Overcoming Bias

Enkidu

Does anybody read this site:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/
or its sister site:
http://lesswrong.com/

I think they're really cool, basically the try to apply formal reasoning in its proper strict sense to everyday issues, even using probability theory, e.t.c.

Personally I find some of the articles a bit over the top or silly and I'd disagree with most of them, but I still think overall its a really interesting idea and well worth reading for the unique perspectives they have on several issues.

Turtwig

Yeah they're very good. Some articles are a bit over the top alright, but on the whole they ain't bad. This one too is worth a mention :

http://youarenotsosmart.com/

liamw

I've been particulary interested in understanding various cognitive biases recently - I have this forum and some vids (thanks Malty) to thank for that.

Recognising our cognitive biases are so important. I'm strongly in favour of teaching these in schools in a critical thinking class.

This article is incredibly interesting:
List of Cognitive Biases

Any more favoured vids on the topic?

HUNK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RsbmjNLQkc

Catchy tune... well sorta

CerebralCortex

Enkidu wrote: »

Does anybody read this site:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/
or its sister site:
http://lesswrong.com/

I think they're really cool, basically the try to apply formal reasoning in its proper strict sense to everyday issues, even using probability theory, e.t.c.

Personally I find some of the articles a bit over the top or silly and I'd disagree with most of them, but I still think overall its a really interesting idea and well worth reading for the unique perspectives they have on several issues.

I'm an avid reader of lesswrong! I don't find any of the lesswrong articles silly or over the top, more that they're over my head.

CerebralCortex

liamw wrote: »

I've been particulary interested in understanding various cognitive biases recently - I have this forum and some vids (thanks Malty) to thank for that.

Recognising our cognitive biases are so important. I'm strongly in favour of teaching these in schools in a critical thinking class.

This article is incredibly interesting:
List of Cognitive Biases

Any more favoured vids on the topic?

Probably written by lesswrongers.

Undergod

Just signed up the other day - a lot of what I've read so far is stuff I already knew or applied subconsciously, but still I've learned quite a bit.

cavedave

Enkidu

I think they're really cool, basically the try to apply formal reasoning in its proper strict sense to everyday issues, even using probability theory, e.t.c

Hanson is one of my favourite thinkers. He came up with the idea of

Futarchy instead of elections we should use betting to decide government policy.

Blackmail should be legal

We will cut up brains and create superhuman intelligence in the near future

There is little point argueing with people as most beliefs are genetic in origin and reasoning is just a way we persuade ourselves what we already think is ok

Science should be funded with prizes not grants

We should cut healthcare spendiing in half

All in all it is a collection of views if you really want to lose friends and alienate people

Undergod

I'm not convinced about that blackmail thing - it's not at all comparable to whistleblowing. Informing on companies that are corrupt or polluting the environment is in the public interest, but exposing David Letterman's affairs is not.

cavedave

Undergod

I'm not convinced about that blackmail thing - it's not at all comparable to whistleblowing. Informing on companies that are corrupt or polluting the environment is in the public interest, but exposing David Letterman's affairs is not

But exposing David Letterman's affairs is completely legal. Do you want to make gossip illegal? The question about blackmail is should you be able to take money off David Letterman in exchange for not gossiping about him?

It seems one of those things like prostitution, ticket scalper and organ donation that people are admirable to do for free but as soon as they get paid for it they are a criminal/immoral.

Page 41 of "defending the indefensible" has a defense of the blackmailer as well btw

Enkidu

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'm an avid reader of lesswrong! I don't find any of the lesswrong articles silly or over the top, more that they're over my head.

I prefer when they stick to philosophical or social issues, since they often come up with points of view I never considered. However on scientific issues they are much poorer, the series of posts on quantum mechanics for example is just nonsense. Also many of the more scientific posts offer very little evidence for their points of view, maybe the odd study, in general they treat neuroscience like physics making certain conclusions sound firmer than they are.

However that's being critical, if you leave the scientific stuff aside I think they are excellent and more than worth a read.

cavedave

Enkidu

I prefer when they stick to philosophical or social issues, since they often come up with points of view I never considered. However on scientific issues they are much poorer,

I have noticed this as well. I wondered if it was just that I know even less about socials science than I do about physics.

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

— Michael Crichton

CerebralCortex

Enkidu wrote: »

I prefer when they stick to philosophical or social issues, since they often come up with points of view I never considered. However on scientific issues they are much poorer, the series of posts on quantum mechanics for example is just nonsense. Also many of the more scientific posts offer very little evidence for their points of view, maybe the odd study, in general they treat neuroscience like physics making certain conclusions sound firmer than they are.

However that's being critical, if you leave the scientific stuff aside I think they are excellent and more than worth a read.

Well there you go, I found the quantum physics sequence impenetrable so I can't comment. Can you give an example of how they treat neuroscience like physics? If you mean they're physicalists then I don't see the problem.

Enkidu

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well there you go, I found the quantum physics sequence impenetrable so I can't comment. Can you give an example of how they treat neuroscience like physics? If you mean they're physicalists then I don't see the problem.

No, I just mean that they often make neuroscience results sound overly assured, treating them in a similar manner to the more concrete results from experimental physics and extrapolate conclusions that would require a firmer basis.