8 ms·

People like certainty. It's why someone who is 100% reliable is generally perceived as far more valuable than someone who is merely very reliable. People are fa

by B-Con 9y ago

People like certainty. It's why someone who is 100% reliable is generally perceived as far more valuable than someone who is merely very reliable. People are far happier to follow a leader that has 95% chance of succeeding than someone who has a 75% chance. Confidence is basically just a word for "projecting one's own certainty". People like certainty, so they favor the person who knows what they're talking about over the person who's not quite sure. But unfortunately, confidence isn't a perfect signal. Some people actively exploit the general human bias to find certainty to their own advantage by falsely projecting confidence. This is a topic I find interesting. And to be fair, not everyone who projects false confidence is doing so maliciously, some (it seems to me) simply have a hard time holding things that aren't absolutes in their head and they tend to round certainty on things to 100% or 0%.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jamesrcole 9y ago
> unfortunately, confidence isn't a perfect signal. I think that's a major understatement. There's the Dunning–Kruger effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect and the world is complex and it's very difficult to get a clear and definitive picture of it. The better your understanding, the more hedged and less definitive it will tend to be, and that does not tend to come across as confidence in your understanding.
- gowld 9y ago
  You should read the link you shared, since it contradicts your claims. Your post is an illustration of the false Dunning-Kruger effect that is astoundingly commonly seen in forum posts citing the Dunning-Kruger effect. "The group of competent students underestimated their class ranks, while the group of incompetent students overestimated their ranks; yet the incompetent group did not estimate their class ranks as higher than the ranks estimated by the competent group."
  - jamesrcole 9y ago
    That doesn't contract my claim at all. It would only contradict it if I had claimed that the incompetent people estimated their rant as above some competent group. All that is required for my claim is that they overestimate their abilities.
    - Nomentatus 9y ago
      Right - you claimed mere imperfection, in a limited case. But we also know that experts making predictions outside their field are on average more confident but less accurate than non-experts. So the "folk mythology" version of D-K actually does apply at times, just not to "people of low ability."
    - aaron695 9y ago
      It absolutely constricts you. You being funny? >> unfortunately, confidence isn't a perfect signal. >I think that's a major understatement. >There's the Dunning–Kruger effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect "major understatement" People rank themselves very well. They don't rank "spacing" all that well but they rank absolutely accurately. For a "major understatement" I would expect it would be so bad they rank incorrectly which is NOT the case (as per stated by your wiki link, Dunning–Kruger could be wrong) People rank themselves in the order they should be accurately. (With variance blah blah blah)
- xg15 9y ago
  I think the problem boils down to how to take meaningful action without confidence. E.g., if I admit that, not only am I not confident, but I see the world as so complex that I can't be possibly confident about it, how can I decide what to do? If my view of the world is correct than my actions would at best have unpredictable results and at worst would be reckless. So the best course of action would be not to do anything. However, would strip me of all agency and any ability to do anything about things in the world I see as problematic.
  - cableshaft 9y ago
    > if I admit that, not only am I not confident, but I see the world as so complex that I can't be possibly confident about it, how can I decide what to do? You get input from others with knowledge, consider things as much as you can, and recommend a course of action / make a decision based on what you know, understanding that it might not end up being the right one. I've seen it happen often in small businesses and startups I've worked with, and I've seen people make what in hindsight were the wrong decision. But that's just the way things are for everyone, really. You can't see the future but have to make a decision anyway at some point.
  - lsc 9y ago
