3 ms·

> But there are people (like myself) who can look at the numbers, realize that you are MANY times more likely to die by slipping and falling in your own bathroo

> But there are people (like myself) who can look at the numbers, realize that you are MANY times more likely to die by slipping and falling in your own bathroom That's another example of a wrong argument often used. All animals (and yes, humans are animals) pay more attention to predators than to random accidents, and there is an evolutionary reason for that.

mindcrime 11y ago
There's an evolutionary reason for all manner of cognitive biases. That doesn't mean that behavior is correct.
- etangent 11y ago
  "Correct" is not the issue here. The issue is that the behavior exists, is powerful, and must be accounted for. If you have a country-wide fascist freakout against a minority group, it doesn't matter whether the source was "correct" (technical term: adaptive) bias or a maladaptive one.
  - woodman 11y ago
    So what argument would you recommend? You've clearly come out against using logic, and suggested to the "geeks" that vestigial evolutionary behavior "must be accounted for". How do you suggest that be done, emotional manipulation? What bloody shirt do we have to wave?
    - etangent 11y ago
      "Vestigial" is the wrong/insensitive word. If I make an appeal to evolutionary biology, it is because I am also a geek, not because I have some overarching pseudo-Darwinian worldview. When applicable, its not wrong to refer to biology to understand why humans work the way they do. When dealing with a software system, wouldn't you want to understand the principles upon which it is built? Please don't tell me that you would feel the same way if a member of your family, for example, had died in a boating accident versus, say, had been beheaded with cold blood with a knife in some insane semi-religious ceremony (if you would feel the same way, a lot of people would qualify you as a sociopath, and they probably wouldn't be wrong). Vengeance is one of the primary drives of human behavior, it will always exist, it is very often a bad thing, but it must be acknowledged if you want to be taken seriously. Note for example that in rare cases when it is justified, lack of feeling of vengeance will make you look either like a cold-blooded psychopath or a complete coward. It is rational to try to understand the limits of rationality. A perfectly rational being might rationally conclude that life is not worth living and commit suicide, leaving no progeny. Defending oneself and one's family from threats that have agency (predators, other members of your species) is and always will be categorically different from defending from threats that don't have agency, such as bad weather. I recommend to consider the threat posed by terrorism as seriously as you consider global warming, or interplanetary exploration, or whatever it is you consider to be a serious issue. It may not be as serious to you, and that's okay, but at least respect the fact that it is a very serious issue to many other people. Then you can have a serious discussion over which steps are and are not appropriate. As a coincidence, you will also find that people will listen to your arguments against surveillance more seriously when you respectfully acknowledge their own wants and desires, such as desire for peace/security.
      - woodman 11y ago
        > "Vestigial" is the wrong/insensitive word. WELL, I never. I'm offended at your offence to my insensitivity. I can be intransigent about the value of logic relative to emotion as well. > When dealing with a software system, wouldn't you want to understand the principles upon which it is built? That depends on what you mean by principles. If you mean the CS theory that underpins it all, sure - that level of knowledge is absolutely necessary in many cases. If you mean the designer's intent, sure - that can help, but that would certainly take a back seat to the cold hard CS logic of reality. Also, I wouldn't feel a compulsion to extend the poor coding practices of yesteryear that may be found in legacy codebases (hint: I'm not talking about code, this is a tortured metaphor). > Please don't tell me that you would feel the same way if a member of your family... The desire for revenge is derived from a perceived injustice, that is why one seeks revenge against people and not motorboats - motorboats can't reason. The same goes for wild animal attacks. I think you almost touched on this in your third paragraph. But you're conflating emotions and actions. > ...respectfully acknowledge their own wants and desires, such as desire for peace/security. Ok, I officially respect and acknowledge your wants and desires for peace and security. BTW, you can't have either in a world where there is any amount of free will. What next? Is that your recommendation - empathy? I'll save you some trouble and just let you know ahead of time that if somebody is irrational - no amount of reasoning, emotional or logical, will change their position. That leaves only three courses of action for the self-interested rational being: 1) Try reason, if it doesn't work then turn to page 2 or 3 2) Violence, but it works in only a super narrow band of circumstances 3) Attempt to minimize the damage done to you by the emotion driven mob, this might mean fleeing into the wilderness and becoming a hermit... Or promoting the benefits of logical thought in daily exchanges by demonstrating the wealth, happiness and playboy lifestyle that it has brought you. Either or. One issue that I won't compromise on is that of compromise, which is usually where the emotional route leads. There are plenty of things for which compromise is just fine, but are generally unimportant and not worth the argument, modifications of properties and not attributes (attributes define kindness of objects, properties do not). Like if you wanted to paint our rocket red (change the color property) that is fine, a compromise of half red vs full red really makes no difference outside of personal aesthetic preference. If you wanted to replace the engine with a bag of pineapples, well we have a problem - it is no longer a rocket and there is no compromise between fruit and engine that would leave it a rocket.

