I have this belief that humility is a part of good critical thinking, and that egoism undermines it.  I imagine arrogance as a kind of mind-death.  But I have no evidence, and no good mechanism by which it might be true.  In fact, I know the belief is suspect because I know that I want it to be true — I want to be able to assure myself that this or that intolerable academic will be magically punished with a decreased capacity to do good work. The truth could be the opposite: maybe hubris breeds confidence, and confidence results? After all, some of the most important thinkers in history were insufferable.

Is any link, positive or negative, between arrogance and reasoning too tenuous to be worth entertaining? Is humility a pretty word or a valuable habit? I don't know what I think yet.   Do you?

"develop and enhance your ability to think critically, assess information and develop reasoned arguments in the context of the global challenges facing society today."

starts 28 January 2013

cf https://www.coursera.org/course/criticalthinking

see also http://lesswrong.com/lw/dni/a_beginners_guide_to_irrational_behavior_free/
and http://lesswrong.com/lw/d3w/coursera_behavioural_neurology_course/

http://healthyinfluence.com/wordpress/steves-primer-of-practical-persuasion-3-0/intro/windowpane/

"The point of this demonstration is to show that you can think with numbers in a practical and efficient way without having a statistician in the room.  Anyone can handle the windowpane approach with numbers.  Just have a clear definition of Changed? (Yes or No) and a clear definition of the Group (Treatment or Control).  Then just count and look for percentage differences.  A 10% difference is small, 30% is moderate, and 50% is large.  And, realize that while “small” may be hard to detect, it can definitely make big practical effect.

Now whether you conceptualize Effect Sizes as windowpanes or jars with marbles, you now understand what the idea, Difference, means.  You can count or see No, Small, Medium, or Large Differences and interpret those complex statistical arguments you encounter all the time.  Realize again, that this approach is not Statistics for Dummies, Idiots, or Fools, but is a standard and mathematically correct way to present quantitative information."

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/pspi_8_2_article.pdf

tldr; Natural frequencies (ratios of counts of subjects) rather than Conditional probabilities, are easier for people to comprehend.