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

How You Know

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 276 posts

Re: How You Know

#201

Post by InclinedPlane »

lazyant wrote: post #114
nilkn wrote: post #10

There's also a danger associated to this phenomenon. If the source of your mental model is later debunked, you may not realize that you need to revise your model precisely because you don't remember what your source was. You may even read about the debunking of the source but fail to draw the connection and realize the implications that it has for your own view of the world. I think that perhaps very squishy subjects…

It's even worse (at least with emotional political opinions); when confronted with adversarial data we tend to become more entrenched in our positions.

That's the fight or flight response. We view intellectual questioning of positions we hold as an attack on our person. Our rationality goes out the window, our aggression ramps up, and it becomes impossible to back down. It's the main causative agent for flame wars.

Re: How You Know

#202

Post by marincounty »

not_that_noob wrote: post #46
nilkn wrote: post #10

There's also a danger associated to this phenomenon. If the source of your mental model is later debunked, you may not realize that you need to revise your model precisely because you don't remember what your source was. You may even read about the debunking of the source but fail to draw the connection and realize the implications that it has for your own view of the world. I think that perhaps very squishy subjects…

In practice, people rarely if ever revise their mental model as the world around them changes. Which is why a younger generation without this baggage inevitably rises to supplant the older one.

I wouldn't say the younger generation doesn't have baggage. As a young man I had a lot of fears I don't have now. I think the biggest advantage to being young is taking on risk, besides the obviousness of physical strength, stamina, truly original thought(which seems to evaporate in the end of your twenties?). So yes, as young man I took on risk; some out of naviete, some out dump luck, some because I truly thought it was a good idea. As a poor youth, I realized I couldn't screw up too much/or be too risky. My friends who had wealthy parents could afford to take on a lot more risk than me, or my poor friends. There lies the rub--most wealthy kids have so many more opportunities than poor, or middle class kids. I just can't leave the unseen advantage wealth brings to a string of people and their spawn. In the county I grew up in I can count on two hands the kids who went on to be millionaires. They were all from wealthy families. So yes, the young do supplant the "older one", but they usually had a lot of help. An example is our current Luitentant Governer(you can guess which state). I saw his family pick up one failure after another, and he just might be president of the United States one day?

Re: How You Know

#203

Post by jayro »

aswanson wrote: post #200
jayro wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Research shows that even when news reports have been retracted, and we are aware of the retraction, our beliefs are largely based on the initial erroneous version of the story. This is particularly true when we are motivated to approve of the initial account." - http://mindhacks.com/2011/05/04/why-the-truth-will-out-but-d... Original Paper: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/16/3/190

This is what makes so many people getting "breaking" sensational headlines from partisan blogs so dangerous. It becomes calcified reality for the vast majority of people; most folk are not hygenic with their belief structures. I actively seek disconfirmation of my beliefs, but most people seek reinforcement only.

Yep!

How facts backfire - Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains

"In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger."

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/...

Re: How You Know

#204

Post by aswanson »

jayro wrote: post #203
aswanson wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what makes so many people getting "breaking" sensational headlines from partisan blogs so dangerous. It becomes calcified reality for the vast majority of people; most folk are not hygenic with their belief structures. I actively seek disconfirmation of my beliefs, but most people seek reinforcement only.

Yep! How facts backfire - Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains "In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were…

I've seen this anecdotally and it scares the shit out of me that it's been verified statistically. Thanks for sharing.

Re: How You Know

#205

Post by noobermin »

nilkn wrote: post #10

There's also a danger associated to this phenomenon. If the source of your mental model is later debunked, you may not realize that you need to revise your model precisely because you don't remember what your source was. You may even read about the debunking of the source but fail to draw the connection and realize the implications that it has for your own view of the world. I think that perhaps very squishy subjects…

I'm curious, do you think it would be beneficial to make a list of where you got your ideas from? Like a sort of list of citations for your model of the world.

Re: How You Know

#206

Post by sytelus »

This is great essay. Few points:

1. The more correct analogy would be training data and machine learned model rather than source code and compiled binary.

