Thanks for articulating this point so well, Tommy. I'm creating a curriculum to help my kids develop the ability to navigate the many sources of information they're exposed to. Can I get your permission to include this?
It would do better in communication with people that disagree for whatever reasob, if no assumptions of stupidity, irrationality or malice would be made.
I get so tired of claims of some behavior being labeled "irrational" just because someone can find reasons why it sometimes doesn't work, why it might be bad in a given circumstance, etc. Thanks for the post, this was good.
I feel uneasy at the recent online trend to encourage people to purposely seek information that challenges their beliefs. I think it could inadvertently convince people who have low trust in their own agency to completely throw out beliefs that are reasonable and accurate for the sake of proving themselves wrong (then they would have no reason to believe anything then if everything is wrong) Dan Williams’s latest piece argued that this leads to unnecessary cynicism and hopelessness. I think it also encourages black and white thinking under the guise of seeking nuance. So when should grey stay grey, and when should black and white stay black and white, if you know what I mean?
Yeah it's tricky, because I think it's important to be able to understand others charitably, but also there's a lot out there that isn't at all credible, and some issues where there really aren't two sides worth considering. I don't think there's some simple heuristic we can follow to solve this, but I do think a deeper understanding of the non-controversial aspects of the world sets us up better to make judgements on what is or is not worth considering
My first time reading Cognitive Wonderland. This is a very interesting analysis on the topic, something I've wondered about a lot (and written about a bit).
I'm hoping that with growing access to Generative AI resources - LLMs that can augment our own limited capabilities of analysing text for bias etc, we might be in a better position to tackle such issues if not now soon.
Thanks! Interesting you bring up llms to combat this stuff, I recently came across this paper that talks about using chat bots to reduce belief in conspiracy theories https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq1814
Interesting as usual Tommy - did not know the backfire effect did not replicate! In terms of changing stubborn minds, would be interested to learn your thoughts on deep canvassing? Given its claims of changing some people's minds quickly...
I haven't done much reading on deep canvassing. Obviously one of the flag ship studies being outright fraud (the infamous LaCour study) isn't great. But my understanding is further studies have shown it to be effective, though I think there's some mixed results, and there isn't a wide set of researchers looking at it. I guess my sense is "tentatively think it might have some impact, but probably not a big silver bullet for changing people's minds"
"Sources" of information! What a timely topic. Great thoughts, Tommy. I always love your insights and I'm grateful. This post may have saved a relationship that's very important to me (in which we both have conflicting views/values). I may print this out and hang it on my fridge.😉
Thanks for your clear explanation Tommy. It made me reevaluate the way I relate to people that have a “crazy” outlook. Restacking the post to try and spread the word.
We should remember that throughout history, the scientific consensus of the time has been wrong about many things, and people who consider themselves rational and well-informed are only as good as the current interpretation of the data. Most ideas aren't so clearcut when digging deeper.
Thanks, Tommy. Over time, I've found the easiest way to get this understanding is to realize that everything is just following the laws of physics. There is no causeless cause (i.e. free will). No one could do any other. People believe what they believe, based on genetics and past programming, not because of "facts" or "arguments." https://www.mattball.org/search?q=%22free+will%22
First things first: what matters to you the most, I gather, is your readability. Well, in my case, this article was 1) easy to read, 2) somewhat less so than "The unreasonable effectiveness of the obvious" and "The self-control industrial complex." This one felt like a fairly complex bus route. When the gradual exposure therapy was brought up, at which point I told myself, 'oh this may be a more demanding read than I anticipated, so I better continue when restful.' So I stopped, and finished the rest the next day, with ease.
Point two. Quoting: - But we should also not be afraid to correct each other.
There are reasonable grounds for fear if we happen to see a need to correct the other person fairly frequently. Just think of how it would be for most speakers if their interlocutor behaved to them like they're their pupil, so they get corrections for bad grammar, poor pronunciation, for uhms, for slight factual errors. Frequent corrections easily create a sense of oppression, if not outright hostility, unless there are other elements in the interaction that mellow the whole experience.
Point third (and last): - Texas is in the midst of an entirely preventable measles outbreak, thanks to people having wrong beliefs about vaccines.
Have you ever taken a look at a book titled "Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History"? Have you checked any of these books, and then dismissed them? - https://denisrancourt.ca/entries.php?id=123
It tracks what moved where when and you can add memos for why, but that only works while you keep it up to date. Its main point is to persuade others that you're keeping tabs, which makes you look honest and reliable.
But it still doesn't say what everything has cost, what it's now worth, or what happened when you weren't looking.
Thanks for articulating this point so well, Tommy. I'm creating a curriculum to help my kids develop the ability to navigate the many sources of information they're exposed to. Can I get your permission to include this?
Of course, please do include it!
It would do better in communication with people that disagree for whatever reasob, if no assumptions of stupidity, irrationality or malice would be made.
