3 ms·

Agreed fully. I'll admit I also had a chuckle at the expense of the parent post here (I'm sorry - the rest of this post isn't meant to pick on you or describe

Agreed fully. I'll admit I also had a chuckle at the expense of the parent post here (I'm sorry - the rest of this post isn't meant to pick on you or describe you specifically). I think this there is a lesson in here somewhere on the intellectual confidence that comes with being good at one thing, and the silliness that can ensue when it might not translate elsewhere. Not in even necessarily in a malicious or foolish way, but in a "it can catch you even when you think you're accounting for it" kind of way. If not empathy for the sake of moral reasons or even good vibes, I wish that we could at least convince the "I read the abstract of 3 papers / I read a gwern post about this / I accomplished something hard in my life so I know everything" crowd of the utility of empathy as a tool for exploring your "unknown unknowns". You'd think that more people would be interested in a dialectic (in the classical philosophy sense) discussion as a cooperative if conflicting search for truth. This is harder to do if you systematically overestimate yourself and underestimate others. Of course as I write this I'm thinking of all the times I didn't practice what I'm preaching now.

zmgsabst 2y ago
> “I accomplished something hard in my life so I know everything" crowd of the utility of empathy as a tool for exploring your "unknown unknowns". Do you believe you’ve demonstrated “the utility of empathy” in your post? — or even your interpretation of what was said? - - - > Of course as I write this I'm thinking of all the times I didn't practice what I'm preaching now. > Not in even necessarily in a malicious or foolish way, but in a "it can catch you even when you think you're accounting for it" kind of way. > This is harder to do if you systematically overestimate yourself and underestimate others. Mm.
- kbenson 2y ago
  I'm not sure if you're expressing what you think you are. They outlined a group by nature of the problem (so the people in question have something to improve, tautalogically), so it's not like they are painting with an overly broad brush, unless you think people that accomplished something hard and then automatically assume they have faculty in all topics is not a group in need of examining their assumptions more closely?
  - jstanley 2y ago
    The post is pretty close to being guilty of the very problem it is pointing out.
    - kbenson 2y ago
      I don't think it is, which is my point. It's essentially saying "I wish people with BEHAVIOR PROBLEM would do THING THAT MAY HELP MITIGATE PROBLEM." There is no statement of the size of that group, or how many people exhibit that problem. Unless you don't think the behavior being talked about is a problem (which is different than thinking not many people have this problem), then I'm not sure how having empathy towards them factors in. Is wishing they had more perspective and could avoid a cognitive pitfall not empathy?
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  struck a little too close to home, eh?
- makmanalp 2y ago
  My contention is that I make a good faith effort to be open to the idea that others know or have experienced things or might have some thoughts that I haven’t considered adequately. And that I think this concept would be helpful to others here. That’s all, no more, no less. It isn’t that I’m perfect, or infallible, or even immune to frustration and the occasional bout of snark. It doesn’t mean that I’m a “better” person. It also doesn’t mean that I have to accept every viewpoint as true or equally likely. Nor does it mean that I can’t criticize. Nor that I can’t take a side on a considered opinion. It doesn’t mean that this always leads to perfect results or that I’m always successful. It doesn’t mean that it’s a perfect heuristic. It’s only one more tool in a toolbox. I think it is undervalued - and sometimes angrily pushed back against - in this community, maybe because it gets dismissed as “feelings” (and not “reason”). The reason I think this is that I've encountered here the “experienced expert with healthy self doubt versus passionate amateur with little self awareness” dynamic in action over and over again. There’s an ongoing, half century current in the field trying to examine whether reasoning may often involve a heuristic-based, adaptive process based on incomplete and imperfect information, and less so something resembling a pure application of formal logic. In this universe, cognitive biases extend more clearly to things like which facts you consider as possible at all in the first place and by which methods you weight them as more or less likely or influential, as opposed to merely fallacies of formal logic that we’re most often exposed to. So, the thinking goes, it can help to try to fill some gaps in this area by trying to increase the breadth of what you’re exposing yourself to and allowing yourself to take into account. In my experience this can be a frustrating and exhausting concept to contend with as a person. You certainly can tu quoque yourself - or me, like you and others in this thread have - into oblivion. After all, what business do I have talking about cognitive biases if I've been shown to be subject the very same, and am not an expert in it? I don't know where the line is but I'm not certain it makes the concept less helpful outright. At the very least I don't think I'm claiming something that'd be considered very controversial as far as I'm aware.
  - pseudalopex 2y ago
    Please continue preaching empathy and self awareness. But please practice them also. Your interpretation of sanderjd's comment was uncharitable and incorrect.[1] Saying you had a chuckle at their expense was condescending and added nothing. zmgsabst's reply to you was rude. But it was a challenge to reflect. No one suggested you thought you were perfect. No one suggested your stumble disproved the utility of empathy. You wrote paragraphs against straw men. Please receive criticism from others as you want others to receive criticism from you. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40190376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40190376

