4 ms·

We don't live in reality, or even "see" it directly. The reality that we live in is firstly based on perception of actual physical reality, and then also exper

We don't live in reality, or even "see" it directly. The reality that we live in is firstly based on perception of actual physical reality, and then also experienced/conceptualized via a proxy, which is a model of our perceived reality (and all the objects, people, and ideas within it), all implemented by a sophisticated biological neural network of sorts. An example of how you can test this theory is to observe conversations on forums, where you will find plentiful (and ultra-confident) examples of supernatural acts like mind reading, future predicting, knowing things that are not knowable, etc. Even more interestingly, these "beliefs" seem to be entrenched extremely deeply in the human psyche, and almost "protected" in some way, by some sort of process. Merely pointing out the obvious fact (the existence of this phenomenon) is highly unpopular. But even further, most people seem to be literally unable to even ponder the phenomenon, particularly in real-time. Abstract discussion seems much easier for most people, but rare is the person who can consistently walk the talk - personally, I only have one friend who can do it, across multiple domains (cross-domain capability is a key differentiator that separates those who can from those who cannot).

seanwilson 7y ago
> Even more interestingly, these "beliefs" seem to be entrenched extremely deeply in the human psyche, and almost "protected" in some way, by some sort of process. My explanation for this is the brain has lots of mental shortcuts that help it make useful quick decisions when lacking complete information (like in survival situations), but these shortcuts break down in the modern world E.g. "everyone else is doing it so it must be good" is a decent rule of thumb when you don't have time to look into things but you have to resist this rule of thumb when seeking scientific knowledge, which isn't natural for many.
- mistermann 7y ago
  Sure, these are simply heuristics..."rules of thumb" approximations, there are brazillions of them. I doubt there are many people here who aren't fairly familiar with the abstract concept. What I mean by the "protected" part is that even when talking to someone who is familiar with the abstract concept, who will readily acknowledge the existence of heuristics and inherent fallibility, even within themselves (while discussing the topic in the abstract that is), but when the topic is something else (a concrete topic like politics for example), and heuristics clearly assert themselves in the conversation, people will get "agitated" if the topic of heuristics is brought up.
  - seanwilson 7y ago
    Hmm, so I'd say the vast majority of people are not familiar with cognitive biases or logical fallacies at all. Just look at advertising and politics, especially anything to do with medicine. I learned long ago that pointing out falacies is not a winning approach to changing someone's mind so I agree with what you mean by agitated. It's also really interesting your point about people acknowledging the fault in general but can't apply it to themselves. My point was it's probably such a protected/strong part of thought because long ago those rules were generally really useful for survival. Overriding them now is possible but takes a lot of work.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      > Hmm, so I'd say the vast majority of people are not familiar with cognitive biases or logical fallacies at all. But would you say that applies to the userbase of HN? > My point was it's probably such a protected/strong part of thought because long ago those rules were generally really useful for survival. Overriding them now is possible but takes a lot of work. Agreed, but if no one is even willing to acknowledge the existence of the phenomenon, what should one do?
      - seanwilson 7y ago
        Yes, I'd say most people on HN are aware of this stuff. I guess that's why I comment here more than other places. > Agreed, but if no one is even willing to acknowledge the existence of the phenomenon, what should one do? It's just a slow process of education I guess to take a scientific approach to knowledge seeking. Discussions should be about seeking the truth, agreeing with the other person when you agree, questioning your own assumption etc. I wasn't taught logical fallacies in school for example - I'd be for teaching critical thinking in school at an early age to help with the above. Most people see views opposed to their viewpoint as an attack and cornering someone with logic to show they're wrong does not work because they're not genuinely seeking the truth anyway.
        mistermann 7y ago

seanwilson 7y ago

> Even more interestingly, these "beliefs" seem to be entrenched extremely deeply in the human psyche, and almost "protected" in some way, by some sort of process. My explanation for this is the brain has lots of mental shortcuts that help it make useful quick decisions when lacking complete information (like in survival situations), but these shortcuts break down in the modern world E.g. "everyone else is doing it so it must be good" is a decent rule of thumb when you don't have time to look into things but you have to resist this rule of thumb when seeking scientific knowledge, which isn't natural for many.

mistermann 7y ago
Sure, these are simply heuristics..."rules of thumb" approximations, there are brazillions of them. I doubt there are many people here who aren't fairly familiar with the abstract concept. What I mean by the "protected" part is that even when talking to someone who is familiar with the abstract concept, who will readily acknowledge the existence of heuristics and inherent fallibility, even within themselves (while discussing the topic in the abstract that is), but when the topic is something else (a concrete topic like politics for example), and heuristics clearly assert themselves in the conversation, people will get "agitated" if the topic of heuristics is brought up.
- seanwilson 7y ago
  Hmm, so I'd say the vast majority of people are not familiar with cognitive biases or logical fallacies at all. Just look at advertising and politics, especially anything to do with medicine. I learned long ago that pointing out falacies is not a winning approach to changing someone's mind so I agree with what you mean by agitated. It's also really interesting your point about people acknowledging the fault in general but can't apply it to themselves. My point was it's probably such a protected/strong part of thought because long ago those rules were generally really useful for survival. Overriding them now is possible but takes a lot of work.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > Hmm, so I'd say the vast majority of people are not familiar with cognitive biases or logical fallacies at all. But would you say that applies to the userbase of HN? > My point was it's probably such a protected/strong part of thought because long ago those rules were generally really useful for survival. Overriding them now is possible but takes a lot of work. Agreed, but if no one is even willing to acknowledge the existence of the phenomenon, what should one do?
    - seanwilson 7y ago
      Yes, I'd say most people on HN are aware of this stuff. I guess that's why I comment here more than other places. > Agreed, but if no one is even willing to acknowledge the existence of the phenomenon, what should one do? It's just a slow process of education I guess to take a scientific approach to knowledge seeking. Discussions should be about seeking the truth, agreeing with the other person when you agree, questioning your own assumption etc. I wasn't taught logical fallacies in school for example - I'd be for teaching critical thinking in school at an early age to help with the above. Most people see views opposed to their viewpoint as an attack and cornering someone with logic to show they're wrong does not work because they're not genuinely seeking the truth anyway.
      - mistermann 7y ago