3 ms·

It'd be interesting to see how the Skeptics and other bias-aware groups perform. It's hard to imagine the folks at the Center For Applied Rationally doing just

by apienx 4y ago

It'd be interesting to see how the Skeptics and other bias-aware groups perform. It's hard to imagine the folks at the Center For Applied Rationally doing just as bad as the average Joe. It's hard to believe that you can't train yourself into hypervigilance and extraordinary awareness. Practicing with intent is a very different animal from "cognitive sophistication" (however the paper defines it).

8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
The science seems to show that it's very hard (possibly almost impossible) to de-bias yourself, which is why humans have to rely rely on other humans with outside perspective as a counter-balancing force. This assumes that conflict of opinions is welcome and accepted by the group, which is unfortunately not always the case, leading to echo chambers and groups confirming and reinforcing existing beliefs.
jgeada 4y ago
You cannot be an expert in everything, it is impossible; the domain of human knowledge and experience has grown too vast for anyone to be conversant with anything more than a minor fraction. So, sooner or later, either you distrust everything and you become a conspiracy theorist or you rely on experts. Who you choose to trust as experts gives you a bias. My personal observation (ie read this as anecdote, not data) is that skeptics frequently choose to select as their expert the lone dissenter in the field. My interpretation is not that the skeptics I know are truly skeptics, they're contrarians who don't trust institutional knowledge or consensus.
- asdff 4y ago
  Chomsky writes about the expert effect in Manufacturing Consent. Basically, among credentialed experts on any given topic, you can find opinions going every which way. So bringing in an expert to bolster your point is meaningless, because they are brought in because of their preexisting opinions which as you note sometimes run against the rest of the field. Another technique is to bring in someone with contrary opinions and one with favorable opinions, and basically not give them much shot to speak or force them on the defensive for everything they say with both your expert and the moderator. Then you can say you soundly defeated that critical opinion of the topic.

by apienx 4y ago

8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago

The science seems to show that it's very hard (possibly almost impossible) to de-bias yourself, which is why humans have to rely rely on other humans with outside perspective as a counter-balancing force. This assumes that conflict of opinions is welcome and accepted by the group, which is unfortunately not always the case, leading to echo chambers and groups confirming and reinforcing existing beliefs.

jgeada 4y ago

You cannot be an expert in everything, it is impossible; the domain of human knowledge and experience has grown too vast for anyone to be conversant with anything more than a minor fraction. So, sooner or later, either you distrust everything and you become a conspiracy theorist or you rely on experts. Who you choose to trust as experts gives you a bias. My personal observation (ie read this as anecdote, not data) is that skeptics frequently choose to select as their expert the lone dissenter in the field. My interpretation is not that the skeptics I know are truly skeptics, they're contrarians who don't trust institutional knowledge or consensus.

asdff 4y ago
Chomsky writes about the expert effect in Manufacturing Consent. Basically, among credentialed experts on any given topic, you can find opinions going every which way. So bringing in an expert to bolster your point is meaningless, because they are brought in because of their preexisting opinions which as you note sometimes run against the rest of the field. Another technique is to bring in someone with contrary opinions and one with favorable opinions, and basically not give them much shot to speak or force them on the defensive for everything they say with both your expert and the moderator. Then you can say you soundly defeated that critical opinion of the topic.