4 ms·

> they’re going to use them to justify their stupid decisions I'm sorry, but isn't this the whole point of using mental models for your decisions? What's stupi

> they’re going to use them to justify their stupid decisions I'm sorry, but isn't this the whole point of using mental models for your decisions? What's stupid is all up to you, but if I reasoned together some decision based on some model that I think works for me, it's hardy stupid for me. I always saw the point of these mental models is to use them to justify my "stupid" decisions, and have some structured way of reaching that decision instead of just "because I wanted to". Disclaimer: I don't really follow any mental models myself, except the model my organic brain comes up with on the fly, so don't let me tell you how others use these mental modals.

maxerickson 6y ago
The argument is that it is a facade, that the structure isn't really guiding the decision.
- naasking 6y ago
  It doesn't have to. As long as it provides reasonable justification for a decision, that's better than no justification at all, eg. Like the OP said, "because I wanted to".
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    How is a false justification reasonable or better than admitting that the choice is arbitrary? (especially in the framework of the comment I replied to, where they are talking about the process being internally useful. Of course it may be useful to bullshit someone else, but that's a different thing.)
    - naasking 6y ago
      Because at least you put some thought was put into it, which again, is better than no thought at all. Consider your question applied to math: how is a false mathematical argument for believing a theorem better than just believing it for no reason at all? It's clearly better because you can actually point out the flaw in the specific argument. If someone accepts a mental framework and is faced with a choice they want to make, either: 1. They can find no justification for a choice they want to make, at which point they are more likely to question whether their choice is justifiable, or their mental framework is sufficient. Either outcome should be encouraged. 2. If they find a justification that's valid in the framework, then they have an explicable basis from which to convince others they made the right choice. 3. If they find a justification that's fallacious, then pointing out either how the framework is incomplete, or their argument within the framework is incorrect is far more likely to change their minds than simply claiming their choice was wrong and trying to explain why from your own framework, which they haven't accepted (and likely won't without a lot more convincing). Ultimately, applying thought to a problem is always better than no thought.
      - maxerickson 6y ago
        I think admitting a choice is arbitrary will often require more thought than a specious conclusion arrived at by a faulty process.
        naasking 6y ago
        Doubtful. Like the OP said, "because I want to" is all the thought it requires. It's the answer children instinctively give. How much thought do they give their justifications? Finally, if you're giving credence to a process, even a faulty one, then at least it's possible to erode confidence in the process or your application of it. To see its effectiveness, you need only browse the countless posts on reddit written by former Christians about how they came to question and ultimately give up their religion after a discussion with an atheist.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    No justification is obviously better (and more accurate) than a BS justification that merely "sounds reasonable".
    - naasking 6y ago
      I disagree not only with your conclusion but your premise: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23450913 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23450913
      - 434123r32f 6y ago
        Sorry this is really random but I've been reading your contributions/comments on your profile and I've enjoyed it so much. I really like the way you think.
        naasking 6y ago
        Cheers!
      - coldtea 6y ago
        And I disagree with your arguments, e.g.: >Because at least you put some thought was put into it, which again, is better than no thought at all. That's the problem. By opting for a an argument that sounds reasonable to justify your pre-existing decision/idea, you don't "put thought into it". You use your emotions to pick a logical sounding justification. That makes it even more dangerous than admitting "I don't really have a justification, I just like this decision/idea". That is what we call "rationalization", and it's the worst thing one can do. It's how abuse victims remain with their abuser, how racists find supporting arguments for their beliefs, etc. >Consider your question applied to math: how is a false mathematical argument for believing a theorem better than just believing it for no reason at all? It's clearly better because you can actually point out the flaw in the specific argument. That's a false equivalent, because in actual life arguments about personal beliefs (about decisions/ideas/relationships/etc) can not always be shown to be faulty as they are not axiomatic but casual. The fault in such arguments often depends on qualitative judgements, guestimations, subjective opinions about people and situations, and so on.
coldtea 6y ago
>I'm sorry, but isn't this the whole point of using mental models for your decisions? What's stupid is all up to you Parent assumes there's an objective reality, and that, (even judging by one's own purposes and goals, and not the other person's), one can make stupid BS decisions that work against themselves and their goals...

