Live data from Hacker News

Guide to cognitive biases

en.shortcogs.com

31–40 of 104 posts

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#31

The page dedicated to COVID-19 [1] is probably the most depressing thing I read today (and I read twitter.) 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 economi…

> once you're sincerely convinced that scientists are wrong ... and governement are lying to you

This is the crux. How did those beliefs form? I would argue that in many cases, it wasn't a dispassionate weighing of evidence and calculation of probabilities. If not that, then what? We might also ask - in whose interest is it that citizens don't believe scientists or the government?

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#32
post #18

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…

IME cognitive bias has become a popular talking point among the left which is used to dismiss those who disagree with them. I.e. if you don't buy into identity politics and other "woke" views it's because you are succumbing to cognitive biases.

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#33
post #27
post #18

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.

I call this the "fallacy" fallacy.

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#34
post #32
post #18

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…

IME cognitive bias has become a popular talking point among the left which is used to dismiss those who disagree with them. I.e. if you don't buy into identity politics and other "woke" views it's because you are succumbing to cognitive biases.

These biases are also played out as deliberate argument tactics, and they work really well, especially on those who can't detect it. Basically each of them is also guide how to be more persuasive, if you don't care about playing dirty.

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#35

Why are there so many of these cognitive biases? Can we infer they persist widely because they confer some benefit?

They are only a problem if you trying to use your cognitive power to prove mathematical theorems or discover natural physical laws. Which are not things that our brains are designed for.

In all other situations, they are working as expected.

e.g. risk avoidance is very important because one single mistake in risk assessment (underestimating a real threat) can wipe you out.

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#37

Why are there so many of these cognitive biases? Can we infer they persist widely because they confer some benefit?

This is an active area of research in the cognitive science world.

First, 'bias' is defined with respect to an ideal rational actor with perfect information and infinite computing power. The reasons for this are mostly historical (rational animal, Homo economicus, etc), but it also serves as a useful baseline 'ideal observer' model to compare human behavior against.

In the 1950s, Herbert Simon coined the term 'bounded rationality' to describe rationality within a set of computational bounds. For example, if we have finite working memory and limited computing time, but were still trying to make optimal decisions within those bounds, what behavior would we see? In this case, decision making turns from unconstrained to constrained optimization. What may LOOK like a 'bias', with its connotation of sub-optimality, may actually be optimal behavior given constraints.

More recently, people like Gerd Gigerenzer suggested that human decision making is largely composed of heuristics and tricks that enable 'fast and frugal' responses to scenarios. They don't need to be perfect, just good enough - and 'cheap' enough with respect to time that they are worth developing. This is probably true to a certain extent, but to me it's scientifically unsatisfying, as there is no general principle (except for 'cognitive miserliness') to explain behavior - and specifically, there is no longer a way to specify 'normative' or expected behavior in any given situation.

More recently still, there is a trend to revive Simon's perspective under the name 'Resource Rationality'. Tom Griffiths is one of the active researchers in this field. The idea is the similar to Simon's - we have limited 'cognitive resources' and strive to be rational. Griffiths and others have attempted to show that many behaviors that are traditionally called 'cognitive biases' are actually predicted if we are behaving optimally but with constrained cognitive resources.

From the resource rationality perspective, a cognitive bias is a way that a solution to unconstrained optimization differs from a solution to a corresponding constrained optimization problem. Roughly speaking, any combination of limitation on (memory, computation, time, energy, information) will produce a 'bias', and different scenarios we encounter push up against these boundaries in different ways, leading to a plethora of 'biases'.

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#38
post #31

The page dedicated to COVID-19 [1] is probably the most depressing thing I read today (and I read twitter.) 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 economi…

> once you're sincerely convinced that scientists are wrong ... and governement are lying to you This is the crux. How did those beliefs form? I would argue that in many cases, it wasn't a dispassionate weighing of evidence and calculation of probabilities. If not that, then what? We might also ask - in whose interest is it that citizens don't believe scientists or the government?

> scientists are wrong

Every medical scandal (For example, in the French Antilles, the scandal around "chlordecone", a pesticide, is supposed to be fueling anti-vaccine fear today.) Earlier uncertainties about masks, vaccinne efficiency, vaccines from different countries, possible early treatments, etc...

Even though the "consensus" settles quickly, the dust of the discussion remains in the air for very long. Media is playing a part here, ironicaly because "not blindly trusting the authority" and "presenting a balanced view of facts" is good for ratings.

> ... and governement are lying to you

Do we really need to test this hypothesis :) ? Of course it is a generalization that "all governments are lying all the time". But it is such an easy one to make...

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#39

What’s the use of this really? Many of these are used as ammunition for arguments vs. clarifing reasoning.

What's the use of knowledge of optical illusions? So that you know that "seeing is believing" is not 100% dependable.

Also you just listed their "use" in your very comment. People build upon these to convince others, and if you would like to be less manipulated, then they are useful to know.

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#40
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> once you're sincerely convinced that scientists are wrong ... and governement are lying to you This is the crux. How did those beliefs form? I would argue that in many cases, it wasn't a dispassionate weighing of evidence and calculation of probabilities. If not that, then what? We might also ask - in whose interest is it that citizens don't believe scientists or the government?

> scientists are wrong Every medical scandal (For example, in the French Antilles, the scandal around "chlordecone", a pesticide, is supposed to be fueling anti-vaccine fear today.) Earlier uncertainties about masks, vaccinne efficiency, vaccines from different countries, possible early treatments, etc... Even though the "consensus" settles quickly, the dust of the discussion remains in the air for very long. Media i…

> Media is playing a part here, ironicaly because "not blindly trusting the authority" and "presenting a balanced view of facts" is good for ratings

Yes, this is part of it. Of course scientists are wrong sometimes, but it's in someone's interest to stoke general distrust.

Post reply on HN