Unvarnished Truth #3: Filters and preconceptions

[Cramulus]

This is reminding me of Heuristics...

A Heuristic is a tool you use for solving problems. Trial and Error is a heuristic. Compromise is a social heuristic. Voting is a heuristic typically employed in democracies. The logic is that if you're encountering similar types of problems, you employ similar types of solutions.

The danger of relying on heuristics is that humans are bad at figuring out when to apply them. As it's said, "when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." We live in a world where there are certain rules, and when things change, we are bad at evaluating whether we should keep using those rules. I think this stems, in part, from the black swan effect - nobody can accurately predict the future. The current data set might not represent future data sets. A government based on the consent of 50%+1 seemed to work at a smaller scale, now we're seeing that a system in which 49% of the population is constantly pissed off is not a great engine for life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.

The misapplication of heuristics is what leads to cognitive biases.  People are failing to legislate away internet piracy because they're still stuck of thinking of data in the same terms as material property. The trick in getting people to not apply the wrong heuristics is to get them to think about the problem in new ways.  When you're stuck on a math problem, try drawing a picture of it. Maybe what we need is some new models or rules that will help us understand the bizarre era we're living in.


also relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Simon Bolivar suggested republics worked best when they represented small countries.  It could just be that I happen to agree with his bias, but I think he has a point.  A nation like the USA, or even UK, has to take into account the wants and desires of 60-300 million people, with varying levels of influence, desires, deeply held beliefs and wants.  Managing such a system, in a top heavy manner (which all governments, of the left and right, are guilty of) is simply untenable.  This goes doubly for states enamoured with rational technocracy, like western Europe and the United States, because their bureaucratic structure not only breeds pointless institutional rivalry and feuding, it also creates a reaction in charismatic Hero figures, like Napoleon or Hitler, who promise to do away with such nonsense and embody the will of the people in an emotional and symbolic way.

There is work being done by people on the concept of the "resilient community", based around ideas gleaned from study of complex adaptive systems, but so far it is in its early days.  However most advocates seem to think that radical decentralization and more power in the hands of the individual and community would be part of this process.  I like this, but again, my biases run that way, and it does need more work and testing to be done on it.

Problem is, the vast majority of people can't be bothered with self-governance though, and less and less people are willing as the problems of the society grow more complex (many or even most of these problems being artificial or partisan trifles), which is why republics fail in the first place.

That's an interesting idea, can you expound on it a bit more?

What do you think causes the mindset where people can't be bothered with self-governance?
How does this cause republics to fail?
How does that contradict Simon Bolivar's argument?

Apparently I wasn't clear enough. Sorry.

I should have said 'access to information' rather than education, it was a poor choice of words.

Education may entrench bias, but access to more information, may broaden the filtering system. (be it from self-education, schools, mentors whatever).

More information = more data to use in interpretation. Information/Education alone doesn't necessarily preclude filters and bais, but a lack of information, by definition is going to narrow your view of things and the options you're able to find when making hard decisions.

Rat, access to information doesn't broaden a persons filters.

Case in point: Teabaggers. They have all kinds of preconceived notions, many of which are dead wrong (death panels, scary socialism, and so on). They all have access to information, be it on the internet or in a library. But they don't go looking for the information that would help them understand things better. Why? Possibly because a person's filters will slam the gates down on whatever they encounter that goes against their grain.

Well of course, if you don't make use of information then it doesn't help... or if your pre-existing filters require that some types of information must be wrong then its not gonna help either.

Case in point with the French wheat farmers in the late middle ages. They had a specialization. The entire country's economic system was predicated on that specialization (hell their whole diet was predicated on it). Information existed which could have saved them, namely how to grow potatoes... but they had the Catholic filter in place which said that potatoes came from the Devil. So half the country starved to death and the other half had a revolt and beheaded a bunch of aristo's.

However, in England, Ireland etc. they used the information and didn't have the same problem as the French... until the Irish all settled on one specific type of potato to grow... which was susceptible to blight and BOOM they got a potato famine.

Information availability is a necessary part of changing filters... but the information has to be used, not ignored.

This is reminding me of Heuristics...

A Heuristic is a tool you use for solving problems. Trial and Error is a heuristic. Compromise is a social heuristic. Voting is a heuristic typically employed in democracies. The logic is that if you're encountering similar types of problems, you employ similar types of solutions.

The danger of relying on heuristics is that humans are bad at figuring out when to apply them. As it's said, "when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." We live in a world where there are certain rules, and when things change, we are bad at evaluating whether we should keep using those rules. I think this stems, in part, from the black swan effect - nobody can accurately predict the future. The current data set might not represent future data sets. A government based on the consent of 50%+1 seemed to work at a smaller scale, now we're seeing that a system in which 49% of the population is constantly pissed off is not a great engine for life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.

