Vladimir_Nesov comments on A social norm against unjustified opinions? - Less Wrong

11 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 29 May 2009 11:25AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (158)
Tags: epistemic_hygiene opinions social_norms

Comments (158)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 29 May 2009 12:07:19PM *  2 points [-]

Focusing on the listeners, the important thing is for the arguments/opinions to be helpful. Unjustified opinions is one example of unhelpful declaration: there is no point in listening to them. A justified opinion can also be unhelpful, if it isn't understood, or the reason it's justified isn't understood. Or even worse, a justified opinion, or valid knowledge, can have a negative effect on the listener.

Also, a person still needs to hold unjustified opinions on every subject, that's how the decisions are bootstrapped, but voicing these opinions is usually of no use to everyone else.

Comment author: JGWeissman 29 May 2009 07:49:31PM 0 points [-]

there is no point in listening to them

Often, someone who presents an incorrect or poorly supported argument can learn from their mistake and sometimes even fix the argument if they are asked for clarification.

Or even worse, a justified opinion, or valid knowledge, can have a negative effect on the listener.

The solution to information being harmful out of context is not to withhold the information, but to provide the context. Teach people about biases, and that they need to inspect arguments they like for biases as well as arguments they don't like.

Also, a person still needs to hold unjustified opinions on every subject, that's how the decisions are bootstrapped, but voicing these opinions is usually of no use to everyone else.

I don't understand the point you are making here, or the relevance of the link. What do you mean by "how the decisions are bootstrapped"? Perhaps an example would help illustrate what you are talking about.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 29 May 2009 09:59:23PM *  0 points [-]

The solution to information being harmful out of context is not to withhold the information, but to provide the context. Teach people about biases, and that they need to inspect arguments they like for biases as well as arguments they don't like.

Withholding the information is also a solution. It you can construct a better one for a given situation is a separate issue.

Also, a person still needs to hold unjustified opinions on every subject, that's how the decisions are bootstrapped, but voicing these opinions is usually of no use to everyone else.

I don't understand the point you are making here, or the relevance of the link. What do you mean by "how the decisions are bootstrapped"? Perhaps an example would help illustrate what you are talking about.

I'm talking about priors, or what passes for them at the first step of plausibility elicitation, when you consult your gut feeling on a single question of fact. Even when you decide to seek out the additional info on a decision, you need to start from sufficient expectation in the discovered information improving your decisions. Maybe you are already convinced that Astrology is bunk, and don't need to research the Encyclopedia of Astrology in Twelve Volumes to improve the precision of your conclusion. The decisions like this are done often and without conscious notice, in fact they may determine what does receive conscious attention.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit