7 ms·
Powerful Concepts for Understanding the World
- tunesmith 7y ago> Condorcet Paradox: a special instance of Simpson’s paradox applied to elections, in which a populace prefers candidate A to candidate B, candidate B to C, and yet candidate C to A. This occurs because the majority that favors C is misleadingly divided among different groups. I found this really interesting because I have never thought of a Condorcet Loop, or a Smith Set, in the context of Simpson's Paradox before. I've also enjoyed Judea Pearl's points about how Simpsons Paradox scenarios sometimes don't even have a correct interpretation until you are clear about what your assumptions are and what you are trying to measure. I've always suspected that the Smith Set might just mean that the electorate isn't ready to decide yet, and that another round of elections might be warranted, but it's interesting to consider that a Smith Set might also give clues on what questions to ask to better determine the winner.
- someguyorother 7y agoA Condorcet loop can happen if different parts of the electorate values different things. E.g. some people value foreign policy experience, other people value integrity, and yet other people value left vs right. Going from a foreign policy experience ranking to an integrity ranking to an economic ranking can take you around the loop. But how would the electorate come to a conclusion about which issue is most important? The Condorcet loop could be fundamental to the voters' opinions.
- Vinceo 7y ago> When many simple objects interact with each other, they can form a system that has qualities that the objects themselves don’t. Examples: neurons creating consciousness There are no evidence that neurons create consciousness. For all we know neurons are receivers of consciousness.
- gchamonlive 7y agoThe author did warn first that > Some [concepts] are complex so forgive me for oversimplifying, but the main purpose is to incite curiosity. You shouldn't pick out these examples, they are supposed to broadly exemplify the concept.
- axguscbklp 7y agoThat's not really oversimplification though, it's more like making an assumption. But I agree that it's a minor point. I mainly brought it up in my other comment in this thread because the topic of consciousness fascinates me.
- Vinceo 7y agoI know that the examples are supposed to broadly exemplify the concept but imo that doesn't justify using statements that have no scientific backing. So we have to agree to disagree on that one.
- cairo_x 7y agoLOL.The article is full of them, too. eg: Nirvana fallacy assumes socialism is unattainable when many of the best parts of existing society are socialist (public health/education/legal aid, many small businesses, self employed people, large co-ops, credit unions, etc). edit: Mostly The Nirvana Fallacy is itself a meta-fallacy, as most of the time it's used to justify things being shit by accusing the proposed alternative of being utopian (the sub-fallacy). I seem to remember George Orwell wrote a large part of an essay dedicated to how totalitarianism relies upon such fallacies ('pragmatism', 'realist', etc)
- tekproxy 7y agoAre machine learning algorithms receivers of intelligence?
- gchamonlive 7y agoThose are interesting points to start understanding a gist of trend in how the world works, but more importantly would be to use these concepts to help us break out of them. For instance, the Belief Bias can easily apply to any one of us. How can we use the awareness that we are subject to such bias to break out of it? I mean in retrospect, when for instance I read old comments of mine I get really this odd feeling that someone else completely wrote that. How could I force break out of this?
- axguscbklp 7y agoWonderful essay, one of the best such compilations I've read. I see myself engaging in many of these thought patterns. I'll add one in the spirit of "none of us are perfect"... >..neurons creating consciousness... Is an example of something I see frequently - otherwise very smart people who assume that consciousness is just an emergent property of physical matter and who ignore the hard problem of consciousness.
- meowface 7y agoThis is one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever read on HN. There are at least a dozen things to address there, but, for one, going by this and the rest of your post history, it seems that smart people are only smart when they believe things you believe (i.e. mysticism over materialism).
- 2snakes 7y agoIf you keep an open mind and look into the literature you might agree that the methods of Science are more about organizing human experience than what things including Reality actually are. The job of science is to reveal more and more about the nature of reality, but we can only describe what we experience. Materialistic monism has been successful in some ways but is ultimately inadequate as a metaphysical position.
- axguscbklp 7y agoI think that I am not a mystic if by mysticism you mean something like "forsaking logic and science for delusion". I am a mystic, however, in the sense that while I have enormous respect for logic and scientific method, and I am usually one of the most scientific-minded and skeptical people in whatever environment I am in, I do not assume that science is capable of solving all mysteries of reality. I see no contradiction between physics, on the one hand, and thinking that consciousness may be irreducible to physics, on the other hand. There is no reason to assume that the nature of consciousness is in principle accessible to scientific investigation. It may be that there is some fundamental limit that prevents us conscious beings from grasping the nature of consciousness - and that's if there is anything to grasp in the first place. Maybe consciousness is essentially axiomatic and irreducible. I have loved science since I was young, but to assume that everything about reality is accessible to scientific inquiry and/or physical explanation is dogmatic, unscientific.
- kangnkodos 7y agoThe inclusion of the "Gurwinder Principle" casts doubt on the other principles listed.