5 ms·

Maybe but as of yet there doesn't appear to be any clearly net positive solutions (IMO) that can both curb emotional appeal and cognitive biases without introdu

Maybe but as of yet there doesn't appear to be any clearly net positive solutions (IMO) that can both curb emotional appeal and cognitive biases without introducing harms themselves.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
These is always enducation. Teaching people to identify the biases and analyze their emotional reactions. I cant think of any downside here.
- mistermann 6y ago
  Teaching people things like logic, critical thinking, psychological biases, etc so they understand it when in abstract thinking mode when the topic is just that is one thing - teaching people to be able to practice it during realtime conversations of unrelated object level discussions (say, politics) is something else entirely. > I cant think of any downside here. I can imagine many people who may see a downside of a population who is broadly capable of skilful critical thinking. I don't think it's an accident that we only talk about the crucial need for it, but never talk about actually doing something about it.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    > teaching people to be able to practice it during realtime conversations of unrelated object level discussions (say, politics) is something else entirely. In my experience, once you give people the basic toolkit for introspection, it can kick off a positive feedback loop. Not everyone will become a stoic, but they can make meaningful progress on their own. > I can imagine many people who may see a downside of a population who is broadly capable of skilful critical thinking. I don't think it's an accident that we only talk about the crucial need for it, but never talk about actually doing something about it. On the contrary I think those who see this as negative are few and far between. Democratic power in the western world has never been greater than today, so if this is something the people want, there is very little that can stand in their way
    - mistermann 6y ago
      > In my experience, once you give people the basic toolkit for introspection, it can kick off a positive feedback loop. No doubt it is an improvement over baseline - but do you have any opinions on this specific notion that skills in abstract thinking mode may not successfully transfer to object level thinking, particularly when under pressure (ie: conversations)? I truly believe that this is a real phenomenon. > On the contrary I think those who see this as negative are few and far between. Democratic power in the western world has never been greater than today, so if this is something the people want, there is very little that can stand in their way. Oh, I think this is a very small group of people. I believe the general public has wanted a lot of things for a very long time (general welfare for all people, within reason, especially domestically), but improvements along these lines seem rather marginal, despite essentially unending productivity and GDP growth. Something seems rather imperfect here - the advertised benefits of democracy seem more impressive than the results, not unlike TV commercials for a Big Mac Meal versus what you actually get at the restaurant.
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        >Oh, I think this is a very small group of people. I believe the general public has wanted a lot of things for a very long time (general welfare for all people, within reason, especially domestically), but improvements along these lines seem rather marginal, despite essentially unending productivity and GDP growth. Something seems rather imperfect here - the advertised benefits of democracy seem more impressive than the results, not unlike TV commercials for a Big Mac Meal versus what you actually get at the restaurant. I think the lack of progress is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how democracy functions and drives progress. Meaningful progress is only made when persuasion occurs. Living in political or philosophical silos then going to the voting booth only perpetuates the status quo. To drive forward, you have to change someone's mind. Just about anyone can double their political impact on an issue by going out and having a 1 hour conversation with someone who is indifferent on the topic. The biggest trick ever played on the public is telling them they are disenfranchised and that the system is rigged. If people spent 5% of the time and effort they spent lamenting corruption or political advertising on persuasion, change would advance at a rapid pace.
- kongolongo 6y ago
  I'd agree there isn't a downside to being able to identify biases and analyzing your emotions, but that doesn't actually curb actions based on biases or emotions. You would have to prescribe biases with respect to what metrics and the choice of what metrics to pick would be where problems arise because you would also be implicitly or explicitly also be prescribing what things to value.

Maybe but as of yet there doesn't appear to be any clearly net positive solutions (IMO) that can both curb emotional appeal and cognitive biases without introducing harms themselves.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

These is always enducation. Teaching people to identify the biases and analyze their emotional reactions. I cant think of any downside here.

mistermann 6y ago
Teaching people things like logic, critical thinking, psychological biases, etc so they understand it when in abstract thinking mode when the topic is just that is one thing - teaching people to be able to practice it during realtime conversations of unrelated object level discussions (say, politics) is something else entirely. > I cant think of any downside here. I can imagine many people who may see a downside of a population who is broadly capable of skilful critical thinking. I don't think it's an accident that we only talk about the crucial need for it, but never talk about actually doing something about it.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  > teaching people to be able to practice it during realtime conversations of unrelated object level discussions (say, politics) is something else entirely. In my experience, once you give people the basic toolkit for introspection, it can kick off a positive feedback loop. Not everyone will become a stoic, but they can make meaningful progress on their own. > I can imagine many people who may see a downside of a population who is broadly capable of skilful critical thinking. I don't think it's an accident that we only talk about the crucial need for it, but never talk about actually doing something about it. On the contrary I think those who see this as negative are few and far between. Democratic power in the western world has never been greater than today, so if this is something the people want, there is very little that can stand in their way
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > In my experience, once you give people the basic toolkit for introspection, it can kick off a positive feedback loop. No doubt it is an improvement over baseline - but do you have any opinions on this specific notion that skills in abstract thinking mode may not successfully transfer to object level thinking, particularly when under pressure (ie: conversations)? I truly believe that this is a real phenomenon. > On the contrary I think those who see this as negative are few and far between. Democratic power in the western world has never been greater than today, so if this is something the people want, there is very little that can stand in their way. Oh, I think this is a very small group of people. I believe the general public has wanted a lot of things for a very long time (general welfare for all people, within reason, especially domestically), but improvements along these lines seem rather marginal, despite essentially unending productivity and GDP growth. Something seems rather imperfect here - the advertised benefits of democracy seem more impressive than the results, not unlike TV commercials for a Big Mac Meal versus what you actually get at the restaurant.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      >Oh, I think this is a very small group of people. I believe the general public has wanted a lot of things for a very long time (general welfare for all people, within reason, especially domestically), but improvements along these lines seem rather marginal, despite essentially unending productivity and GDP growth. Something seems rather imperfect here - the advertised benefits of democracy seem more impressive than the results, not unlike TV commercials for a Big Mac Meal versus what you actually get at the restaurant. I think the lack of progress is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how democracy functions and drives progress. Meaningful progress is only made when persuasion occurs. Living in political or philosophical silos then going to the voting booth only perpetuates the status quo. To drive forward, you have to change someone's mind. Just about anyone can double their political impact on an issue by going out and having a 1 hour conversation with someone who is indifferent on the topic. The biggest trick ever played on the public is telling them they are disenfranchised and that the system is rigged. If people spent 5% of the time and effort they spent lamenting corruption or political advertising on persuasion, change would advance at a rapid pace.
kongolongo 6y ago
I'd agree there isn't a downside to being able to identify biases and analyzing your emotions, but that doesn't actually curb actions based on biases or emotions. You would have to prescribe biases with respect to what metrics and the choice of what metrics to pick would be where problems arise because you would also be implicitly or explicitly also be prescribing what things to value.