4 ms·

Attribution error seems to me like it has less to do with a lack of empathy (cognitive or otherwise) and more to do with simple epistemology. We have knowledge

Attribution error seems to me like it has less to do with a lack of empathy (cognitive or otherwise) and more to do with simple epistemology. We have knowledge of our own circumstances, or the circumstances of our friends, to explain their actions with attribution to their circumstances, but we do not know about the circumstances of strangers to which we could attribute their actions.

mistermann 2y ago
> We have knowledge of our own circumstances... This depends on whether one is using normative/colloquial or strict/"pedantic" epistemology. The latter tends to be inaccessible / disallowed except in a few disciplines like math and physics, where it is revered, otherwise it is condemned (if you push it after an initial warning to stop). I often wonder if this unfair advantage is a big part of the reason why the hard sciences are so much more successful than the soft sciences.
- throwanem 2y ago
  It would be easier to know what you mean if you had defined the novel terms you introduced to describe it. What are "normative" and "strict" epistemology? If the latter is the kind that involves formal proofs, how do you account for the difficulty in applying those methods to normative considerations? Others have tried and failed. Does your theory equip you to explain how?
  - mistermann 2y ago
    normative: establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behavior (ie: what is(!) true/proper/etc is what seems to be (or is said to be) true). strict: following rules exactly knowledge: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnowJustTrueBeli https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnowJ... (Justified True Belief) Simply: it is the difference between one's opinion of what is true, and what is actually true. But, it is even further complicated by the "truth" (colloquial) of the unknown being evaluated (by the mind, according to cultural/ideological conditioning, generating "is") as equal to the "consensus" opinion/theory (of the dominant metaphysical ideology of the era or geographical region one exists in), ie: "the reality is". > If the latter is the kind that involves formal proofs, how do you account for the difficulty in applying those methods to normative considerations? Others have tried and failed. Does your theory equip you to explain how? Yes: acknowledge that which is unknown. But this is very taboo in the culture we live in, people (once properly conditioned) get extremely emotionally worked up if one points out that certain(!) cultural "truths" are actually unknown (despite that being the explicit technical standard of the ideology's scriptures, and an argument in favour of its superiority). This can be difficult to realize, but comparing the effect ideas have on adults compared to on children in various stages of development makes it quite easy to see the phenomenon[1]. Or another approach: by default the mind thinks in binary (true /false), and according to its training set - forcefully override this intuition and think in more complex forms of logic, and forcefully re-resolve all truths (recalculate reality). tl;dr: "Row row row your boat, gently down the stream...." Full disclosure: this topic is far too complicated to do justice in casual comments on a text message board, not to mention I am in no way qualified to explain it. I am just doing my best. [1] Which you'd think would set off some ideas related to the topic of discussion in people's heads....but alas, we are stuck in a bootstrap paradox.
    - throwanem 2y ago
      If you mean to distinguish the normative and the positive, doing so in those well-known terms may save both your time and that of future interlocutors. The ignorant mind finds binary distinctions most facile to draw. The clever but ungrounded one unfortunately tends most easily into more complex modes of error.
      - mistermann 2y ago
        > If you mean to distinguish the normative and the positive, doing so in those well-known terms may save both your time and that of future interlocutors. I'm not sure what you mean, could you explain please? > The ignorant mind finds binary distinctions most facile to draw. The clever but ungrounded one unfortunately tends most easily into more complex modes of error. Is this an accusation directed towards me? If so, please provide more detail so I can realize my error.
        throwanem 2y ago
        I had occasion to describe the distinction in some detail here the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40860651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40860651 I wouldn't precisely call it an accusation. If it's anything beyond me being a bit bitchy on a hot and unpleasant day, it's a suggestion from one autodidact, perhaps to another, to bear in mind that the moment of "I have a great idea!" is best followed by a moment of "I wonder who's had something to say about it before."
        mistermann 2y ago
        Oh my was my read wrong (backwards!) (and perhaps also my comments above?). So there are others I see...it's a shame there's no way for anomalous agents to locate each other in this simulation. :(
        throwanem 2y ago
        I suppose a simulationist would say there might be a lot of reasons for that, or none. But I suspect my simulation of a simulationist has not that much fidelity. In either case I rarely regret meeting unusual people, though make no promises a priori of taking any particular example very seriously; it depends a lot on the vector sum of the distinction.
photonthug 2y ago
As tfa points out it’s not that simple because where we don’t know, we always guess, but we don’t distribute the benefit of the doubt equally.