    >E.g., if I admit that, not only am I not confident, but I see the world as so complex that I can't be possibly confident about it, how can I decide what to do? You need to learn to face uncertainty. You know some of your data is incorrect, and that you sometimes make mistakes processing that data. But if you are calibrated correctly, you should be more sure of some things (that the sun will rise tomorrow) than others (that I'll get that job I just interviewed for) - I mean, I think both of those things are true, but one I'm very certain of the first, the other? I'd say it has a 60% chance of happening. It's totally reasonable to make a bet that will cause me to lose something important if the sun doesn't come up tomorrow. It's much less reasonable to make a bet that will cause me to lose something important if I don't get that job. >If my view of the world is correct than my actions would at best have unpredictable results and at worst would be reckless. So the best course of action would be not to do anything. If you literally make no conscious effort to do anything? It's likely you will die of dehydration in the next few days. Doing nothing is very likely to be much worse than randomly picking from actions deemed culturally reasonable... and you can probably do a lot better than random through weighing what uncertain information you have. I mean, complexity is hard, but it's ultimately going to get you better decisions than a system where you are absolutely certain of things.
- baxtr 9y ago
  No I agree it’s not. But, my experience from many years is: people want leadership that is confident, which way to go. Event though, it might not be the right (I wonder if there is ever a right way, because as you correctly say, the world is utterly complex)
  - slx26 9y ago
    Well, and that's precisely what we need to adress, some of the things people want. I firmly believe we should teach about this in schools. Knowledge about biases is very relevant to critical thinking, and critical thinking to a fairer society. ^ I was writting with more confidence and assertively than usual there ;)
    - baxtr 9y ago
      Maybe. But then again it is really difficult to change human nature
koonsolo 9y ago
> People like certainty. It's why someone who is 100% reliable is generally perceived as far more valuable than someone who is merely very reliable. People are far happier to follow a leader that has 95% chance of succeeding than someone who has a 75% chance. I absolutely agree that people like certainty. I would even go so far to say that they actually don't like the '95% chance' of anything. In that case, they would say "I believe this to be 100% correct", which is basically saying that you can't tell for sure, but you believe it to be 100% correct. Not an objective 'real' chance of maybe 90%. Take for example religion. Nobody can be 100% sure whether there is some sort of god or not. But you won't hear anybody make any % predictions, especially the ones who believe. They believe 100% for sure there is a god. Atheist are on that front the same, and believe 100% there is no god. They are unable to make a % prediction, or really don't want to because it would break something inside of them (their belief). Very strange. I like to work with chances a lot.
- mjburgess 9y ago
  Probabilities concern how much information it is possible to have about an event: they are a description of what a perfectly rational person, under perfectly rational constraints, could know. Since I do not understand how we could know anything about "God", there could be no 'probability' associated with it. What would it mean to say 50%? That, were the universe run 100 times -- 50 runs would have a god in them? I am an atheist in exactly the same way that I am an a-leprechaun-ist. The proposition "God Exists" is one I believe to be false for extra-empirical reasons. Namely, that the inexistance of God is consistent with every given observation -- and the content of the idea seems deeply anthropocentric and psychological. Those ideas which have had no explanatory content (ie., could not be used to predict anything) and which have had a clearly human psychological construction have all turned out to be "reasonably false". At the moment holding that god does not exist is "unreasonably false" according to people (eg. You) whereas holding that leprachuans do not exist is "reasonably fasle". I believe this distinction to have everything to do with saving people's feelings and nothing to do with the content and nature of the ideas. Objects which have no explanatory power (magic, gods, etc.) are "bugs" in human thinking. No one ought believe that any of them exist.
  - 9y ago
memco 9y ago
> "That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" — Douglas Adams One of my favorite quotes of all time. We want certainty, and when that fails, certainty about the uncertainty.

