SarahC comments on Doublethink (Choosing to be Biased) - Less Wrong

33 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 September 2007 08:05PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (161)
Tags: self_deception doublethink

Comments (161)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: JoshuaZ 08 December 2010 03:42:37AM 2 points [-]

I'm also missing the ability to estimate. Draw a line on a sheet of paper; put a dot where 75% is. Then check if you got it right. I always get that sort of thing wrong. Arithmetic estimation is even harder. Deciding how to bet in a betting game? Next to impossible.

Whatever mechanism is that matches theory to reality, mine doesn't work very well. Whatever mechanism derives expectations about the world from probability numbers, mine hardly works at all. This is why I actually can double-think. I can see an idea as logical without believing in it.

Congratulations. You're just like most humans.

Comment author: [deleted] 08 December 2010 04:06:47AM 1 point [-]

Well, then why does he say self-delusion is impossible? It's not only possible, it's usual.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 08 December 2010 04:21:08AM 0 points [-]

I wasn't talking about that aspect (although I think he's wrong there also) but just about the aspect of not doing a good job at things like estimating or mapping probabilities to reality.

Comment author: [deleted] 08 December 2010 04:29:40AM 0 points [-]

I think it's really the same thing. Mapping probabilities to reality is sort of the quantitative version of matching degree of belief to amount of evidence.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 08 December 2010 05:01:55AM 1 point [-]

Possibly taboo self-delusion? I'm not sure that's what he means. Self-delusion in this context seems to mean something closer to deliberately modifying your confidence in a way that isn't based on evidence.

Comment author: RobinZ 08 December 2010 10:07:35PM 2 points [-]

I am under the impression that much of Eliezer Yudkowsky's early sequence posts were writted based on (a) theory and (b) experience with general-artificial-intelligence Internet posters. It's entirely possible that his is a correct deduction only on that weird WEIRD group.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit