well known fallacy that is already included in the lists.
When I see someone on Facebook/Twitter link to a site like this to demonstrate that the person they’re arguing with is “doing a fallacy”, I just accuse them of Appeal To Authority. I feel like these kinds of sites are often just used to shut someone down by saying that they’re doing something wrong, without actually going through the work of following through with why the “fallacy” makes their argument weak. Also, in…
That being said, I do think it’s important to avoid fallacious reasoning — it helps in making arguments clearer. As mentioned above, just because someone uses a fallacy doesn’t mean their conclusion is wrong, but it does mean that you can prove their argument wrong. (And any reply should ideally be phrased in these terms: ‘your argument has problem X’ is easier to respond to than ‘your argument has fallacy Y’.) Furthermore it means they are thinking less clearly than they perhaps should be.
When I see someone on Facebook/Twitter link to a site like this to demonstrate that the person they’re arguing with is “doing a fallacy”, I just accuse them of Appeal To Authority. I feel like these kinds of sites are often just used to shut someone down by saying that they’re doing something wrong, without actually going through the work of following through with why the “fallacy” makes their argument weak. Also, in…
Also, among the generaly sane page, there is this bit:
> Conspiracy theories regarding the COVID-19 pandemic are plentiful and varied. One of them suggests that the authorities declared a health emergency in order to force the population to accept a vaccine that they do not need, in order to promote the economic domination of the pharmaceutical industry. Several types of information can be presented in support of this theory, such as proposals for alternative treatments to COVID-19, some data taken out of context from vaccine approval protocols, or annual death rates from seasonal influenza.
> While this information may hold some veracity, it is not sufficient to support the conspiracy theory put forward when compared to scientific studies carried out by both the pharmaceutical industry and public health authorities.
Hardly playing the Devil's advocate, this is the crux of the problem : once you're sincerely convinced that scientists are wrong (which is bound to happen faced with novelly) and governement are lying to you (which is bound to happen because governements are full of politicians), isn't it _rational_ not to believe scientists, and not to trust governements ?
So the rules of the game for scientists are to never ever be wrong, and governments to never ever lie.
But of course, it's not the case, and the "right" thing is to believe scientists because they're right "in general", and to trust politicians "to a degree". But how is advocating that not falling in "appeal to authority" ?
Etc, etc, etc...
At least I'm having those brain farts in a quiet office with a cat on my nap and two jabs in my arms, instead of in a ICU :/ ...
When I see someone on Facebook/Twitter link to a site like this to demonstrate that the person they’re arguing with is “doing a fallacy”, I just accuse them of Appeal To Authority. I feel like these kinds of sites are often just used to shut someone down by saying that they’re doing something wrong, without actually going through the work of following through with why the “fallacy” makes their argument weak. Also, in…
Yeah I remember seeing a lot of people deploying the fallacy list(s) as an argumentative tool to say "ha! you're argument vaguely resembles this 'fallacy' so you're instantly wrong." It's a lot less now I think, they've fallen out of style I guess, or I'm just getting in/reading less pointless arguments.
Why are there so many of these cognitive biases? Can we infer they persist widely because they confer some benefit?
The short but very very accurate documentary above (2 min) explains why.
Basically, evolution does not reward survival of the "smartest" or survival of the person with "less cognitive biases."