4 ms·

I must say I have mixed feelings about these biases. One thing I've noticed is that they are used as counter-arguments. "OH, you're saying that because you're

I must say I have mixed feelings about these biases. One thing I've noticed is that they are used as counter-arguments. "OH, you're saying that because you're biased." Could we say that some people are biased toward seeing biases everywhere? Even if you've rationalized an opinion of yours in its entirety, as deep as it's humanely and currently possible, you can still be subject to, say, "wishful thinking". Say you hold a belief about something that is not yet verified to be true of false. It's a belief. It's not knowledge because you can't justify its truth value yet. A skeptic philosopher might hold that you will never justify it entirely. But that's a different story. However, some people will just trow a "bias" at you for the simple reason they think you wish it to be true, not that you believe and think it to be true.

Lost_BiomedE 14y ago
It is better as a tool for self-introspection than a tool of accusation. Thinking in terms of probabilities is good for the not verified stuff.
frooxie 14y ago
Reminds me of Eliezer Yudkowsky's comment that "I've seen people severely messed up by their own knowledge of biases. They have more ammunition with which to argue against anything they don't like."
- confluence 14y ago
  Well if people can use these biases against the things they don't like - then the things they don't like aren't backed up with data, or they aren't reasoned correctly or they are argued fallaciously. Having a deep knowledge of cognitive biases, logical fallacies and the improper use of statistics destroys the vast majority of hypotheses that are stated on a daily basis. This is not because we don't like these things. No, it's because most people are full of shit. See if you can see all examples of biases, fallacious arguments and poor reasoning in my above rant! I've used a fair few. But only because I know all of them. Knowledge allows me to see through people whilst making myself opaque to others. Yes this can be abused. However this is only true to the extent that most things are already bullshit - using these techniques can only change what bullshit people believe. However these techniques don't effect what is true or not - they merely help find it.
  - TeMPOraL 14y ago
    The problem Eliezer tried to highlight is that sloppy thinkers and/or people with no desire to understand the truth of a given matter will tend to look carefully for biases in arguments they don't like, while not applying the same scrutiny to the arguments supporting their position. To some extent, it's problem common to all of us - we tend to be more sceptical about things we don't agree with than with the ones we like. But some people exhibit this very strongly and they will surely hurt themselves more, the more ammunition they have.

Lost_BiomedE 14y ago

It is better as a tool for self-introspection than a tool of accusation. Thinking in terms of probabilities is good for the not verified stuff.

frooxie 14y ago

Reminds me of Eliezer Yudkowsky's comment that "I've seen people severely messed up by their own knowledge of biases. They have more ammunition with which to argue against anything they don't like."

confluence 14y ago
Well if people can use these biases against the things they don't like - then the things they don't like aren't backed up with data, or they aren't reasoned correctly or they are argued fallaciously. Having a deep knowledge of cognitive biases, logical fallacies and the improper use of statistics destroys the vast majority of hypotheses that are stated on a daily basis. This is not because we don't like these things. No, it's because most people are full of shit. See if you can see all examples of biases, fallacious arguments and poor reasoning in my above rant! I've used a fair few. But only because I know all of them. Knowledge allows me to see through people whilst making myself opaque to others. Yes this can be abused. However this is only true to the extent that most things are already bullshit - using these techniques can only change what bullshit people believe. However these techniques don't effect what is true or not - they merely help find it.
- TeMPOraL 14y ago
  The problem Eliezer tried to highlight is that sloppy thinkers and/or people with no desire to understand the truth of a given matter will tend to look carefully for biases in arguments they don't like, while not applying the same scrutiny to the arguments supporting their position. To some extent, it's problem common to all of us - we tend to be more sceptical about things we don't agree with than with the ones we like. But some people exhibit this very strongly and they will surely hurt themselves more, the more ammunition they have.