5 ms·

Good science should be open to new ideas. I'm totally on board with mask wearing, social distancing, isolating when possible, etc. etc., but always keeping in m

Good science should be open to new ideas. I'm totally on board with mask wearing, social distancing, isolating when possible, etc. etc., but always keeping in mind the possibility that we could be wrong is a crucial factor in coming to objective truth through empirical means. Reminds me of this blog post I read a while back: http://scott.wiersdorf.org/blarney/science http://scott.wiersdorf.org/blarney/science It's hard to disagree cordially and constructively when you perceive the "other side" as being uninformed, unenlightened, rude, or careless. We're really good at furnishing examples of such people which we generalize to represent the entire opposition. I try and get over this by thinking what values other people have that might lead them to the conclusions that they do. I also try and think about what factors led them to the sets of information that they're working with. That has two effects: 1.) I'm less mad at them (usually), and 2.) I can understand how to talk to their concerns and worries, rather than just at them. I can't change other people, so I try and change myself. I'm not saying I'm perfect at that—this doesn't always work as well as I'd like. What helps you to sympathize and communicate with others?

mrandish 6y ago
> What helps you to sympathize and communicate with others? I try to - Remember virtually no individual or group is 100% right or 100% incorrect about things which require interpretation or value judgements. Even people who I think are often terribly wrong can still occasionally be right about some topic. - Consider sometimes people can reach a generally correct conclusion based on incorrect reasoning, interpretation or data. Conversely, sometimes people can reach substantially incorrect conclusions based on correct reasoning, interpretation or data. - Not to let my feelings about a person or group's other positions influence my assessments about a position in a different domain. - Be aware of the basis and degree of my own preconceived feelings and biases related to a topic. - Remember that everyone is influenced to some degree by their personal experiences, context, knowledge and feelings, even if we're not aware of it. - Ensure I fully understand the other person's position. Especially that I'm not making assumptions or drawing conclusions which may over-simplify, extend or 'extreme' what they're actually saying. I also try to imagine possible 'steelman' forms of their arguments which may be stronger, clearer or more nuanced than what they are saying. - Separate assertions about objective facts from subjective interpretation or conclusions such as policy. Especially that future outcomes cannot be objective facts because they haven't happened. - Apply extra charitable interpretation in areas where I may have strong pre-held notions. - Stay open-minded and ask clarifying questions in a reasonable and neutral tone. - Focus my responses on the most key elements of the arguments actually being made versus the person, style, tone or my feelings.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > Consider sometimes people can reach a generally correct conclusion based on incorrect reasoning, interpretation or data. Conversely, sometimes people can reach substantially incorrect conclusions based on correct reasoning, interpretation or data. I'm worried this one will get lost in amongst all the other good points. Human society has numerous mechanisms (traditions and ethics being the big ones, but also rules and stories) that are there to guide people to make good decisions even if they can't explain why they are good. Everyone knows lying is bad, for example. But in my experience the behaviour of a lot of people shows they don't actually understand why - I suspect they think it is bad because they fear punishment more than because they understand global optimum equilibriums. It is remarkably common for good ideas to be floating around that people struggle to justify.
  - nemosaltat 6y ago
    That point stood out to me as well. In The Problems of Philosophy [0], Bertrand Russell summarizes this phenomenon nicely > At first sight we might imagine that knowledge could be defined as "true belief." When what we believe is true, it might be supposed that we had achieved a knowledge of what we believe. But this would not accord with the way in which the word is commonly used. To take a very trivial instance: If a man believes that the late Prime Minister's last name began with a B, he believes what is true, since the late Prime Minister was Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman. But if he believes that Mr. Balfour was the late Prime Minister, he will still believe that the late Prime Minister's last name began with a B, yet this belief, though true, would not be thought to constitute knowledge. If a newspaper, by an intelligent anticipation, announces the result of a battle before any telegram giving the result has been received, it may by good fortune announce what afterwards turns out to be the right result, and it may produce belief in some of its less experienced readers. But in spite of the truth of their belief, they cannot be said to have knowledge. Thus it is clear that a true belief is not knowledge when it is deduced from a false belief. [0] (https://www.wmcarey.edu/crockett/russell/xiii.htm https://www.wmcarey.edu/crockett/russell/xiii.htm)
  - ThomPete 6y ago
    there is a third possibility. Sometime people reach different but correct conclusions based on the same information but a different valueset
addicted 6y ago
We could also be wrong in the other direction. The European COVID could have been a mutation to the point where the 15% or so death rate that Italy was seeing was actually the natural death rate for COVID. COVID could have been far more devastating to children, who do not have the immunity adults do. It may have been completely resistant to a vaccine for years, like viruses like HIV. The idea that uncertainty about COVID reduced the need for a lockdown in March April when we knew that China was scared enough of the virus that it shut down Wuhan completely, and Italy was seeing an epic disaster, is completely backwards. The uncertainty at that point was MORE reason to lock down, and use fiscal and monetary tools to handle the economic effects which we did know about and could predict and defend from, until we got a better understanding of the virus. Sweden, once again, is very instructive. Their PHA’s position was to basically protect the eldest by insisting that anyone showing symptoms stay home and not go to care homes to work or visit. But our complete lack of knowledge meant that Tegnells did not know that asymptomatic carriers ans transmission existed, which essentially made a mockery of this plan and wrecked any hope of Sweden handling the pandemic well. The idea that just because there are no proven studies that show what works and what doesn’t means we don’t do anything is beyond stupid. A lack of confirmed evidence means we need to take actions based on the slight evidence we do have, while weighing the cost of those actions to individuals and society, and whether those costs can be mitigated or not. So, for example, requiring masks once we had a suspicion that it was spread via aerosols and droplets as opposed to fomites, which was the initial understanding, meant that mandating masks was a no brainer. Worst case scenario if you’re wrong is that people are out $20-$30 each, but you will more than make that up in the reduced spread of other diseases that we do know masks would help with, such as the flu, which has basically been non existent this year thanks to COVID measures. Lockdowns were obviously more drastic, and the complete lack of knowledge and disasters unfolding in Wuhan (remember China constructing 2-3 hospitals in days to handle what happened there) and Italy, and uncontrolled rise of cases in other parts of Europe and the US meant a lockdown was almost necessary. Once we did find out more about the virus, once we got testing under control, and now that doctors understand treatments better leading to a much lower death rate, a full lockdown like in spring does not appear necessary. Distancing and mask wearing and gathering outdoors seem sufficient to control it. When people do not follow this leading to a spike in cases, temporary, localized, soft lockdowns make sense until we get people to follow this. The contrarians in Sweden and the Great Barrington Deckaration (which is hilariously not scientific at all, and is basically completely wrong at this point) are not holding a contrary scientific viewpoint. They are holding apolitical viewpoint which they are promoting with the absence of science.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
7952 6y ago
It was once controversial for Doctors to wash their hands. Now everyone believes and understands why it is necessary. But few of us have any real understanding of what bacteria and infections actually are. We just take it for granted. Sometimes our basic understanding of the world is insufficient to really grasp new ideas. It just takes a while for people to adapt and in the meantime the alternative theories become very powerful.
glaugh 6y ago
Thank you for this thoughtful post and prompt > What helps you to sympathize and communicate with others? You and others have suggested good ideas. Another that I find useful is to always give something. It doesn’t have to be falsely giving in on a fact. It can be “Y’know I was thinking the exact same thing then I ran into this paper!” or “This is interesting, I hadn’t thought of it this way. And...” I think the tiniest, almost inconsequential gift and saving of face that that represents can totally change the tone of a conversation Just my two cents
- ashton314 6y ago
  That's a good two cents. :) Never compromising is romanticized heavily in our culture. However, being willing to make concessions, get rid of personal pride in the interest of understanding, etc. is surer evidence of strength and personal fortitude than a tough-and-gruff, unyielding stance. There are precious few arenas in life where never compromising is actually the right course of action imo. Most of the time we're just too proud to make a concession.

