Emile comments on Adopting others' opinions - Less Wrong

1 [deleted] 30 April 2012 12:30PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (30)
Tags: groupthink

Comments (30)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Emile 30 April 2012 12:57:10PM *  1 point [-]

Reformulating a bit to make the discussion not about the actual labels:

For example, the 'smartest' [read: some combination of high-IQ, high-rationality, knowledgeable] people I know tend to identify as X, rather than as Y. There are a few exceptions to this, but not many. From this, I could arguably assume that it would be correct to adopt a X, rather than a Y mindset without actually understanding why people identify as X.

That breaks down as soon as the knowledgeable people use the same algorithm for deciding what to believe! I assume that's why you put "groupthink" in your title.

The problem arises because we don't have a habit of distinguishing

  • A) "I believe X because I personally investigated the topic",

  • B) "I believe X because leading experts in the field, who investigated the topic closely, believe X", and

  • C) "I believe X because other smart-seeming people believe X".

(A gets the best knowledge but is not usually cost-effective, B is perfectly sensible, and C is the-blind-leading-the-blind, but is the cheapest)

(And that problem arises because everybody has an incentive to imply more knowledge than they actually have, while not being caught in outright lies, so being vague about where your knowledge comes from gets good enough results.)

Comment author: RichardKennaway 30 April 2012 01:24:15PM 6 points [-]

The problem arises because we don't have a habit of distinguishing "I believe X because I personally investigated the topic", "I believe X because leading experts in the field, who investigated the topic closely, believe X", and "I believe X because other smart-seeming people believe X".

There are languages, real and artificial, in which every sentence grammatically must contain evidential markers, distinguishing such things as "I experienced this myself", "This is a conclusion I inferred from what I experienced", "I heard this from someone I trust", etc.

Always optional in English, unfortunately. It might be useful to cultivate the habit of at least considering the evidential status of whatever one says, and deciding whether it warrants explicit mention. Linking to sources, like I did above, is one sort of evidential.

Comment author: syzygy 30 April 2012 08:28:14PM 0 points [-]

I had no idea. That is really interesting. What are some artificial languages that have evidential grammar? I knew lojban had evidentials, but I think they're optional.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 30 April 2012 09:28:00PM 3 points [-]

Láadan has them.

Láadan has a group of function words called "evidentials" that English doesn't have; many other languages do have them.

An evidential tells you why the speaker feels justified in claiming that the words being said are true.

For example, "wa" means "The reason I claim that what I'm saying is true is that I have perceived it myself" and "wi" means "The reason I claim that what I'm saying is true is because it's self-evident; everybody can perceive that it's true, or everybody is in agreement that it's true."

The evidential will always be the last word in a Láadan sentence, and -- unlike the situation in English -- it's required to be there.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 30 April 2012 09:50:20PM 2 points [-]

I wonder why the evidential is put last. I would have put it early in the sentence.

Comment author: chaosmosis 02 May 2012 02:37:12AM 1 point [-]

This way people have to listen to the entire claim before they can disagree with it.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit