lessdazed comments on Ideas for heuristics and biases research topic? - Less Wrong

3 Post author: Tesseract 25 September 2011 06:20PM

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

Comments (25)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: lukeprog 25 September 2011 08:36:41PM 6 points [-]

Rationality drugs. Many nootropics can increase cognitive capacity, which according to Stanovich's picture of the cognitive science of rationality, should help with performance on some rationality measures. However, good performance on many rationality measures requires not just cognitive capacity but also cognitive reflectiveness: the disposition to choose to think carefully about something and avoid bias. So: Are there drugs that increase cognitive reflectiveness / "need for cognition"?

Debiasing. I'm developing a huge, fully-referenced table of (1) thinking errors, (2) the normative models they violate, (3) their suspected causes, (4) rationality skills that can meliorate them, and (5) rationality exercises that can be used to develop those rationality skills. Filling out the whole thing is of course taking a while, and any help would be appreciated. A few places where I know there's literature but I haven't had time to summarize it yet include: how to debias framing effects, how to debias base rate neglect, and how to debias confirmation bias. (But I have, for example, already summarized everything on how to debias the planning fallacy.)

Comment author: lessdazed 28 September 2011 05:03:56AM *  0 points [-]

Have you included racism or its sub-components as fallacies? If so, what are the sub-components the fixing of which would ameliorate racism?

Comment author: lukeprog 28 September 2011 06:37:35AM 1 point [-]

I have not. I'm not familiar with that literature, but Google is. Lemme know if you find anything especially interesting!

Comment author: lukeprog 28 September 2011 07:33:59PM 0 points [-]

Uh.... was I downvoted for replying with helpful links to a comment that was already below the 0 thresshold?

Or perhaps I was downvoted for not including racism as a cognitive bias on my developing table of biases?

<confused>

Comment author: dlthomas 05 October 2011 01:43:27AM 0 points [-]

My guess is that it smacked a bit too much of LMGTFY.

Comment author: lessdazed 28 September 2011 08:05:18PM *  0 points [-]

Probably the latter. I'm reading through links from the links from the links of what you linked to, perhaps you could list all the biases you could use help on? I think my Arieli Lindt/Hersheys solution of imposing a self penalty whenever accepting free things was a clever way of debiasing that bias (though I would think so, wouldn't I?) and in the course of reading through all kinds of these articles (in a topic I am interested in) I could provide similar things.

I really do go through a lot of this stuff independently, I had read the Bullock paper and Kahneman interview before you asked for help and only after you asked did I know I had information you wanted.

In any case my above comment was probably downvoted for it being perceived as posturing rather than because it isn't a common concern. That interpretation best explains my getting downvoted for raising the issue and you being downvoted for not taking it maximally seriously.