Unvarnished Truth #3: Filters and preconceptions

[Requia ☣]

This one is: http://pps.sagepub.com/content/4/4/390.full


Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & Landfield, K. (2009). Giving Debiasing Away: Can Psychological Research on Correcting Cognitive Errors Promote Human Welfare? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 390-398. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01144.x

More broadly, despite widespread calls to teach and dissem-
inate critical thinking, which some authors (e.g., Lilienfeld,
Lynn, Namy, & Woolf, 2009) define as thinking intended to
overcome cognitive biases, relatively little research demon-
strates that critical-thinking skills generalize beyond the tasks
on which they are taught (cf., Halpern, 1998; Lehman & Nisbett,
1990). Indeed, critical thinking is often exasperatingly domain-
specific, with weak or nonexistent transfer across domains being
the rule rather than the exception (Willingham, 2007). Even
among exceedingly intelligent scholars, the capacity to think
critically is surprisingly nongeneralizable across disciplines
(Feynman, 1985; Lykken, 1991). For example, two-time Nobel-
prize winning chemist Linus Pauling (1980) was a devout be-
liever in megavitamin (vitamin C) therapy for cancer despite
overwhelming evidence against it, and Nobel-prize winning
physicist Arthur Schawlow (1993) was convinced of the effec-
tiveness of facilitated communication for autism—a technique
that has been thoroughly discredited (Jacobson, Mulick, &
Schwartz, 1995).

[Doktor Howl]

The end result, or at least, what I took home from it (apart from becoming more knowledgeable about the general field, of course), is that there apparently is no perfect solution that works in all cases. And that, IMVPO, utilitarianism seems fairest, on the whole.

What works for one situation may not work for another.  There is no cookie cutter solution for everything, and to insist that all systems - or any system - would be completely scaleable (as one person has apparently asserted) if only humans were perfectly educated kind of reinforces my point.

IF A SYSTEM REQUIRES PERFECTION OR EVEN GENERAL COMPETENCE ON A LARGE SCALE, IT WILL FAIL.

[Doktor Howl]

This one is: http://pps.sagepub.com/content/4/4/390.full


Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & Landfield, K. (2009). Giving Debiasing Away: Can Psychological Research on Correcting Cognitive Errors Promote Human Welfare? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 390-398. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01144.x

More broadly, despite widespread calls to teach and dissem-
inate critical thinking, which some authors (e.g., Lilienfeld,
Lynn, Namy, & Woolf, 2009) define as thinking intended to
overcome cognitive biases, relatively little research demon-
strates that critical-thinking skills generalize beyond the tasks
on which they are taught (cf., Halpern, 1998; Lehman & Nisbett,
1990). Indeed, critical thinking is often exasperatingly domain-
specific, with weak or nonexistent transfer across domains being
the rule rather than the exception (Willingham, 2007). Even
among exceedingly intelligent scholars, the capacity to think
critically is surprisingly nongeneralizable across disciplines
(Feynman, 1985; Lykken, 1991). For example, two-time Nobel-
prize winning chemist Linus Pauling (1980) was a devout be-
liever in megavitamin (vitamin C) therapy for cancer despite
overwhelming evidence against it, and Nobel-prize winning
physicist Arthur Schawlow (1993) was convinced of the effec-
tiveness of facilitated communication for autism—a technique
that has been thoroughly discredited (Jacobson, Mulick, &
Schwartz, 1995).

Okay, from that excerpt, I am having trouble understanding if the author is stating that multi-discipline critical thinking is impossible, or if we're just teaching it wrong.

[LMNO]

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?"


ANYWAY.

I'm going to try not to make any assumptions, so this may take a bit of back and forth.

In your example, Three Farmers (producers) throw their three crops (profits) into one pot, and each takes according to their need.

This, per you, is the most efficient solution in this situation.  However, you state this is not feasible for larger numbers.

Am I following you so far?  Please correct if I'm fucking this up.

[Cain]

And that, IMVPO, utilitarianism seems fairest, on the whole.

Except that utilitarianism is also another idealistic system which plays fast and loose with how people actually think or behave.  In fact, much of late 19th/early 20th century naive idealism in politics (the League of Nations, attempts to outlaw war, general belief in the infalliability of public opinion, that Reason can lead to ethical conduct etc) derived directly from Benthamite utilitarianism.

So while it may be fair, in the short term, it is untenable in the long term.  

