= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gunnar_Zarncke comments on Open thread, 16-22 June 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (172)
Looks to be a subtype of the general observation that whoever can establish her authority in an argument wins.
Yes. Call it authority or dominance or whatever.
In all cases where significant loss can be avoided by backing down early this again is exploitable by e.g. boasting, aggression, rhetorics, intimidation.
The interesting sub-case here is that this can have side-effects where it is not actively exploited but accidentally - as the net effect is that the team reaches a sub-optimal joint result.
Kind of a cognitive bias more like over-confidence where lack of communication of confidence results.
I don't know -- in more general terms Alice spent more resources (time, effort) at analyzing the problem and so feels more qualified than Bob who spent less resources. In this particular artificial setup this leads to suboptimal results, but I suspect that in most real-life situations, Alice would have better opinions/solutions/forecasts than Bob and so should have an advantage in a disagreement.
So I find that there's one place this frequently comes up detrimentally in real life: The advocate of something invariably has spent more time studying it than the opponent. This creates a (to my mind) unhealthy bias in some situations in the advocate's favor.