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

Guide to cognitive biases

en.shortcogs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 104 posts

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#61

Post by teclordphrack2 »

Uehreka wrote: 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…

I ain't got time to teach you, so yeah, appeal to authority and teach yourself.

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#62

Post by mistermann »

dionidium wrote: post #49
wombatmobile wrote: post #4

Is there somewhere a guide for preventing and/or overcoming these cognitive biases?

Honesty and a willingness to accept that you're just as biased as anyone else can get you pretty far. A reasonable enough test might be: do you believe anything to be true that you wish weren't true? If every explanation you adopt for every social ill, every natural phenomenon, every historical event neatly fits a model that generates no discomfort, do you think it's more likely that the world really is that way or t…

> Honesty and a willingness to accept that you're just as biased as anyone else can get you pretty far.

I am very confident that there is a phenomena whereby someone can do this, but that in doing so their mind is in a certain "mode" of some kind (abstract, for starters), but when the mind is in a different mode (discussion or arguing about object level ideas, culture war topics tend to work best), the knowledge that they formerly had becomes inaccessible, often even if reminded of it.

My armchair theory is that this plays a part in it (but there are surely other things going on):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-dependent_memory

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#63

Post by robbedpeter »

lhorie wrote: post #51
bradrn wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you really want to go this route, you can beat them at their own game and accuse them of Arguing From Fallacy. (A nice illustration: https://theupturnedmicroscope.com/comic/logical-fallacies-ar... ) 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…

> accuse them of Arguing From Fallacy But then, you're just doing an ad hominem...

I know I am, but what... am... I?

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#64

Post by teachrdan »

Uehreka wrote: 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…

It's a bit funny because Appeal to Authority isn't a fallacy. The actual fallacy is Appeal to Incorrect / False Authority:

"An appeal to false authority is a fallacious argument that relies on the statements of a false authority figure, who is framed as a credible authority on the topic being discussed."

https://effectiviology.com/false-authority/#:~:text=An%20app....

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#65

Post by nostromo »

teachrdan wrote: post #64
Uehreka wrote: 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…

It's a bit funny because Appeal to Authority isn't a fallacy. The actual fallacy is Appeal to Incorrect / False Authority: "An appeal to false authority is a fallacious argument that relies on the statements of a false authority figure, who is framed as a credible authority on the topic being discussed." https://effectiviology.com/false-authority/#:~:text=An%20app... .

> The actual fallacy

... according to linguistics researcher with a website. He sounds like as much a false authority on philosophy as anyone else.

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#66

Post by dane-pgp »

djoldman wrote: post #48
cainxinth wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key word is ‘specifically.’

I think this makes sense if specifically meant "only" but it doesn't. It means "exact": Specifically: in a way that is exact and clear; precisely. The story can specifically refer to multiple people. There is no definite error here as I see it.

The word "specifically" can also be used as an antonym of "generally", meaning "by most people, or to most people".[0] If a story applies to most people, but someone reading the story doesn't consider that possibility, then they have made a small error.

[0] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/generall...

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#67

Post by eivarv »

bradrn wrote: post #26
Uehreka wrote: 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…

Well, if you really want to go this route, you can beat them at their own game and accuse them of Arguing From Fallacy. (A nice illustration: https://theupturnedmicroscope.com/comic/logical-fallacies-ar... ) 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…

And by extension, fallacious reasoning means that you have no good reason to take what the reasoner is arguing as true (unless they can a non-fallacious argument) – right?

The fact that an argument is fallacious doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion is wrong, but there does (logically, by necessity) exist (at least) a non-fallacious argument for a correct conclusion.

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#68

Post by lhorie »

mistermann wrote: post #60
lhorie wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing about them is supposed to be an introspection tool to help you make better arguments/philosophies. For example, I've seen some ex-christians who decided to turn atheists by learning more about cognitive biases, and then realizing that some of their former religious arguments were circular reasoning or appeal to authority or whatever. There is a bit of a dunning-kruger effect to be sure: accusing other of cogn…

> For example, I've seen some ex-christians who decided to turn atheists by learning more about cognitive biases, and then realizing that some of their former religious arguments were circular reasoning or appeal to authority or whatever. Similarly, there are some people (a much smaller number I would expect) that have moved from atheism to "spirituality", for the same reasons.

Yeah, I'm one of those, though I'm not sure my belief system qualifies as spirituality. The gist in these cases is realizing that atheism is not the opposite of christianity (in the sense that there ought to be a conflict between two incompatible ideologies) and that there's quite a bit more depth and breadth to theism, moral frameworks and philosophy in general than the who-is-more-right crowd might think.

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#69

Post by mistermann »

lhorie wrote: post #68
mistermann wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, I've seen some ex-christians who decided to turn atheists by learning more about cognitive biases, and then realizing that some of their former religious arguments were circular reasoning or appeal to authority or whatever. Similarly, there are some people (a much smaller number I would expect) that have moved from atheism to "spirituality", for the same reasons.

Yeah, I'm one of those, though I'm not sure my belief system qualifies as spirituality. The gist in these cases is realizing that atheism is not the opposite of christianity (in the sense that there ought to be a conflict between two incompatible ideologies) and that there's quite a bit more depth and breadth to theism, moral frameworks and philosophy in general than the who-is-more-right crowd might think.

Totally agree - my general take on it is that standard Atheism and Christianity/etc (as understood & practiced by the average person) are incredibly simplistic, but most people in either ideological camp are fairly oblivious to it.

Re: Guide to cognitive biases

#70

Post by eivarv »

wombatmobile wrote: post #3

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

My own speculation basically boils down to: Human minds are primarily meaning-seeking machines, to such a large extent that we even create meaning where there is none (apophenia).

Take pareidolia, for instance – it's likely been more evolutionary advantageous to see faces where there are none (and thus flee tot often), as opposed to not seeing faces where there are faces (and thus be eaten).

And in evolutionary terms, not everything that exists has some benefit. Some features just haven't been subject to evolutionary pressures; Not selected for, just not selected against. Vestigial features are prime examples of this.

Post reply on HN