The misapplication of heuristics is what leads to cognitive biases.  People are failing to legislate away internet piracy because they're still stuck of thinking of data in the same terms as material property. The trick in getting people to not apply the wrong heuristics is to get them to think about the problem in new ways.  When you're stuck on a math problem, try drawing a picture of it. Maybe what we need is some new models or rules that will help us understand the bizarre era we're living in.


also relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

That's sorta what I was trying to say and apparently failed at...

[Requia ☣]

Education can't remove bias, except in a very limited manner.  You can teach critical thinking skills in a narrow field, but the second the student encounters a new set of problems he or she will fall back on to old habits.

I'd like to see some support for that assertion.

Halpern, D.F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across
    domains. American Psychologist, 53, 449–455.
Lehman, D.R., & Nisbett, R.E. (1990). A longitudinal study of the
    effects of undergraduate training on reasoning. Developmental
    Psychology, 26, 952–960.
Willingham, D.T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach?
     American Educator, 31, 8–19.

Okay, thanks.  Any of that online?

I found the willingham paper:  http://www.readingfirst.virginia.edu/elibrary_pdfs/Crit_Thinking.pdf

[hooplala]

Yeah, what Rat said... if someone could only do one thing, well, yes they are sunk... but those who were adaptable would learn to do more.

I think the analogy was a little forced, but I see your point Dok.

I wonder.

I was talking about economy (the root of politics), with an analogy, not how to help farmers raise more than one crop, or the fact that humans aren't bugs, or education or any of that shit.

This is precisely what I was talking about.  The question was predicated on an example that was obviously forced.  Instead of dealing with the actual question, the filters slammed down and it became an essay on Robert Heinlien and how to train farmers, because that's just another chance to pimp out one particular brand of failed idealism.

Well I was under the impression we were having a discussion, and that questions poking at the ideas was part of the point.

But if all you were looking for was agreement, then, well... have fun.

[hooplala]

Yeah, what Rat said... if someone could only do one thing, well, yes they are sunk... but those who were adaptable would learn to do more.

I think the analogy was a little forced, but I see your point Dok.

I wonder.

I was talking about economy (the root of politics), with an analogy, not how to help farmers raise more than one crop, or the fact that humans aren't bugs, or education or any of that shit.

This is precisely what I was talking about.  The question was predicated on an example that was obviously forced.  Instead of dealing with the actual question, the filters slammed down and it became an essay on Robert Heinlien and how to train farmers, because that's just another chance to pimp out one particular brand of failed idealism.

This was DK's stock in trade when he was trolling us, by the way.  Take a metaphor, and then stretch it to the breaking point.  Even when I explicitly said that all metaphors are imperfect, he never stopped with shit like, "What are the floors made of in the Black Iron Prison?  Can I tunnel out like in Raising Arizona?"

Whoah.  Did I just get compared to DK?

Damn.  Ok, I am going to avoid 'Aneristic Illusions' like the fucking plague from this point forward.

[Doktor Howl]

So, there appears to be two stages of building complexity:

Stage 1 is the amout of entities involved in the system.  3 people pooling profits in a communal way works.  As you add more people, the complexity increases until a point is reached where communal sharing is no longer the best method.

Stage 2, by what I gleaned from Dok saying "Global economies and near-instant (or in the case of the Romans, paralyzingly slow) communications seem to be part of the problem," seems to be to be speed of communication.  That is, when communication is slow it necessasarily limits

Perhaps there is only one stage of building complexity, which is the amount of people involved.  Increases in technology and communication speeds make it possible for more people to become involved.  If it takes 3 months to send a message, then only a few people can make decisions or affect the process.  If it takes 3 seconds, then far more people can be involved.

So, a population of 300,000 with slow communication may have the same level of complexity as a population of 300, but as soon as you add fast communication, the complexity skyrockets.


Am I babbling, or does this fit?

I think there's multiple causes of complexity, but most of them are only significant in the minds of the population.  For example, the internet has allowed vast amounts of uncontrolled communication to take place.  Since humans are geared to a pack mentality, the idea that no alpha is in control of that communication bothers people a great deal.  Rather than deal with the situation internally or externally, they simply throw up their hands about it...but continue to worry, on a level that they don't even conscioulsy recognize.

Consider:  The forum Nazis we've run into at places like Deathbylollipops and CoG are obsessed with making everyone post in the same manner they do, in agreement with the ideas they are comfortable with, or they ban them.  This is an effort to impose the pack mentality on what they see as uncontrolled - and thus wrong - information.  Rather than process the information, or even - especially - allow "their people" to see/process it, they eliminate it.

Other examples would be globalization of the economy (we can't even predict or control our own economy, let alone a global one), or even arranging that everyone has access to vital services (hence the uproar over healthcare).  Far easier, instead, to listen to a demagogue with easy answers than to think things through on your own, given that each of these issues bothers the hell out of people, and there is literally no end to the issues.    

[Doktor Howl]

Yeah, what Rat said... if someone could only do one thing, well, yes they are sunk... but those who were adaptable would learn to do more.

I think the analogy was a little forced, but I see your point Dok.

I wonder.

I was talking about economy (the root of politics), with an analogy, not how to help farmers raise more than one crop, or the fact that humans aren't bugs, or education or any of that shit.

This is precisely what I was talking about.  The question was predicated on an example that was obviously forced.  Instead of dealing with the actual question, the filters slammed down and it became an essay on Robert Heinlien and how to train farmers, because that's just another chance to pimp out one particular brand of failed idealism.

Well I was under the impression we were having a discussion, and that questions poking at the ideas was part of the point.

But if all you were looking for was agreement, then, well... have fun.

WTF?  Staying on point is "just looking for agreement"?

Goddammit.  I knew this was a fucking mistake.

[Doktor Howl]

Apparently I wasn't clear enough. Sorry.

I should have said 'access to information' rather than education, it was a poor choice of words.

Education may entrench bias, but access to more information, may broaden the filtering system. (be it from self-education, schools, mentors whatever).

More information = more data to use in interpretation. Information/Education alone doesn't necessarily preclude filters and bais, but a lack of information, by definition is going to narrow your view of things and the options you're able to find when making hard decisions.

Rat, access to information doesn't broaden a persons filters.

Case in point: Teabaggers. They have all kinds of preconceived notions, many of which are dead wrong (death panels, scary socialism, and so on). They all have access to information, be it on the internet or in a library. But they don't go looking for the information that would help them understand things better. Why? Possibly because a person's filters will slam the gates down on whatever they encounter that goes against their grain.

THIS.  THIS RIGHT FUCKING HERE.

FREEKY WINS THE INTERNET.

[hooplala]

Yeah, what Rat said... if someone could only do one thing, well, yes they are sunk... but those who were adaptable would learn to do more.

I think the analogy was a little forced, but I see your point Dok.

I wonder.

I was talking about economy (the root of politics), with an analogy, not how to help farmers raise more than one crop, or the fact that humans aren't bugs, or education or any of that shit.

This is precisely what I was talking about.  The question was predicated on an example that was obviously forced.  Instead of dealing with the actual question, the filters slammed down and it became an essay on Robert Heinlien and how to train farmers, because that's just another chance to pimp out one particular brand of failed idealism.

Well I was under the impression we were having a discussion, and that questions poking at the ideas was part of the point.

But if all you were looking for was agreement, then, well... have fun.

WTF?  Staying on point is "just looking for agreement"?

Goddammit.  I knew this was a fucking mistake.

Roger, I was trying to clarify your point, to me, for my own edification.  If that is getting off topic for you, then I am clearly too stupid to be part of the conversation.

[LMNO]

Whoah.  Did I just get compared to DK?

Damn.  Ok, I am going to avoid 'Aneristic Illusions' like the fucking plague from this point forward.

Are you kidding?


If you weren't trolling, then NO. YOU WERE NOT COMPARED TO DK.

[hooplala]

Whoah.  Did I just get compared to DK?

Damn.  Ok, I am going to avoid 'Aneristic Illusions' like the fucking plague from this point forward.

Are you kidding?


If you weren't trolling, then NO. YOU WERE NOT COMPARED TO DK.

Ok, my mistake.

[Doktor Howl]

Yeah, what Rat said... if someone could only do one thing, well, yes they are sunk... but those who were adaptable would learn to do more.

I think the analogy was a little forced, but I see your point Dok.

I wonder.

I was talking about economy (the root of politics), with an analogy, not how to help farmers raise more than one crop, or the fact that humans aren't bugs, or education or any of that shit.

This is precisely what I was talking about.  The question was predicated on an example that was obviously forced.  Instead of dealing with the actual question, the filters slammed down and it became an essay on Robert Heinlien and how to train farmers, because that's just another chance to pimp out one particular brand of failed idealism.

Well I was under the impression we were having a discussion, and that questions poking at the ideas was part of the point.

But if all you were looking for was agreement, then, well... have fun.

WTF?  Staying on point is "just looking for agreement"?

Goddammit.  I knew this was a fucking mistake.

Roger, I was trying to clarify your point, to me, for my own edification.  If that is getting off topic for you, then I am clearly too stupid to be part of the conversation.

That's okay, I'm done with it, too.  At least for the foreseeable future.

