7 ms·

What you described, with "what sort of reasoning is that?" is the mechanism by which marketers (especially those marketing politics) use to steer simple minded

by blunte 7y ago

What you described, with "what sort of reasoning is that?" is the mechanism by which marketers (especially those marketing politics) use to steer simple minded people with. Unfortunately, most people are simple minded and are unable to separate their emotions from reason.

bumby 7y ago
Psychology seems to point out that we all make emotional decisions first and then rationalize them. The danger is that everybody is convinced their decision is rational. I don't know if the non-reproducability crises has hit these studies
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  We all lie. We are all hypocritical. There seems to be a threshold upon which someone is deemed a lier, hypocrite or simple minded. That we all do something doesn't mean that we all do it to the same degree. For some reason when talking about intelligence, people are uncomfortable with some being better endowed than others. I've noted that the people who are most uncomfortable with this reality are many times hyper aware of the difference in physical endowment between different individuals.
  - bumby 7y ago
    I may be missing your connection here but I wasn't referring to "rational" as a proxy for intelligence. What i was referring to was the fact that our decisions originate in our emotional centers of our brain without our conscious awareness only to be justified after the fact by our "rational" mind
    - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
      Sort of. We have system one and system two thinking. We all have system one. Some people have system two to a greater or lesser extent. It's a lot more complicated than 'decisions originate in our emotional centers... only justified... by our rational mind' Yes, to a degree that happens, but it's more than that or people wouldn't think or deliberate points in highly analytical manners. Your post sounds like someone who reads Dan Ariely. Personally, I prefer more nuanced authors such as Kahneman.
      - bumby 7y ago
        I'm not familiar with Ariely. I'll have to look into his writing. I do know some of Kahneman's work has been questioned due to reproducability issues. I was actually drawing from Kahneman's (layman's) book. Specifically, he says, "System 1 is the hero of this book. I describe System 1 as effortlessly originating impressions and feelings that are the main sources of the explicit and deliberate choices of System 2." Granted, there's more nuance than the space in a forum response can provide but I've always liked his elephant and rider analogy. The rider (System 2) thinks they are the one directing their movement (and they do to some extent at least) but the bulk of the control is really the elephant (System 1)
        4ntonius8lock 7y ago
        Someone said: > Unfortunately, most people are simple minded and are unable to separate their emotions from reason To which you answered: > Psychology seems to point out that we all make emotional decisions first and then rationalize them You are saying 'we all make emotional decisions first and then rationalize them'. No we don't do it all equally. Yes, system one is active in all of us. It's emotional. System two, the 'rational' part, is activated on effort and really only for people above a certain intelligence level. People who are, for example, below 70 in IQ just can't think at a level of abstraction necessary to understand that there is a system one and system two. They are mostly dealing almost exclusively in system one. Some people manage to deal in system 2 much more. Generally, the smarter, the more they deal with that. I'm taking issue with saying 'we all' do it this way. Because that is clearly not true, given how some people solve problems using system 2 and others can't, they are simple minded. It's a tough pill to swallow, but it's there.
        bumby 7y ago
        >really only for people above a certain intelligence level What are you basing the claim that System 2 is only open to people above a certain intelligence threshold level on? That is certainly not one of the takeaways I had from Kahnemans work > Some people manage to deal in system 2 much more. Generally, the smarter, the more they deal with that. I think if you re-read Kahneman, you'll see he is actually in disagreement with this. He even states that he is unable to effectively guard against his System 1 biases. This is coming from a Nobel laureate at the forefront of the field. He certainly qualifies to be in the "smarter" category of humans and if anyone should be able to thwart System 1, I'd think it would be him. > I'm taking issue with saying 'we all' do it this way. The fact that we all do this is precisely the point of Kahneman's work that I relied on to make the claim. I wouldn't be surprised if there's degrees to the extent that it happens, but it's interesting to me that you think that degree hinges on someone's IQ. Is there any data to back up this hypothesis? It seems like there's a conflation of ideas here. I don't disagree that people have differing abilities of analytical ability. But this does not necessarily mean that higher levels of analytical ability negate the claim from Kahneman that our decisions are rooted in our emotional centers. This two points are not mutually exclusive. There appears to be at least some study into this: "One psychologist, Keith Stanovich, draws a distinction between two parts of System 2. One deals with slow and effortful thinking and demanding computation. Some people are better than others in this task, they are the individuals work cell [sic] in intelligence tests and are able to switch quickly and efficiently from one task to another. Yet such high intelligence does not make people immune to biases. Another ability is involved, what that psychologist labelled rationality and what Kahneman terms being engaged, which is distinct from intelligence as such." The argument you're making comes across as, "Yeah, of course those people are irrational and biased. But smart people are different." In my opinion, this is exactly the wrong take-away from Kahneman's work and it potentially opens one up to being even more biased. It reminds me of a conversation with magicians where they felt like scientists and PhDs are actually easier to fool because they were smart enough to rationalize any justification for an illusion (and believe it wholeheartedly) simply because they weren't as self-aware of their own fallibility. So if you were willing to modify the stance that "smart people are above these biases" to "smart are more likely to erroneously think they are above these biases" that might be closer to the mark although I have no idea if studies have confirmed that.
