You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

witzvo comments on Open Thread, May 19 - 25, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: somnicule 19 May 2014 04:49AM

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

Comments (289)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: witzvo 21 May 2014 05:24:24PM *  2 points [-]
Comment author: Vaniver 22 May 2014 05:30:48PM *  3 points [-]

The square brackets are greedy. What you want to do is this:

\[Link\]: [Why do people persist in believing things that just aren't true?](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/mariakonnikova/2014/05/why-do-people-persist-in-believing-things-that-just-arent-true.html?utm_source=www&utm_medium=tw&utm_campaign=20140519&mobify=0)

which looks like:

[Link]: Why do people persist in believing things that just aren't true?

Comment author: witzvo 24 May 2014 04:10:19AM 2 points [-]

fixed. Thanks.

Comment author: satt 28 May 2014 03:11:46AM -1 points [-]

This bit of the article jumped out at me:

But, when the researchers took a closer look, they found that the only people who had changed their views were those who were ideologically predisposed to disbelieve the fact in question. If someone held a contrary attitude, the correction not only didn’t work—it made the subject more distrustful of the source. [...] If information doesn’t square with someone’s prior beliefs, he discards the beliefs if they’re weak and discards the information if the beliefs are strong.

As unfortunate as this may be, even perfect Bayesians would reason similarly; Bayes's rule essentially quantifies the trade-off between discarding new information and discarding your prior when the two conflict. (Which is one way in which Bayesianism is a theory of consistency rather than simple correctness.)