[LMNO]

So, there appears to be two stages of building complexity:

Stage 1 is the amout of entities involved in the system.  3 people pooling profits in a communal way works.  As you add more people, the complexity increases until a point is reached where communal sharing is no longer the best method.

Stage 2, by what I gleaned from Dok saying "Global economies and near-instant (or in the case of the Romans, paralyzingly slow) communications seem to be part of the problem," seems to be to be speed of communication.  That is, when communication is slow it necessasarily limits

Perhaps there is only one stage of building complexity, which is the amount of people involved.  Increases in technology and communication speeds make it possible for more people to become involved.  If it takes 3 months to send a message, then only a few people can make decisions or affect the process.  If it takes 3 seconds, then far more people can be involved.

So, a population of 300,000 with slow communication may have the same level of complexity as a population of 300, but as soon as you add fast communication, the complexity skyrockets.


Am I babbling, or does this fit?

I think there's multiple causes of complexity, but most of them are only significant in the minds of the population.  For example, the internet has allowed vast amounts of uncontrolled communication to take place.  Since humans are geared to a pack mentality, the idea that no alpha is in control of that communication bothers people a great deal.  Rather than deal with the situation internally or externally, they simply throw up their hands about it...but continue to worry, on a level that they don't even conscioulsy recognize.

Consider:  The forum Nazis we've run into at places like Deathbylollipops and CoG are obsessed with making everyone post in the same manner they do, in agreement with the ideas they are comfortable with, or they ban them.  This is an effort to impose the pack mentality on what they see as uncontrolled - and thus wrong - information.  Rather than process the information, or even - especially - allow "their people" to see/process it, they eliminate it.

Other examples would be globalization of the economy (we can't even predict or control our own economy, let alone a global one), or even arranging that everyone has access to vital services (hence the uproar over healthcare).  Far easier, instead, to listen to a demagogue with easy answers than to think things through on your own, given that each of these issues bothers the hell out of people, and there is literally no end to the issues.    

So, there should be a general point where an idea like "three people pool resources" turns into "alpha controls pack".

Can a point be identified where this occurs?

[Doktor Howl]

So, there appears to be two stages of building complexity:

Stage 1 is the amout of entities involved in the system.  3 people pooling profits in a communal way works.  As you add more people, the complexity increases until a point is reached where communal sharing is no longer the best method.

Stage 2, by what I gleaned from Dok saying "Global economies and near-instant (or in the case of the Romans, paralyzingly slow) communications seem to be part of the problem," seems to be to be speed of communication.  That is, when communication is slow it necessasarily limits

Perhaps there is only one stage of building complexity, which is the amount of people involved.  Increases in technology and communication speeds make it possible for more people to become involved.  If it takes 3 months to send a message, then only a few people can make decisions or affect the process.  If it takes 3 seconds, then far more people can be involved.

So, a population of 300,000 with slow communication may have the same level of complexity as a population of 300, but as soon as you add fast communication, the complexity skyrockets.


Am I babbling, or does this fit?

I think there's multiple causes of complexity, but most of them are only significant in the minds of the population.  For example, the internet has allowed vast amounts of uncontrolled communication to take place.  Since humans are geared to a pack mentality, the idea that no alpha is in control of that communication bothers people a great deal.  Rather than deal with the situation internally or externally, they simply throw up their hands about it...but continue to worry, on a level that they don't even conscioulsy recognize.

Consider:  The forum Nazis we've run into at places like Deathbylollipops and CoG are obsessed with making everyone post in the same manner they do, in agreement with the ideas they are comfortable with, or they ban them.  This is an effort to impose the pack mentality on what they see as uncontrolled - and thus wrong - information.  Rather than process the information, or even - especially - allow "their people" to see/process it, they eliminate it.

Other examples would be globalization of the economy (we can't even predict or control our own economy, let alone a global one), or even arranging that everyone has access to vital services (hence the uproar over healthcare).  Far easier, instead, to listen to a demagogue with easy answers than to think things through on your own, given that each of these issues bothers the hell out of people, and there is literally no end to the issues.    

So, there should be a general point where an idea like "three people pool resources" turns into "alpha controls pack".

Can a point be identified where this occurs?

For most things, at 8 people, as far as I can see (anecdotal, personal observation of work crews and cabals, here.  I once saw a study that reached the same conclusion, but as I can't remember who did it - or even if it was peer reviewed - I'm just going to rest on observation).

But the fact remains that it DOES occur, and it doesn't take many people for the first level of alphas to form... As there are several levels, from the supervisor at your job, to the CEO, to various levels of political leaders.

[LMNO]

So, any workable model for any large social structure, be it economics, politics, religion, what have you, should take into account:

1) different solutions for different problems
2) instability via complexity
3) alpha leader behaviors


So far, so good?