mistermann 2y ago

> We have knowledge of our own circumstances... This depends on whether one is using normative/colloquial or strict/"pedantic" epistemology. The latter tends to be inaccessible / disallowed except in a few disciplines like math and physics, where it is revered, otherwise it is condemned (if you push it after an initial warning to stop). I often wonder if this unfair advantage is a big part of the reason why the hard sciences are so much more successful than the soft sciences.

throwanem 2y ago
It would be easier to know what you mean if you had defined the novel terms you introduced to describe it. What are "normative" and "strict" epistemology? If the latter is the kind that involves formal proofs, how do you account for the difficulty in applying those methods to normative considerations? Others have tried and failed. Does your theory equip you to explain how?
- mistermann 2y ago
  normative: establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behavior (ie: what is(!) true/proper/etc is what seems to be (or is said to be) true). strict: following rules exactly knowledge: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnowJustTrueBeli https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnowJ... (Justified True Belief) Simply: it is the difference between one's opinion of what is true, and what is actually true. But, it is even further complicated by the "truth" (colloquial) of the unknown being evaluated (by the mind, according to cultural/ideological conditioning, generating "is") as equal to the "consensus" opinion/theory (of the dominant metaphysical ideology of the era or geographical region one exists in), ie: "the reality is". > If the latter is the kind that involves formal proofs, how do you account for the difficulty in applying those methods to normative considerations? Others have tried and failed. Does your theory equip you to explain how? Yes: acknowledge that which is unknown. But this is very taboo in the culture we live in, people (once properly conditioned) get extremely emotionally worked up if one points out that certain(!) cultural "truths" are actually unknown (despite that being the explicit technical standard of the ideology's scriptures, and an argument in favour of its superiority). This can be difficult to realize, but comparing the effect ideas have on adults compared to on children in various stages of development makes it quite easy to see the phenomenon[1]. Or another approach: by default the mind thinks in binary (true /false), and according to its training set - forcefully override this intuition and think in more complex forms of logic, and forcefully re-resolve all truths (recalculate reality). tl;dr: "Row row row your boat, gently down the stream...." Full disclosure: this topic is far too complicated to do justice in casual comments on a text message board, not to mention I am in no way qualified to explain it. I am just doing my best. [1] Which you'd think would set off some ideas related to the topic of discussion in people's heads....but alas, we are stuck in a bootstrap paradox.
  - throwanem 2y ago
    If you mean to distinguish the normative and the positive, doing so in those well-known terms may save both your time and that of future interlocutors. The ignorant mind finds binary distinctions most facile to draw. The clever but ungrounded one unfortunately tends most easily into more complex modes of error.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      > If you mean to distinguish the normative and the positive, doing so in those well-known terms may save both your time and that of future interlocutors. I'm not sure what you mean, could you explain please? > The ignorant mind finds binary distinctions most facile to draw. The clever but ungrounded one unfortunately tends most easily into more complex modes of error. Is this an accusation directed towards me? If so, please provide more detail so I can realize my error.
      - throwanem 2y ago
        I had occasion to describe the distinction in some detail here the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40860651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40860651 I wouldn't precisely call it an accusation. If it's anything beyond me being a bit bitchy on a hot and unpleasant day, it's a suggestion from one autodidact, perhaps to another, to bear in mind that the moment of "I have a great idea!" is best followed by a moment of "I wonder who's had something to say about it before."
        mistermann 2y ago
        Oh my was my read wrong (backwards!) (and perhaps also my comments above?). So there are others I see...it's a shame there's no way for anomalous agents to locate each other in this simulation. :(
        throwanem 2y ago
        I suppose a simulationist would say there might be a lot of reasons for that, or none. But I suspect my simulation of a simulationist has not that much fidelity. In either case I rarely regret meeting unusual people, though make no promises a priori of taking any particular example very seriously; it depends a lot on the vector sum of the distinction.

photonthug 2y ago

As tfa points out it’s not that simple because where we don’t know, we always guess, but we don’t distribute the benefit of the doubt equally.