4 ms·

This relates to one of the topics I want to get to on https://rationaldino.substack.com/ https://rationaldino.substack.com/ but which will take a while. There

This relates to one of the topics I want to get to on https://rationaldino.substack.com/ https://rationaldino.substack.com/ but which will take a while. There is a very simple litmus test to tell which are likely to fade, versus which aren't. How certain are they? https://www.amazon.com/Expert-Political-Judgment-Good-Know/dp/0691128715 https://www.amazon.com/Expert-Political-Judgment-Good-Know/d... reports on a long-term study about pundits. Basically they can be divided into two groups: 1. Hedgehogs. Have one overarching theory that they are certain of. 2. Foxes. Can pick and choose from a variety of sources. Both groups are smart, informed, and interesting. But when you follow them for a long time, a clear pattern emerges. - Foxes do much better at making future predictions that come true. - Hedgehogs become far more popular pundits, and generally wind up getting paid far better. Most pundits with popular shows are hedgehogs. Why? My theory is that we listen to pundits because it is comfortable to outsource our thinking to them. We find that comfortable if they are smart, well-informed, and certain. It is easy for us to think, "Well if this smart and well-informed guy is so certain, I'd surely agree if I did the work. So now I don't have to bother." There is a problem here. We become certain when it is easy for us to think a thing true, and hard for us to think it might be false. We feel that the evidence is truly overwhelming. It may be overwhelming. But it is more likely that we're simply being intellectually dishonest. So we actively choose intellectually dishonest pundits who agree with our presumptions, and then become sure that they are right. We enjoy listening to them. But, being intellectually dishonest, they are probably wrong. And now we're emotionally committed to their brand of insanity! Try this rule of thumb out. Assume that a person who is certain, is probably wrong. And when you find yourself feeling certain, nurse that little doubt about how you REALLY know. It takes time, but consistently making this choice can change your life. For a start, you'll start actually thinking about things that you currently only think you're thinking about.

tuatoru 3y ago
Just listened to half of an interview (the interview is long, and it's now bedtime) of John Gray. I think you'd class him as a fox, but perhaps he's more of a badger. Digs deep and wide into history to interpret the present and plot the future. Asks "what's similar and what's different, what's permanent and what's ephemeral?" Not afraid of being unpopular at the time. Some certainty is required when everyone is saying you're wrong, and is justified when ten years later they're saying that what you said ten years ago is obvious. That said, while he's solid on geopolitics snd the larger systems we are subject to, I wouldn't listen to him about what's happening with dating or something like that.
- RationalDino 3y ago
  The hedgehog/fox classification isn't mine, it is Philip Tetlock's. As is the data about pundits showing what the outcome is. See https://mgmt.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/tetlock/ https://mgmt.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/tetlock/. But I agree that it is not a perfect distinction. For example, Malcolm Gladwell writes on such a variety of things and viewpoints that he can't be a hedgehog. But he pursues a good story over what what is true, and therefore isn't very reliable. By contrast Nate Silver really likes to go to his statistics toolset. But I would call him a fox. However I think there is something to Tetlock's division. And I think my theory connecting certainty to lacking intellectual integrity has a lot to do with it.
  - 5040 3y ago
    >The hedgehog/fox classification isn't mine, it is Philip Tetlock's I know it from Isaiah Berlin, but it looks like he took it from Archilochus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox
    - RationalDino 3y ago
      Thank you for that correction and history. I got it from Tetlock, and didn't realize that his applying it to intellectuals wasn't original to him. I also previously knew about it from Archilochus. Regardless, it is a useful insight. We usually shouldn't trust talking heads who seem certain. And the exemplar that I hold in my mind was Karl Rove's 2012 meltdown as he refused to question his certainty that Romney would win: https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/11/07/164586847/video-an-awkward-moment-as-karl-rove-objects-to-foxs-ohio-call https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/11/07/16458...
teddyh 3y ago
“Uncompromising men are easy to admire.”

tuatoru 3y ago

Just listened to half of an interview (the interview is long, and it's now bedtime) of John Gray. I think you'd class him as a fox, but perhaps he's more of a badger. Digs deep and wide into history to interpret the present and plot the future. Asks "what's similar and what's different, what's permanent and what's ephemeral?" Not afraid of being unpopular at the time. Some certainty is required when everyone is saying you're wrong, and is justified when ten years later they're saying that what you said ten years ago is obvious. That said, while he's solid on geopolitics snd the larger systems we are subject to, I wouldn't listen to him about what's happening with dating or something like that.

RationalDino 3y ago
The hedgehog/fox classification isn't mine, it is Philip Tetlock's. As is the data about pundits showing what the outcome is. See https://mgmt.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/tetlock/ https://mgmt.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/tetlock/. But I agree that it is not a perfect distinction. For example, Malcolm Gladwell writes on such a variety of things and viewpoints that he can't be a hedgehog. But he pursues a good story over what what is true, and therefore isn't very reliable. By contrast Nate Silver really likes to go to his statistics toolset. But I would call him a fox. However I think there is something to Tetlock's division. And I think my theory connecting certainty to lacking intellectual integrity has a lot to do with it.
- 5040 3y ago
  >The hedgehog/fox classification isn't mine, it is Philip Tetlock's I know it from Isaiah Berlin, but it looks like he took it from Archilochus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox
  - RationalDino 3y ago
    Thank you for that correction and history. I got it from Tetlock, and didn't realize that his applying it to intellectuals wasn't original to him. I also previously knew about it from Archilochus. Regardless, it is a useful insight. We usually shouldn't trust talking heads who seem certain. And the exemplar that I hold in my mind was Karl Rove's 2012 meltdown as he refused to question his certainty that Romney would win: https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/11/07/164586847/video-an-awkward-moment-as-karl-rove-objects-to-foxs-ohio-call https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/11/07/16458...

teddyh 3y ago

“Uncompromising men are easy to admire.”