mrandish 6y ago

> What helps you to sympathize and communicate with others? I try to - Remember virtually no individual or group is 100% right or 100% incorrect about things which require interpretation or value judgements. Even people who I think are often terribly wrong can still occasionally be right about some topic. - Consider sometimes people can reach a generally correct conclusion based on incorrect reasoning, interpretation or data. Conversely, sometimes people can reach substantially incorrect conclusions based on correct reasoning, interpretation or data. - Not to let my feelings about a person or group's other positions influence my assessments about a position in a different domain. - Be aware of the basis and degree of my own preconceived feelings and biases related to a topic. - Remember that everyone is influenced to some degree by their personal experiences, context, knowledge and feelings, even if we're not aware of it. - Ensure I fully understand the other person's position. Especially that I'm not making assumptions or drawing conclusions which may over-simplify, extend or 'extreme' what they're actually saying. I also try to imagine possible 'steelman' forms of their arguments which may be stronger, clearer or more nuanced than what they are saying. - Separate assertions about objective facts from subjective interpretation or conclusions such as policy. Especially that future outcomes cannot be objective facts because they haven't happened. - Apply extra charitable interpretation in areas where I may have strong pre-held notions. - Stay open-minded and ask clarifying questions in a reasonable and neutral tone. - Focus my responses on the most key elements of the arguments actually being made versus the person, style, tone or my feelings.