mindcrime 11y ago

There's an evolutionary reason for all manner of cognitive biases. That doesn't mean that behavior is correct.

etangent 11y ago
"Correct" is not the issue here. The issue is that the behavior exists, is powerful, and must be accounted for. If you have a country-wide fascist freakout against a minority group, it doesn't matter whether the source was "correct" (technical term: adaptive) bias or a maladaptive one.
- woodman 11y ago
  So what argument would you recommend? You've clearly come out against using logic, and suggested to the "geeks" that vestigial evolutionary behavior "must be accounted for". How do you suggest that be done, emotional manipulation? What bloody shirt do we have to wave?
  - etangent 11y ago
    "Vestigial" is the wrong/insensitive word. If I make an appeal to evolutionary biology, it is because I am also a geek, not because I have some overarching pseudo-Darwinian worldview. When applicable, its not wrong to refer to biology to understand why humans work the way they do. When dealing with a software system, wouldn't you want to understand the principles upon which it is built? Please don't tell me that you would feel the same way if a member of your family, for example, had died in a boating accident versus, say, had been beheaded with cold blood with a knife in some insane semi-religious ceremony (if you would feel the same way, a lot of people would qualify you as a sociopath, and they probably wouldn't be wrong). Vengeance is one of the primary drives of human behavior, it will always exist, it is very often a bad thing, but it must be acknowledged if you want to be taken seriously. Note for example that in rare cases when it is justified, lack of feeling of vengeance will make you look either like a cold-blooded psychopath or a complete coward. It is rational to try to understand the limits of rationality. A perfectly rational being might rationally conclude that life is not worth living and commit suicide, leaving no progeny. Defending oneself and one's family from threats that have agency (predators, other members of your species) is and always will be categorically different from defending from threats that don't have agency, such as bad weather. I recommend to consider the threat posed by terrorism as seriously as you consider global warming, or interplanetary exploration, or whatever it is you consider to be a serious issue. It may not be as serious to you, and that's okay, but at least respect the fact that it is a very serious issue to many other people. Then you can have a serious discussion over which steps are and are not appropriate. As a coincidence, you will also find that people will listen to your arguments against surveillance more seriously when you respectfully acknowledge their own wants and desires, such as desire for peace/security.
    - woodman 11y ago
      > "Vestigial" is the wrong/insensitive word. WELL, I never. I'm offended at your offence to my insensitivity. I can be intransigent about the value of logic relative to emotion as well. > When dealing with a software system, wouldn't you want to understand the principles upon which it is built? That depends on what you mean by principles. If you mean the CS theory that underpins it all, sure - that level of knowledge is absolutely necessary in many cases. If you mean the designer's intent, sure - that can help, but that would certainly take a back seat to the cold hard CS logic of reality. Also, I wouldn't feel a compulsion to extend the poor coding practices of yesteryear that may be found in legacy codebases (hint: I'm not talking about code, this is a tortured metaphor). > Please don't tell me that you would feel the same way if a member of your family... The desire for revenge is derived from a perceived injustice, that is why one seeks revenge against people and not motorboats - motorboats can't reason. The same goes for wild animal attacks. I think you almost touched on this in your third paragraph. But you're conflating emotions and actions. > ...respectfully acknowledge their own wants and desires, such as desire for peace/security. Ok, I officially respect and acknowledge your wants and desires for peace and security. BTW, you can't have either in a world where there is any amount of free will. What next? Is that your recommendation - empathy? I'll save you some trouble and just let you know ahead of time that if somebody is irrational - no amount of reasoning, emotional or logical, will change their position. That leaves only three courses of action for the self-interested rational being: 1) Try reason, if it doesn't work then turn to page 2 or 3 2) Violence, but it works in only a super narrow band of circumstances 3) Attempt to minimize the damage done to you by the emotion driven mob, this might mean fleeing into the wilderness and becoming a hermit... Or promoting the benefits of logical thought in daily exchanges by demonstrating the wealth, happiness and playboy lifestyle that it has brought you. Either or. One issue that I won't compromise on is that of compromise, which is usually where the emotional route leads. There are plenty of things for which compromise is just fine, but are generally unimportant and not worth the argument, modifications of properties and not attributes (attributes define kindness of objects, properties do not). Like if you wanted to paint our rocket red (change the color property) that is fine, a compromise of half red vs full red really makes no difference outside of personal aesthetic preference. If you wanted to replace the engine with a bag of pineapples, well we have a problem - it is no longer a rocket and there is no compromise between fruit and engine that would leave it a rocket.