zmgsabst 2y ago

> “I accomplished something hard in my life so I know everything" crowd of the utility of empathy as a tool for exploring your "unknown unknowns". Do you believe you’ve demonstrated “the utility of empathy” in your post? — or even your interpretation of what was said? - - - > Of course as I write this I'm thinking of all the times I didn't practice what I'm preaching now. > Not in even necessarily in a malicious or foolish way, but in a "it can catch you even when you think you're accounting for it" kind of way. > This is harder to do if you systematically overestimate yourself and underestimate others. Mm.

kbenson 2y ago
I'm not sure if you're expressing what you think you are. They outlined a group by nature of the problem (so the people in question have something to improve, tautalogically), so it's not like they are painting with an overly broad brush, unless you think people that accomplished something hard and then automatically assume they have faculty in all topics is not a group in need of examining their assumptions more closely?
- jstanley 2y ago
  The post is pretty close to being guilty of the very problem it is pointing out.
  - kbenson 2y ago
    I don't think it is, which is my point. It's essentially saying "I wish people with BEHAVIOR PROBLEM would do THING THAT MAY HELP MITIGATE PROBLEM." There is no statement of the size of that group, or how many people exhibit that problem. Unless you don't think the behavior being talked about is a problem (which is different than thinking not many people have this problem), then I'm not sure how having empathy towards them factors in. Is wishing they had more perspective and could avoid a cognitive pitfall not empathy?
JohnMakin 2y ago
struck a little too close to home, eh?
makmanalp 2y ago
My contention is that I make a good faith effort to be open to the idea that others know or have experienced things or might have some thoughts that I haven’t considered adequately. And that I think this concept would be helpful to others here. That’s all, no more, no less. It isn’t that I’m perfect, or infallible, or even immune to frustration and the occasional bout of snark. It doesn’t mean that I’m a “better” person. It also doesn’t mean that I have to accept every viewpoint as true or equally likely. Nor does it mean that I can’t criticize. Nor that I can’t take a side on a considered opinion. It doesn’t mean that this always leads to perfect results or that I’m always successful. It doesn’t mean that it’s a perfect heuristic. It’s only one more tool in a toolbox. I think it is undervalued - and sometimes angrily pushed back against - in this community, maybe because it gets dismissed as “feelings” (and not “reason”). The reason I think this is that I've encountered here the “experienced expert with healthy self doubt versus passionate amateur with little self awareness” dynamic in action over and over again. There’s an ongoing, half century current in the field trying to examine whether reasoning may often involve a heuristic-based, adaptive process based on incomplete and imperfect information, and less so something resembling a pure application of formal logic. In this universe, cognitive biases extend more clearly to things like which facts you consider as possible at all in the first place and by which methods you weight them as more or less likely or influential, as opposed to merely fallacies of formal logic that we’re most often exposed to. So, the thinking goes, it can help to try to fill some gaps in this area by trying to increase the breadth of what you’re exposing yourself to and allowing yourself to take into account. In my experience this can be a frustrating and exhausting concept to contend with as a person. You certainly can tu quoque yourself - or me, like you and others in this thread have - into oblivion. After all, what business do I have talking about cognitive biases if I've been shown to be subject the very same, and am not an expert in it? I don't know where the line is but I'm not certain it makes the concept less helpful outright. At the very least I don't think I'm claiming something that'd be considered very controversial as far as I'm aware.
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  Please continue preaching empathy and self awareness. But please practice them also. Your interpretation of sanderjd's comment was uncharitable and incorrect.[1] Saying you had a chuckle at their expense was condescending and added nothing. zmgsabst's reply to you was rude. But it was a challenge to reflect. No one suggested you thought you were perfect. No one suggested your stumble disproved the utility of empathy. You wrote paragraphs against straw men. Please receive criticism from others as you want others to receive criticism from you. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40190376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40190376