roenxi 6y ago
> Consider sometimes people can reach a generally correct conclusion based on incorrect reasoning, interpretation or data. Conversely, sometimes people can reach substantially incorrect conclusions based on correct reasoning, interpretation or data. I'm worried this one will get lost in amongst all the other good points. Human society has numerous mechanisms (traditions and ethics being the big ones, but also rules and stories) that are there to guide people to make good decisions even if they can't explain why they are good. Everyone knows lying is bad, for example. But in my experience the behaviour of a lot of people shows they don't actually understand why - I suspect they think it is bad because they fear punishment more than because they understand global optimum equilibriums. It is remarkably common for good ideas to be floating around that people struggle to justify.
- nemosaltat 6y ago
  That point stood out to me as well. In The Problems of Philosophy [0], Bertrand Russell summarizes this phenomenon nicely > At first sight we might imagine that knowledge could be defined as "true belief." When what we believe is true, it might be supposed that we had achieved a knowledge of what we believe. But this would not accord with the way in which the word is commonly used. To take a very trivial instance: If a man believes that the late Prime Minister's last name began with a B, he believes what is true, since the late Prime Minister was Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman. But if he believes that Mr. Balfour was the late Prime Minister, he will still believe that the late Prime Minister's last name began with a B, yet this belief, though true, would not be thought to constitute knowledge. If a newspaper, by an intelligent anticipation, announces the result of a battle before any telegram giving the result has been received, it may by good fortune announce what afterwards turns out to be the right result, and it may produce belief in some of its less experienced readers. But in spite of the truth of their belief, they cannot be said to have knowledge. Thus it is clear that a true belief is not knowledge when it is deduced from a false belief. [0] (https://www.wmcarey.edu/crockett/russell/xiii.htm https://www.wmcarey.edu/crockett/russell/xiii.htm)
- ThomPete 6y ago
  there is a third possibility. Sometime people reach different but correct conclusions based on the same information but a different valueset

addicted 6y ago

We could also be wrong in the other direction. The European COVID could have been a mutation to the point where the 15% or so death rate that Italy was seeing was actually the natural death rate for COVID. COVID could have been far more devastating to children, who do not have the immunity adults do. It may have been completely resistant to a vaccine for years, like viruses like HIV. The idea that uncertainty about COVID reduced the need for a lockdown in March April when we knew that China was scared enough of the virus that it shut down Wuhan completely, and Italy was seeing an epic disaster, is completely backwards. The uncertainty at that point was MORE reason to lock down, and use fiscal and monetary tools to handle the economic effects which we did know about and could predict and defend from, until we got a better understanding of the virus. Sweden, once again, is very instructive. Their PHA’s position was to basically protect the eldest by insisting that anyone showing symptoms stay home and not go to care homes to work or visit. But our complete lack of knowledge meant that Tegnells did not know that asymptomatic carriers ans transmission existed, which essentially made a mockery of this plan and wrecked any hope of Sweden handling the pandemic well. The idea that just because there are no proven studies that show what works and what doesn’t means we don’t do anything is beyond stupid. A lack of confirmed evidence means we need to take actions based on the slight evidence we do have, while weighing the cost of those actions to individuals and society, and whether those costs can be mitigated or not. So, for example, requiring masks once we had a suspicion that it was spread via aerosols and droplets as opposed to fomites, which was the initial understanding, meant that mandating masks was a no brainer. Worst case scenario if you’re wrong is that people are out $20-$30 each, but you will more than make that up in the reduced spread of other diseases that we do know masks would help with, such as the flu, which has basically been non existent this year thanks to COVID measures. Lockdowns were obviously more drastic, and the complete lack of knowledge and disasters unfolding in Wuhan (remember China constructing 2-3 hospitals in days to handle what happened there) and Italy, and uncontrolled rise of cases in other parts of Europe and the US meant a lockdown was almost necessary. Once we did find out more about the virus, once we got testing under control, and now that doctors understand treatments better leading to a much lower death rate, a full lockdown like in spring does not appear necessary. Distancing and mask wearing and gathering outdoors seem sufficient to control it. When people do not follow this leading to a spike in cases, temporary, localized, soft lockdowns make sense until we get people to follow this. The contrarians in Sweden and the Great Barrington Deckaration (which is hilariously not scientific at all, and is basically completely wrong at this point) are not holding a contrary scientific viewpoint. They are holding apolitical viewpoint which they are promoting with the absence of science.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

7952 6y ago

It was once controversial for Doctors to wash their hands. Now everyone believes and understands why it is necessary. But few of us have any real understanding of what bacteria and infections actually are. We just take it for granted. Sometimes our basic understanding of the world is insufficient to really grasp new ideas. It just takes a while for people to adapt and in the meantime the alternative theories become very powerful.

glaugh 6y ago

Thank you for this thoughtful post and prompt > What helps you to sympathize and communicate with others? You and others have suggested good ideas. Another that I find useful is to always give something. It doesn’t have to be falsely giving in on a fact. It can be “Y’know I was thinking the exact same thing then I ran into this paper!” or “This is interesting, I hadn’t thought of it this way. And...” I think the tiniest, almost inconsequential gift and saving of face that that represents can totally change the tone of a conversation Just my two cents

ashton314 6y ago
That's a good two cents. :) Never compromising is romanticized heavily in our culture. However, being willing to make concessions, get rid of personal pride in the interest of understanding, etc. is surer evidence of strength and personal fortitude than a tough-and-gruff, unyielding stance. There are precious few arenas in life where never compromising is actually the right course of action imo. Most of the time we're just too proud to make a concession.