  - bumby 7y ago
    > people are uncomfortable with some being better endowed than others I've always wondered if this was because intelligence is almost considered a species-defining trait. It's often looked at as the "great equalizer" in achievement. It's a tough pill to swallow to acknowledge those differences in attainment may be, at least in part, due to unassailable differences in ability.
- StanislavPetrov 7y ago
  Personally I believe (as many do) that there are many kinds of "intelligence" and the ability to make (relatively) rational decisions is, like all forms of intelligence, on a spectrum. I'd argue that overall awareness, critical thinking skills and capacity for cognitive dissonance are all crucial factors in an individual's ability to make rational decisions. Also extremely important in my opinion is an individual's degree of individuality. As social creatures human beings are incredible susceptible to groupthink - giving added credence to ideas and concepts based on nothing but the fact that an idea or a concept is widely believed by others. Susceptibility to groupthink is absolutely fatal when it comes to making rational decisions.
  - bumby 7y ago
    > I'd argue that overall awareness...are all crucial factors in an individual's ability to make rational decisions One thing that stood out to me from Daniel Khaneman's work was that he eventually noticed that he, even as a researcher at the forefront of cognitive bias research, was unable to effectively identify those biases on a regular basis in his own decisions. He seemed to believe our best hope is that others would be able to identify them in us, but that we are almost hopeless to be that self-aware.
rinchik 7y ago
Great (as in powerful) fallacies and strategies came out the gullibility and emotional weakness of the majority. e.g every time someone yells "think about the [insert adjective here] children!" it's most likely a clear attempt to emotionally manipulate you, trick you into doing whatever the manipulator wants you to. Very few are capable to recognize and withstand emotional manipulation.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
traderjane 7y ago
Where does that leave our democracy?
- prawn 7y ago
  You might find this piece interesting if you haven't already come across it: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228045 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-ros...
- 416chad 7y ago
  And where is it headed?
- nine_k 7y ago
  Consult the history of Athens for a number of illustrative examples.
istjohn 7y ago
I think the generous interpretation of the explanation given by the parent who hates drunk driving is that they support rigorous enforcement of DUI laws, so since there is no dispute that the defendent had been drinking and was close if not over the limit, they support a guilty verdict. It may not be a strict application of the criteria jurors are instructed to use, but it might be an entirely rational act given another goal the juror might have such as "Minimize the risk that one of my children are killed by a drunk driver." So maybe the lesson of this anecdote is not people are 'simple minded' (read: stupid), but that people are not computers and bring a complex bundle of conscious and unconscious motivations to every situation that will influence their decisions.
- mike_hock 7y ago
  I'm sorry, but if you cannot recognize the fact that (as is human nature) you're bringing in a bundle of unconscious motivations, but make a conscious effort to look past your emotions and evaluate the facts, then you are "simple minded." I'm not saying you're stupid unless you're robot tier 100% impartial, but if you're just letting your gut feeling take you all the way, then yes, you are. You do have a point if, as stated, it was proven that the driver was indeed driving drunk, but just couldn't be proven to be over the limit, in which case the juror abused her position to enforce what she thought the law should be rather than what it actually was (but rationally so).
  - bsanr2 7y ago
    You know, though, we train and incentivize people to be this way. For getting a job, we privilege interviews over, say, a written test. We conduct trials live, instead of collecting a series of documents related to a case and letting all the stakeholders consider them asynchronously. We've decided that timeliness is more important in many, if not most, interactions than critical thought. Personally, I'm slow. I've noticed that if asked to answer a question, I give a worse answer than average immediately, an above average answer in 5 minutes, and a much better answer than average in 15. This is reflected in my relative lack of success socially and professionally. The ones who do well are generally able to give an above average answer instantly, even if their answer quality does not improve when they're given more time to produce it. Any reasonably intelligent person will see that developing critical thinking skills is only critical after one's developed their intuition, and behaves as such. Obviously this isn't the best situation.