I get so tired of claims of some behavior being labeled "irrational" just because someone can find reasons why it sometimes doesn't work, why it might be bad in a given circumstance, etc. Thanks for the post, this was good.
Thanks, Matt!
"Unless you're lucky and happen upon Cognitive Wonderland, you're never going to find a single source that's guaranteed to always be accurate."
Pure genius.
I'm just telling it how it is 😎
I feel uneasy at the recent online trend to encourage people to purposely seek information that challenges their beliefs. I think it could inadvertently convince people who have low trust in their own agency to completely throw out beliefs that are reasonable and accurate for the sake of proving themselves wrong (then they would have no reason to believe anything then if everything is wrong) Dan Williams’s latest piece argued that this leads to unnecessary cynicism and hopelessness. I think it also encourages black and white thinking under the guise of seeking nuance. So when should grey stay grey, and when should black and white stay black and white, if you know what I mean?
Yeah it's tricky, because I think it's important to be able to understand others charitably, but also there's a lot out there that isn't at all credible, and some issues where there really aren't two sides worth considering. I don't think there's some simple heuristic we can follow to solve this, but I do think a deeper understanding of the non-controversial aspects of the world sets us up better to make judgements on what is or is not worth considering
My first time reading Cognitive Wonderland. This is a very interesting analysis on the topic, something I've wondered about a lot (and written about a bit).
I'm hoping that with growing access to Generative AI resources - LLMs that can augment our own limited capabilities of analysing text for bias etc, we might be in a better position to tackle such issues if not now soon.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks! Interesting you bring up llms to combat this stuff, I recently came across this paper that talks about using chat bots to reduce belief in conspiracy theories https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq1814
Interesting as usual Tommy - did not know the backfire effect did not replicate! In terms of changing stubborn minds, would be interested to learn your thoughts on deep canvassing? Given its claims of changing some people's minds quickly...
I haven't done much reading on deep canvassing. Obviously one of the flag ship studies being outright fraud (the infamous LaCour study) isn't great. But my understanding is further studies have shown it to be effective, though I think there's some mixed results, and there isn't a wide set of researchers looking at it. I guess my sense is "tentatively think it might have some impact, but probably not a big silver bullet for changing people's minds"
"Sources" of information! What a timely topic. Great thoughts, Tommy. I always love your insights and I'm grateful. This post may have saved a relationship that's very important to me (in which we both have conflicting views/values). I may print this out and hang it on my fridge.😉
Thanks! Best of luck with the relationship -- I know all of this is easier said in theory than done in practice
> It's probably best to interpret those who disagree with us as charitably as possible.
I've heard this referred to as "steel-manning," as opposed to straw-manning, the argument. It seems a good thing to practice.
Yeah it's a good phrase and a good skill!
This was a great read, thank you!
Thanks!
Thanks for your clear explanation Tommy. It made me reevaluate the way I relate to people that have a “crazy” outlook. Restacking the post to try and spread the word.
Thank you! And thanks for sharing!
We should remember that throughout history, the scientific consensus of the time has been wrong about many things, and people who consider themselves rational and well-informed are only as good as the current interpretation of the data. Most ideas aren't so clearcut when digging deeper.
True, no one can answer the ultimate why, something even Feynman acknowledged.
Thanks, Tommy. Over time, I've found the easiest way to get this understanding is to realize that everything is just following the laws of physics. There is no causeless cause (i.e. free will). No one could do any other. People believe what they believe, based on genetics and past programming, not because of "facts" or "arguments." https://www.mattball.org/search?q=%22free+will%22
First things first: what matters to you the most, I gather, is your readability. Well, in my case, this article was 1) easy to read, 2) somewhat less so than "The unreasonable effectiveness of the obvious" and "The self-control industrial complex." This one felt like a fairly complex bus route. When the gradual exposure therapy was brought up, at which point I told myself, 'oh this may be a more demanding read than I anticipated, so I better continue when restful.' So I stopped, and finished the rest the next day, with ease.
Point two. Quoting: - But we should also not be afraid to correct each other.
There are reasonable grounds for fear if we happen to see a need to correct the other person fairly frequently. Just think of how it would be for most speakers if their interlocutor behaved to them like they're their pupil, so they get corrections for bad grammar, poor pronunciation, for uhms, for slight factual errors. Frequent corrections easily create a sense of oppression, if not outright hostility, unless there are other elements in the interaction that mellow the whole experience.
Point third (and last): - Texas is in the midst of an entirely preventable measles outbreak, thanks to people having wrong beliefs about vaccines.
Have you ever taken a look at a book titled "Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History"? Have you checked any of these books, and then dismissed them? - https://denisrancourt.ca/entries.php?id=123
Rationality is just accounting.
It tracks what moved where when and you can add memos for why, but that only works while you keep it up to date. Its main point is to persuade others that you're keeping tabs, which makes you look honest and reliable.
But it still doesn't say what everything has cost, what it's now worth, or what happened when you weren't looking.