2. Lot of people move from book to book, always reading some book at any point in time. This provides great dopamine hit to brain and keeps boredome away. However one need to reflect on what they read to gain any significant "take always". The act of reflecting enforces recall which in turn induces analysis and memory storage. I try to create a book review to formalize my reflection process after I complete a book.

3. These days I also get digital (usually pdf) copies of most books I'm reading. This allows me to use tools like GoodReader to highlight striking statements and make notes of my opinions as I read along. You can sure just use pencil and margin of book :). This habit has rewarded me greatly because it makes me take a pause and think about what I read. I can come back to book anytime and refresh it 10X faster. It's also fun to know what my opinion used to be on some of the things years ago.

Re: How You Know

#207

Post by nl »

jakobegger wrote: post #169
napoleond wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best people do, indeed. I'm still fairly young, but I'm starting to understand that "adapting to new information" is not something that happens by accident. "Continuous learning" is a lifestyle thing; I've never had to think about it. But forcing myself to re-evaluate things that I already thought I knew--that is a conscious and often difficult process.

The hardest part about this is accepting that you might be wrong. That your entire world view might be wrong, or one-sided. We humans have this uncanny ability to justify anything we just did, or said. It takes a lot of conscious effort to accept that the other person might be right. But only if you truly realise that you are not infallible, can you learn new things, and continue to grow.

"Strong Opinions, Weakly Held."

Also, quotes are a good way of appearing wise.

Re: How You Know

#208

Post by marcosdumay »

argumentum wrote: post #180
gatehouse wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For an example of this, ask yourself: What is the world population? The longer it has been since you checked, the further off the number will be. https://www.google.com/search?q=world+population

Unless you've checked the number enough to have realized a pattern (in this case a growth rate).

People don't grasp exponential growth[1]. That pattern will be useful for a very short time, and then you are wrong again.

And then, when you finally accept that you don't grasp it and start calculating with a formal growth rate, the growth rate suddenly changes.

[1] Nobody does. Some people know they don't, some are completely naive, the others lie to themselves. The first group have a chance of dealing correctly with it.

Re: How You Know

#209

Post by DustinCalim »

jayro wrote: post #203
aswanson wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what makes so many people getting "breaking" sensational headlines from partisan blogs so dangerous. It becomes calcified reality for the vast majority of people; most folk are not hygenic with their belief structures. I actively seek disconfirmation of my beliefs, but most people seek reinforcement only.

Yep! How facts backfire - Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains "In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were…

This is the commitment and consistency effect.

The extreme cases can be found in cults where followers cling tighter to their beliefs once exposed.

A great example are the followers of Harold Camping, the Christian radio broadcaster who predicted the end of the world a few years ago, and kept re-predicting when it never came.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping

Re: How You Know

#210

Post by shliachtx »

gatehouse wrote: post #43
arjunnarayan wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an important corollary of Paul's essay that I wish he mentioned. Sometimes when you update your model of the world significantly, you still have a cache of previously computed facts that were computed using the old model. You have to clear out that cache and recompute with the new model, and that takes a significant amount of time. Often, rereading is a core part of that, since it forces you to revisit a lot…

For an example of this, ask yourself: What is the world population? The longer it has been since you checked, the further off the number will be. https://www.google.com/search?q=world+population

While you make a good point (that one always needs to ensure the facts they know/take for granted are correct and haven't changed), it doesn't seem that is what he is referring to.

The need to reread and reconsider books, ideas, etc. is not to check if the facts have changed, but to make sure you didn't miss a point because of lack of knowledge or bias.

For example (on a very basic level), I find that if I reread a book on a programming language after using it for some time I notice things which I missed on a previous reading or wasn't able to appreciate due to lack of familiarity with the language. The same can apply to history - or any other study - where one only appreciates certain details after understanding the larger picture and surrounding events.

For this reason there lies an advantage in both rereading the same book (immediately or after some time) by itself and reading after studying more on the topic from other sources.

Post reply on HN