by blunte 7y ago

bumby 7y ago

Psychology seems to point out that we all make emotional decisions first and then rationalize them. The danger is that everybody is convinced their decision is rational. I don't know if the non-reproducability crises has hit these studies

4ntonius8lock 7y ago
We all lie. We are all hypocritical. There seems to be a threshold upon which someone is deemed a lier, hypocrite or simple minded. That we all do something doesn't mean that we all do it to the same degree. For some reason when talking about intelligence, people are uncomfortable with some being better endowed than others. I've noted that the people who are most uncomfortable with this reality are many times hyper aware of the difference in physical endowment between different individuals.
- bumby 7y ago
  I may be missing your connection here but I wasn't referring to "rational" as a proxy for intelligence. What i was referring to was the fact that our decisions originate in our emotional centers of our brain without our conscious awareness only to be justified after the fact by our "rational" mind
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    Sort of. We have system one and system two thinking. We all have system one. Some people have system two to a greater or lesser extent. It's a lot more complicated than 'decisions originate in our emotional centers... only justified... by our rational mind' Yes, to a degree that happens, but it's more than that or people wouldn't think or deliberate points in highly analytical manners. Your post sounds like someone who reads Dan Ariely. Personally, I prefer more nuanced authors such as Kahneman.
    - bumby 7y ago
      I'm not familiar with Ariely. I'll have to look into his writing. I do know some of Kahneman's work has been questioned due to reproducability issues. I was actually drawing from Kahneman's (layman's) book. Specifically, he says, "System 1 is the hero of this book. I describe System 1 as effortlessly originating impressions and feelings that are the main sources of the explicit and deliberate choices of System 2." Granted, there's more nuance than the space in a forum response can provide but I've always liked his elephant and rider analogy. The rider (System 2) thinks they are the one directing their movement (and they do to some extent at least) but the bulk of the control is really the elephant (System 1)
      - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
        Someone said: > Unfortunately, most people are simple minded and are unable to separate their emotions from reason To which you answered: > Psychology seems to point out that we all make emotional decisions first and then rationalize them You are saying 'we all make emotional decisions first and then rationalize them'. No we don't do it all equally. Yes, system one is active in all of us. It's emotional. System two, the 'rational' part, is activated on effort and really only for people above a certain intelligence level. People who are, for example, below 70 in IQ just can't think at a level of abstraction necessary to understand that there is a system one and system two. They are mostly dealing almost exclusively in system one. Some people manage to deal in system 2 much more. Generally, the smarter, the more they deal with that. I'm taking issue with saying 'we all' do it this way. Because that is clearly not true, given how some people solve problems using system 2 and others can't, they are simple minded. It's a tough pill to swallow, but it's there.
        bumby 7y ago
        >really only for people above a certain intelligence level What are you basing the claim that System 2 is only open to people above a certain intelligence threshold level on? That is certainly not one of the takeaways I had from Kahnemans work > Some people manage to deal in system 2 much more. Generally, the smarter, the more they deal with that. I think if you re-read Kahneman, you'll see he is actually in disagreement with this. He even states that he is unable to effectively guard against his System 1 biases. This is coming from a Nobel laureate at the forefront of the field. He certainly qualifies to be in the "smarter" category of humans and if anyone should be able to thwart System 1, I'd think it would be him. > I'm taking issue with saying 'we all' do it this way. The fact that we all do this is precisely the point of Kahneman's work that I relied on to make the claim. I wouldn't be surprised if there's degrees to the extent that it happens, but it's interesting to me that you think that degree hinges on someone's IQ. Is there any data to back up this hypothesis? It seems like there's a conflation of ideas here. I don't disagree that people have differing abilities of analytical ability. But this does not necessarily mean that higher levels of analytical ability negate the claim from Kahneman that our decisions are rooted in our emotional centers. This two points are not mutually exclusive. There appears to be at least some study into this: "One psychologist, Keith Stanovich, draws a distinction between two parts of System 2. One deals with slow and effortful thinking and demanding computation. Some people are better than others in this task, they are the individuals work cell [sic] in intelligence tests and are able to switch quickly and efficiently from one task to another. Yet such high intelligence does not make people immune to biases. Another ability is involved, what that psychologist labelled rationality and what Kahneman terms being engaged, which is distinct from intelligence as such." The argument you're making comes across as, "Yeah, of course those people are irrational and biased. But smart people are different." In my opinion, this is exactly the wrong take-away from Kahneman's work and it potentially opens one up to being even more biased. It reminds me of a conversation with magicians where they felt like scientists and PhDs are actually easier to fool because they were smart enough to rationalize any justification for an illusion (and believe it wholeheartedly) simply because they weren't as self-aware of their own fallibility. So if you were willing to modify the stance that "smart people are above these biases" to "smart are more likely to erroneously think they are above these biases" that might be closer to the mark although I have no idea if studies have confirmed that.
- bumby 7y ago
  > people are uncomfortable with some being better endowed than others I've always wondered if this was because intelligence is almost considered a species-defining trait. It's often looked at as the "great equalizer" in achievement. It's a tough pill to swallow to acknowledge those differences in attainment may be, at least in part, due to unassailable differences in ability.
StanislavPetrov 7y ago
Personally I believe (as many do) that there are many kinds of "intelligence" and the ability to make (relatively) rational decisions is, like all forms of intelligence, on a spectrum. I'd argue that overall awareness, critical thinking skills and capacity for cognitive dissonance are all crucial factors in an individual's ability to make rational decisions. Also extremely important in my opinion is an individual's degree of individuality. As social creatures human beings are incredible susceptible to groupthink - giving added credence to ideas and concepts based on nothing but the fact that an idea or a concept is widely believed by others. Susceptibility to groupthink is absolutely fatal when it comes to making rational decisions.
- bumby 7y ago
  > I'd argue that overall awareness...are all crucial factors in an individual's ability to make rational decisions One thing that stood out to me from Daniel Khaneman's work was that he eventually noticed that he, even as a researcher at the forefront of cognitive bias research, was unable to effectively identify those biases on a regular basis in his own decisions. He seemed to believe our best hope is that others would be able to identify them in us, but that we are almost hopeless to be that self-aware.

