5 ms·

This is why all my major decisions are based on gut reactions and intuition and I'm not being sarcastic. As soon as something 'feels' wrong I know it's time to

This is why all my major decisions are based on gut reactions and intuition and I'm not being sarcastic. As soon as something 'feels' wrong I know it's time to make a change. This strategy has been working out well for me so far and I'm happy to see there is research to back it up.

dan00 16y ago
I don't think, that your conclusion fits with the article. Because there's not a big disconnection between feeling and thinking. If you feel in a direction, then you will certainly also think in this direction. Because your feelings are colouring your thoughts. It's like you already feel the conclusion and are only searching for rational arguments. I think that the article doesn't go far enough, because you shouldn't only question your thinking, but also your feelings.
- greenlblue 16y ago
  I think the point is to not think too much. Feelings certainly color thoughts but the article makes the point that if you do too much thinking then the color provided by your feelings is washed out and you are left with rationalization which can often work against your interests.
  - dan00 16y ago
    But that's not the point of the article. It's about your bias, and to see it, it's not enough to only look at your thoughts.
    - greenlblue 16y ago
      What I got from the article was that too much thinking makes people deviate from expert opinion. This is a bad thing because experts in general tend to be more objective in their domain of expertise and are better able to judge things based on merit instead of some other metric. I think it's less about bias and more about false rationalization being the default state of thinking when it comes to non-experts and one way to not fall into this trap is to not overthink. You could also avoid this trap by becoming an expert but that requires time and hard work and trusting your initial gut reactions and intuitions can often lead to better results when you don't have the time to become an expert in some domain.
      - yters 16y ago
        That was the point of the study, the point of the article is that reasoning is just rationalization of what we already feel. However, this actually conflicts with the study, which shows reasoning leads us away from what we already feel. Obviously, the author spent too much time reasoning about the study.
tarkin2 16y ago
Gut feelings are also subject to bias.
- yters 16y ago
  Is there anything not biased?
  - jerf 16y ago
    No. There is no such thing as unbiased. I don't just mean something like "to a first approximation there is no such thing as unbiased"; I mean that there is indeed no such thing. It is an English word with no existing actual referent, like the phrase "uniform distribution over the real number line". No such thing. One of the fun things about learning about machine learning is that you get a great and powerful definition of bias, and as a consequence it can clearly explain that what unbiased translates to is "brings no information about the possible set of experiences to the table", but the consequence of that is that it takes an infinite amount of information to come to any conclusions whatsoever, even probabilistic ones. No matter how finitely many bits you apply to your original N-dimensional infinite state space, you still have an infinite state space remaining. And in my experience, the ML definition of "bias" isn't just a cute mathematical construct, it actually has a direct (and somewhat profound) relationship to the word as used in English, so while I used math terminology in the previous paragraph this is not a case where theory and practice diverge. They are actually quite convergent here, and there really is no such thing as "unbiased".
    - Gormo 16y ago
      And if it was possible to be unbiased, what would be the point? We use our subjective reasoning to improve our subjective lives; our understanding and knowledge originates in and applies to our relationships with the world. If we somehow manage remove our selves from the equation, and form a purely objective understanding of things in their own right, what have we actually gained? What's the value of thoughts that exclude the ones thinking them from their application? Ideas are incredibly valuable tools, applied in their context and in pursuit of a valued goal. But I don't understand the value of regarding ideas as "truth" in some abstract and universal sense.

dan00 16y ago

I don't think, that your conclusion fits with the article. Because there's not a big disconnection between feeling and thinking. If you feel in a direction, then you will certainly also think in this direction. Because your feelings are colouring your thoughts. It's like you already feel the conclusion and are only searching for rational arguments. I think that the article doesn't go far enough, because you shouldn't only question your thinking, but also your feelings.

greenlblue 16y ago
I think the point is to not think too much. Feelings certainly color thoughts but the article makes the point that if you do too much thinking then the color provided by your feelings is washed out and you are left with rationalization which can often work against your interests.
- dan00 16y ago
  But that's not the point of the article. It's about your bias, and to see it, it's not enough to only look at your thoughts.
  - greenlblue 16y ago
    What I got from the article was that too much thinking makes people deviate from expert opinion. This is a bad thing because experts in general tend to be more objective in their domain of expertise and are better able to judge things based on merit instead of some other metric. I think it's less about bias and more about false rationalization being the default state of thinking when it comes to non-experts and one way to not fall into this trap is to not overthink. You could also avoid this trap by becoming an expert but that requires time and hard work and trusting your initial gut reactions and intuitions can often lead to better results when you don't have the time to become an expert in some domain.
    - yters 16y ago
      That was the point of the study, the point of the article is that reasoning is just rationalization of what we already feel. However, this actually conflicts with the study, which shows reasoning leads us away from what we already feel. Obviously, the author spent too much time reasoning about the study.

tarkin2 16y ago

Gut feelings are also subject to bias.

yters 16y ago
Is there anything not biased?
- jerf 16y ago
  No. There is no such thing as unbiased. I don't just mean something like "to a first approximation there is no such thing as unbiased"; I mean that there is indeed no such thing. It is an English word with no existing actual referent, like the phrase "uniform distribution over the real number line". No such thing. One of the fun things about learning about machine learning is that you get a great and powerful definition of bias, and as a consequence it can clearly explain that what unbiased translates to is "brings no information about the possible set of experiences to the table", but the consequence of that is that it takes an infinite amount of information to come to any conclusions whatsoever, even probabilistic ones. No matter how finitely many bits you apply to your original N-dimensional infinite state space, you still have an infinite state space remaining. And in my experience, the ML definition of "bias" isn't just a cute mathematical construct, it actually has a direct (and somewhat profound) relationship to the word as used in English, so while I used math terminology in the previous paragraph this is not a case where theory and practice diverge. They are actually quite convergent here, and there really is no such thing as "unbiased".
  - Gormo 16y ago
    And if it was possible to be unbiased, what would be the point? We use our subjective reasoning to improve our subjective lives; our understanding and knowledge originates in and applies to our relationships with the world. If we somehow manage remove our selves from the equation, and form a purely objective understanding of things in their own right, what have we actually gained? What's the value of thoughts that exclude the ones thinking them from their application? Ideas are incredibly valuable tools, applied in their context and in pursuit of a valued goal. But I don't understand the value of regarding ideas as "truth" in some abstract and universal sense.