Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

KPier comments on The limits of introspection - Less Wrong

56 Post author: Yvain 16 July 2011 09:00PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (43)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: KPier 16 July 2011 11:57:08PM 11 points [-]

I've noticed on your last posts that most of the studies cited are decades old; is that because this is considered a settled question in behavioral science, because a lot of these experiments wouldn't pass modern ethics standards, or something else?


when the subject was holding on two one cord ey couldn't reach the other.

Comment author: Yvain 17 July 2011 03:28:10AM *  15 points [-]

It's because I am lazy enough that I took all of these from a single excellent review article on the subject written in the late 1970s. As far as I know, the research since then has confirmed the same points.

Fixed the typo, and thank you, but I find the mental processes generating it interesting. I used "two" instead of "to" right before the number "one" - my guess is that my being about to write "one" semantically primed my concept of "number", making me write "to" as "two". If I could think of a way to search, I'd love to see how many of the same two/to error on the Internet occur right around mention of a number.

Comment author: Miller 17 July 2011 12:08:09AM *  0 points [-]

Strikes me as a behaviorist -> cognitivist paradigm shift. Scientists just got tired of the old way (or more specifically, it simply stopped being new). That'd be my armchair guess.

edit :Someone better qualified should answer that. I'm not even sure that's behaviorism.