rinchik 7y ago

Great (as in powerful) fallacies and strategies came out the gullibility and emotional weakness of the majority. e.g every time someone yells "think about the [insert adjective here] children!" it's most likely a clear attempt to emotionally manipulate you, trick you into doing whatever the manipulator wants you to. Very few are capable to recognize and withstand emotional manipulation.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

traderjane 7y ago

Where does that leave our democracy?

prawn 7y ago
You might find this piece interesting if you haven't already come across it: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228045 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-ros...
416chad 7y ago
And where is it headed?
nine_k 7y ago
Consult the history of Athens for a number of illustrative examples.

istjohn 7y ago

I think the generous interpretation of the explanation given by the parent who hates drunk driving is that they support rigorous enforcement of DUI laws, so since there is no dispute that the defendent had been drinking and was close if not over the limit, they support a guilty verdict. It may not be a strict application of the criteria jurors are instructed to use, but it might be an entirely rational act given another goal the juror might have such as "Minimize the risk that one of my children are killed by a drunk driver." So maybe the lesson of this anecdote is not people are 'simple minded' (read: stupid), but that people are not computers and bring a complex bundle of conscious and unconscious motivations to every situation that will influence their decisions.

mike_hock 7y ago
I'm sorry, but if you cannot recognize the fact that (as is human nature) you're bringing in a bundle of unconscious motivations, but make a conscious effort to look past your emotions and evaluate the facts, then you are "simple minded." I'm not saying you're stupid unless you're robot tier 100% impartial, but if you're just letting your gut feeling take you all the way, then yes, you are. You do have a point if, as stated, it was proven that the driver was indeed driving drunk, but just couldn't be proven to be over the limit, in which case the juror abused her position to enforce what she thought the law should be rather than what it actually was (but rationally so).
- bsanr2 7y ago
  You know, though, we train and incentivize people to be this way. For getting a job, we privilege interviews over, say, a written test. We conduct trials live, instead of collecting a series of documents related to a case and letting all the stakeholders consider them asynchronously. We've decided that timeliness is more important in many, if not most, interactions than critical thought. Personally, I'm slow. I've noticed that if asked to answer a question, I give a worse answer than average immediately, an above average answer in 5 minutes, and a much better answer than average in 15. This is reflected in my relative lack of success socially and professionally. The ones who do well are generally able to give an above average answer instantly, even if their answer quality does not improve when they're given more time to produce it. Any reasonably intelligent person will see that developing critical thinking skills is only critical after one's developed their intuition, and behaves as such. Obviously this isn't the best situation.