maxerickson 6y ago

The argument is that it is a facade, that the structure isn't really guiding the decision.

naasking 6y ago
It doesn't have to. As long as it provides reasonable justification for a decision, that's better than no justification at all, eg. Like the OP said, "because I wanted to".
- maxerickson 6y ago
  How is a false justification reasonable or better than admitting that the choice is arbitrary? (especially in the framework of the comment I replied to, where they are talking about the process being internally useful. Of course it may be useful to bullshit someone else, but that's a different thing.)
  - naasking 6y ago
    Because at least you put some thought was put into it, which again, is better than no thought at all. Consider your question applied to math: how is a false mathematical argument for believing a theorem better than just believing it for no reason at all? It's clearly better because you can actually point out the flaw in the specific argument. If someone accepts a mental framework and is faced with a choice they want to make, either: 1. They can find no justification for a choice they want to make, at which point they are more likely to question whether their choice is justifiable, or their mental framework is sufficient. Either outcome should be encouraged. 2. If they find a justification that's valid in the framework, then they have an explicable basis from which to convince others they made the right choice. 3. If they find a justification that's fallacious, then pointing out either how the framework is incomplete, or their argument within the framework is incorrect is far more likely to change their minds than simply claiming their choice was wrong and trying to explain why from your own framework, which they haven't accepted (and likely won't without a lot more convincing). Ultimately, applying thought to a problem is always better than no thought.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      I think admitting a choice is arbitrary will often require more thought than a specious conclusion arrived at by a faulty process.
      - naasking 6y ago
        Doubtful. Like the OP said, "because I want to" is all the thought it requires. It's the answer children instinctively give. How much thought do they give their justifications? Finally, if you're giving credence to a process, even a faulty one, then at least it's possible to erode confidence in the process or your application of it. To see its effectiveness, you need only browse the countless posts on reddit written by former Christians about how they came to question and ultimately give up their religion after a discussion with an atheist.
- coldtea 6y ago
  No justification is obviously better (and more accurate) than a BS justification that merely "sounds reasonable".
  - naasking 6y ago
    I disagree not only with your conclusion but your premise: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23450913 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23450913
    - 434123r32f 6y ago
      Sorry this is really random but I've been reading your contributions/comments on your profile and I've enjoyed it so much. I really like the way you think.
      - naasking 6y ago
        Cheers!
    - coldtea 6y ago
      And I disagree with your arguments, e.g.: >Because at least you put some thought was put into it, which again, is better than no thought at all. That's the problem. By opting for a an argument that sounds reasonable to justify your pre-existing decision/idea, you don't "put thought into it". You use your emotions to pick a logical sounding justification. That makes it even more dangerous than admitting "I don't really have a justification, I just like this decision/idea". That is what we call "rationalization", and it's the worst thing one can do. It's how abuse victims remain with their abuser, how racists find supporting arguments for their beliefs, etc. >Consider your question applied to math: how is a false mathematical argument for believing a theorem better than just believing it for no reason at all? It's clearly better because you can actually point out the flaw in the specific argument. That's a false equivalent, because in actual life arguments about personal beliefs (about decisions/ideas/relationships/etc) can not always be shown to be faulty as they are not axiomatic but casual. The fault in such arguments often depends on qualitative judgements, guestimations, subjective opinions about people and situations, and so on.

coldtea 6y ago

>I'm sorry, but isn't this the whole point of using mental models for your decisions? What's stupid is all up to you Parent assumes there's an objective reality, and that, (even judging by one's own purposes and goals, and not the other person's), one can make stupid BS decisions that work against themselves and their goals...