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.

Lumifer comments on Open thread, Nov. 3 - Nov. 9, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: MrMind 03 November 2014 09:55AM

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

Comments (310)

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

Comment author: Lumifer 04 November 2014 09:35:44PM *  2 points [-]

Psychology has shown that there's very little you can do to make yourself 'more rational.'

Citation needed.

Not to mention that what an average person can or can not do isn't particularly illuminating for non-representative subsets like LW.

maybe LW has gone severely overboard with the instrumental rationality thing

I am not sure that is possible. Instrumental rationality is just making sure that what you are doing is useful in getting to wherever you want to go. What does "severely overboard" mean in this context?

Comment author: passive_fist 04 November 2014 11:07:17PM *  1 point [-]

Citation needed.

Read Dan Kahneman's work. He's spent his entire lifetime studying this and won a nobel prize for it too. A good summary is given in http://www.newyorker.com/tech/frontal-cortex/why-smart-people-are-stupid Here's an excerpt:

'as the scientists note, “people who were aware of their own biases were not better able to overcome them.” This finding wouldn’t surprise Kahneman, who admits in “Thinking, Fast and Slow” that his decades of groundbreaking research have failed to significantly improve his own mental performance. “My intuitive thinking is just as prone to overconfidence, extreme predictions, and the planning fallacy”—a tendency to underestimate how long it will take to complete a task—“as it was before I made a study of these issues,” he writes. '

Not to mention that what an average person can or can not do isn't particularly illuminating for non-representative subsets like LW.

In fact it is; there is no substantial difference when it comes to trying to control biases between highly educated and non-educated people.

I am not sure that is possible. Instrumental rationality is just making sure that what you are doing is useful in getting to wherever you want to go. What does "severely overboard" mean in this context?

There is nothing wrong with 'making sure that what you are doing is useful in getting to wherever you want to go'. The problem is the idea of trying to 'fix' your behavior through self-imposed procedures, trial & error, and self-reporting. Experience shows that this often backfires, as I said. It's pretty amazing that "I tried method X, and it seemed to work well, I suggest you try it!" (look at JohnMaxwellIV's comment below for just one example) is taken as constructive information on a site dedicated to rationality.

Comment author: Lumifer 05 November 2014 01:08:15AM *  4 points [-]

First, rationality is considerably more than just adjusting for biases.

Second, in your quote Kahneman says (emphasis mine): "My intuitive thinking is just as prone...". The point isn't that your System 1 changes much, the point is that your System 2 knows what to look for and compensates as best as it can.

In fact it is; there is no substantial difference when it comes to trying to control biases between highly educated and non-educated people.

Sigh. Citation needed.

The problem is the idea of trying to 'fix' your behavior through self-imposed procedures, trial & error, and self-reporting.

And what it the problem, exactly? I am also not sure what the alternative is. Do you want to just assume your own behaviour is immutable? Magically determined without you being able to do anything about it? Do you think you need someone else to change your behaviour for you? What?

Comment author: gwern 04 November 2014 11:15:59PM 3 points [-]

A good summary is given in http://www.newyorker.com/tech/frontal-cortex/why-smart-people-are-stupid Here's an excerpt:

'as the scientists note, “people who were aware of their own biases were not better able to overcome them.” This finding wouldn’t surprise Kahneman, who admits in “Thinking, Fast and Slow” that his decades of groundbreaking research have failed to significantly improve his own mental performance. “My intuitive thinking is just as prone to overconfidence, extreme predictions, and the planning fallacy”—a tendency to underestimate how long it will take to complete a task—“as it was before I made a study of these issues,” he writes. '

Disagree. See comments in http://lesswrong.com/lw/d1u/the_new_yorker_article_on_cognitive_biases/

Comment author: passive_fist 04 November 2014 11:26:59PM 2 points [-]

I'm not talking about the bias blind spot. I agree that more educated people are better able to discern biases in their own thoughts and others. In fact that's exactly what I said, not once but two times.

I'm talking about the ability to control one's own biases.

Comment author: Lumifer 05 November 2014 01:13:53AM *  3 points [-]

I'm talking about the ability to control one's own biases.

Are you distinguishing between "control one's own biases" and "adjusting and compensating for one's own biases"?

Comment author: gwern 04 November 2014 11:53:51PM *  2 points [-]

I agree that more educated people are better able to discern biases in their own thoughts and others...I'm talking about the ability to control one's own biases.

Huh? So what are more intelligence - and more educated - people doing, exactly, if not controlling their biases?