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Filters and preconceptions seem to be more limited and narrow among those who have a more limited and narrow scope of education.

I strongly disagree.  The size and shape of filters and preconceptions are in no way connected to the amount or type of education one has.

An educated person may know more "things", but that has nothing to do with any sort of bias or self-limiting thought process.

In You Are Being Lied To, there is an essay (Chomsky, I think) which points out that while almost all top journalists and editors claim they are not coerced and can write and print what they want to, they also can't get to those top positions unless their opinions naturally line up with the accepted positions.  Someone with a different bias would probably not even be able to get their foot in the door.

There are countless cases of educated men with massive bias and preconception.  To say that education limits bias is, in fact, an elitist bias in itself.

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.

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.

Err... I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way. I didn't intend that.

My point was that access to more information = more options in anything politics, economy (or farming).

If your economy is predicated on Bob doing X, Joe doing Y and Sam doing Z.... then everything will be fine until the market for X crashes out. Then Bob will be homeless. When all the jobs relating to Z move overseas, Sam will go bankrupt. Etc.

I am not trying to promote a failed political ideology... I'm just trying to argue the point that more information/education = more options instead of the only options being EITHER Bob grows all his own food OR everyone grows a specific crop ... the more Bob and Joe and Sam learn (the more information they have) the more options they can explore (be they farmers, factory workers, capitalists etc)....

Thus while the three of them sharing a pot may not scale, if they have access to enough information, they might adapt to a solution that does scale.


Also, I'm really not sure what political ideology you think I'm pushing, cause thus far nothing you've said is in conflict with my views on the topic.

[Requia ☣]

Okay, from that excerpt, I am having trouble understanding if the author is stating that multi-discipline critical thinking is impossible, or if we're just teaching it wrong.

He's saying we haven't found anything that works reliably.  It might be possible, but if it is we don't know how.

[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.

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?"


ANYWAY.

I'm going to try not to make any assumptions, so this may take a bit of back and forth.

In your example, Three Farmers (producers) throw their three crops (profits) into one pot, and each takes according to their need.

This, per you, is the most efficient solution in this situation.  However, you state this is not feasible for larger numbers.

Am I following you so far?  Please correct if I'm fucking this up.

You're right on the money.  Systems that work at one level of complexity don't necessarily work on another, and the more flawed the system, the less complexity it can stand.

Communism and other near-ideal systems work very well at the family/clan level.  They don't work for shit at anything larger than that.  

Tribalism works well at several levels, but doesn't deal well with modern transportation and communication.  It is a VERY survivable system for an isolated community.

The two most robust systems seem to be representative democracy and constitutional monarchies, but we seem to be passing the limits there, as well.  Global economies and near-instant (or in the case of the Romans, paralyzingly slow) communications seem to be part of the problem, but it is certain that there are other factors.

[Doktor Howl]

Okay, from that excerpt, I am having trouble understanding if the author is stating that multi-discipline critical thinking is impossible, or if we're just teaching it wrong.

He's saying we haven't found anything that works reliably.  It might be possible, but if it is we don't know how.

I think I can agree with that.  Let me chew on this a while.

[Doktor Howl]

If your economy is predicated on Bob doing X, Joe doing Y and Sam doing Z.... then everything will be fine until the market for X crashes out. Then Bob will be homeless. When all the jobs relating to Z move overseas, Sam will go bankrupt. Etc.

I am not trying to promote a failed political ideology... I'm just trying to argue the point that more information/education = more options instead of the only options being EITHER Bob grows all his own food OR everyone grows a specific crop ... the more Bob and Joe and Sam learn (the more information they have) the more options they can explore (be they farmers, factory workers, capitalists etc)....

Thus while the three of them sharing a pot may not scale, if they have access to enough information, they might adapt to a solution that does scale.


Also, I'm really not sure what political ideology you think I'm pushing, cause thus far nothing you've said is in conflict with my views on the topic.

Um, let's just forget the farmers, okay?

[Cain]

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.

[Doktor Howl]

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.

[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?

[Freeky]

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.

[Cain]

Yes, that is one of the issues I have with resilient communities, the point where it simply becomes stealth-anarchism of some kind.

I still like to think that small republics are generally viable, but then the question becomes whether complexity is an issue of size, or technological/social advancement, or (more likely) both.  Because if it is either of the latter, then size wont solve the issue.