by B-Con 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jamesrcole 9y ago

> unfortunately, confidence isn't a perfect signal. I think that's a major understatement. There's the Dunning–Kruger effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect and the world is complex and it's very difficult to get a clear and definitive picture of it. The better your understanding, the more hedged and less definitive it will tend to be, and that does not tend to come across as confidence in your understanding.

gowld 9y ago
You should read the link you shared, since it contradicts your claims. Your post is an illustration of the false Dunning-Kruger effect that is astoundingly commonly seen in forum posts citing the Dunning-Kruger effect. "The group of competent students underestimated their class ranks, while the group of incompetent students overestimated their ranks; yet the incompetent group did not estimate their class ranks as higher than the ranks estimated by the competent group."
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  That doesn't contract my claim at all. It would only contradict it if I had claimed that the incompetent people estimated their rant as above some competent group. All that is required for my claim is that they overestimate their abilities.
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    Right - you claimed mere imperfection, in a limited case. But we also know that experts making predictions outside their field are on average more confident but less accurate than non-experts. So the "folk mythology" version of D-K actually does apply at times, just not to "people of low ability."
  - aaron695 9y ago
    It absolutely constricts you. You being funny? >> unfortunately, confidence isn't a perfect signal. >I think that's a major understatement. >There's the Dunning–Kruger effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect "major understatement" People rank themselves very well. They don't rank "spacing" all that well but they rank absolutely accurately. For a "major understatement" I would expect it would be so bad they rank incorrectly which is NOT the case (as per stated by your wiki link, Dunning–Kruger could be wrong) People rank themselves in the order they should be accurately. (With variance blah blah blah)
xg15 9y ago
I think the problem boils down to how to take meaningful action without confidence. E.g., if I admit that, not only am I not confident, but I see the world as so complex that I can't be possibly confident about it, how can I decide what to do? If my view of the world is correct than my actions would at best have unpredictable results and at worst would be reckless. So the best course of action would be not to do anything. However, would strip me of all agency and any ability to do anything about things in the world I see as problematic.
- cableshaft 9y ago
  > if I admit that, not only am I not confident, but I see the world as so complex that I can't be possibly confident about it, how can I decide what to do? You get input from others with knowledge, consider things as much as you can, and recommend a course of action / make a decision based on what you know, understanding that it might not end up being the right one. I've seen it happen often in small businesses and startups I've worked with, and I've seen people make what in hindsight were the wrong decision. But that's just the way things are for everyone, really. You can't see the future but have to make a decision anyway at some point.
- lsc 9y ago
  >E.g., if I admit that, not only am I not confident, but I see the world as so complex that I can't be possibly confident about it, how can I decide what to do? You need to learn to face uncertainty. You know some of your data is incorrect, and that you sometimes make mistakes processing that data. But if you are calibrated correctly, you should be more sure of some things (that the sun will rise tomorrow) than others (that I'll get that job I just interviewed for) - I mean, I think both of those things are true, but one I'm very certain of the first, the other? I'd say it has a 60% chance of happening. It's totally reasonable to make a bet that will cause me to lose something important if the sun doesn't come up tomorrow. It's much less reasonable to make a bet that will cause me to lose something important if I don't get that job. >If my view of the world is correct than my actions would at best have unpredictable results and at worst would be reckless. So the best course of action would be not to do anything. If you literally make no conscious effort to do anything? It's likely you will die of dehydration in the next few days. Doing nothing is very likely to be much worse than randomly picking from actions deemed culturally reasonable... and you can probably do a lot better than random through weighing what uncertain information you have. I mean, complexity is hard, but it's ultimately going to get you better decisions than a system where you are absolutely certain of things.
baxtr 9y ago
No I agree it’s not. But, my experience from many years is: people want leadership that is confident, which way to go. Event though, it might not be the right (I wonder if there is ever a right way, because as you correctly say, the world is utterly complex)
- slx26 9y ago
  Well, and that's precisely what we need to adress, some of the things people want. I firmly believe we should teach about this in schools. Knowledge about biases is very relevant to critical thinking, and critical thinking to a fairer society. ^ I was writting with more confidence and assertively than usual there ;)
  - baxtr 9y ago
    Maybe. But then again it is really difficult to change human nature

koonsolo 9y ago

> People like certainty. It's why someone who is 100% reliable is generally perceived as far more valuable than someone who is merely very reliable. People are far happier to follow a leader that has 95% chance of succeeding than someone who has a 75% chance. I absolutely agree that people like certainty. I would even go so far to say that they actually don't like the '95% chance' of anything. In that case, they would say "I believe this to be 100% correct", which is basically saying that you can't tell for sure, but you believe it to be 100% correct. Not an objective 'real' chance of maybe 90%. Take for example religion. Nobody can be 100% sure whether there is some sort of god or not. But you won't hear anybody make any % predictions, especially the ones who believe. They believe 100% for sure there is a god. Atheist are on that front the same, and believe 100% there is no god. They are unable to make a % prediction, or really don't want to because it would break something inside of them (their belief). Very strange. I like to work with chances a lot.

mjburgess 9y ago
Probabilities concern how much information it is possible to have about an event: they are a description of what a perfectly rational person, under perfectly rational constraints, could know. Since I do not understand how we could know anything about "God", there could be no 'probability' associated with it. What would it mean to say 50%? That, were the universe run 100 times -- 50 runs would have a god in them? I am an atheist in exactly the same way that I am an a-leprechaun-ist. The proposition "God Exists" is one I believe to be false for extra-empirical reasons. Namely, that the inexistance of God is consistent with every given observation -- and the content of the idea seems deeply anthropocentric and psychological. Those ideas which have had no explanatory content (ie., could not be used to predict anything) and which have had a clearly human psychological construction have all turned out to be "reasonably false". At the moment holding that god does not exist is "unreasonably false" according to people (eg. You) whereas holding that leprachuans do not exist is "reasonably fasle". I believe this distinction to have everything to do with saving people's feelings and nothing to do with the content and nature of the ideas. Objects which have no explanatory power (magic, gods, etc.) are "bugs" in human thinking. No one ought believe that any of them exist.
- 9y ago

memco 9y ago

> "That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" — Douglas Adams One of my favorite quotes of all time. We want certainty, and when that fails, certainty about the uncertainty.