We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model
worksinprogress.co
We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model
1–10 of 97 posts
Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model
#2I'm not sure I understand. It seems like the author is looking for "learned behavior" as the model for human decision making.
Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model
#3My reading of the article is an application of Chesterton’s Fence to so-called cognitive biases. Not to see them as a mere defect, or proof of our fallibility. But to instead look for the objective for which they perhaps truly are the most reasonable solution.
Example from the article:
> Many costly signals are inherently wasteful. Money, time, or other resources are burnt. And wasteful acts are the types of things that we often call irrational. A fancy car may be a logical choice if you are seeking to signal wealth, despite the harm it does to your retirement savings. Do you need help to overcome your error in not saving for retirement, or an alternative way to signal your wealth to your intended audience? You can only understand this if you understand the objective.
Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model
#4My reading of the article is an application of Chesterton’s Fence to so-called cognitive biases. Not to see them as a mere defect, or proof of our fallibility. But to instead look for the objective for which they perhaps truly are the most reasonable solution. Example from the article: > Many costly signals are inherently wasteful. Money, time, or other resources are burnt. And wasteful acts are the types of things t…
For instance we have a neural-cognitive "bias" toward recognizing moving versus stationary objects. Our attention is prejudiced in favor of things-that-move. This is useful when it comes to detecting potential predators, prey, mates, etc. So a lack of a bias can be a defect to the economic actor.
Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model
#5》epicycles were still not enough to describe what could be observed.
Epicycles based models were far superior in practice, such as predicting planetary conjunctions. Heliocentric models did not really catched up, until Newton invented gravity and calculus.
And centre of mass of solar system (barycenter in Newtonian physics), is outside of Sun, so heliocentric models technically never gave solid predictions! Stellar parallax (main prediction from Copernicus theory) was not confirmed until 19th century! Heliocentrism is mainly philosophical concept!
I will stick with my primitive old thinking and biases, thank you! If I get mugged a few times in a neighbourhood, I will assume it is not safe. There is no need to overthink it!
Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model
#6》epicycles were still not enough to describe what could be observed. Epicycles based models were far superior in practice, such as predicting planetary conjunctions. Heliocentric models did not really catched up, until Newton invented gravity and calculus. And centre of mass of solar system (barycenter in Newtonian physics), is outside of Sun, so heliocentric models technically never gave solid predictions! Stellar p…
Invented gravity?
Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model
#7》epicycles were still not enough to describe what could be observed. Epicycles based models were far superior in practice, such as predicting planetary conjunctions. Heliocentric models did not really catched up, until Newton invented gravity and calculus. And centre of mass of solar system (barycenter in Newtonian physics), is outside of Sun, so heliocentric models technically never gave solid predictions! Stellar p…
Invented gravity?
They probably mean invented gravity as a formal concept, not as a physical phenomenon.
Like, say, the invention of the number 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0
Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model
#8I'm not sure I understand. It seems like the author is looking for "learned behavior" as the model for human decision making.
[deleted]
Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model
#9》epicycles were still not enough to describe what could be observed. Epicycles based models were far superior in practice, such as predicting planetary conjunctions. Heliocentric models did not really catched up, until Newton invented gravity and calculus. And centre of mass of solar system (barycenter in Newtonian physics), is outside of Sun, so heliocentric models technically never gave solid predictions! Stellar p…
Invented gravity?
English is not my native language obviously.
Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model
#10》epicycles were still not enough to describe what could be observed. Epicycles based models were far superior in practice, such as predicting planetary conjunctions. Heliocentric models did not really catched up, until Newton invented gravity and calculus. And centre of mass of solar system (barycenter in Newtonian physics), is outside of Sun, so heliocentric models technically never gave solid predictions! Stellar p…
Invented gravity?
gravity is a notation for describing and predicting an arbitrary subset of natural processes
you might as well contest that he invented calculus