Thanks for the post on negativity Vaniver. I wouldn't go bungee jumping if it had a 5% failure rate.

Mostly in discouraging behavior...

That viewpoint can be considered as based upon Skinners model of Behaviourism, it's been shown to be less effective for learning than being positive.

Makes sense - we tend to remember what we are emotionally engaged in and what is reinforced. When the negativity is associated with the 5%, what is reinforced is that a person is "wrong", that's associated with feelings of low self efficacy and tends to discourage (most) people from the topic. When that happens they regress - not progress, they tend to get even more wrong next time as they've not stayed engaged in the topic.

...As well, an important rationality skill is updating on valuable information from sources you dislike; dealing with negativity in safer circumstances may help people learn to better deal with negativity in less safe circumstances.

I agree that an important skill is to update ones information, however the discouragement that is provoked by negativity isn't efficient in evoking updating. Confident people update their information, people who aren't attacked have no need to defend and so they remain open, openess is the key attitude for updating information. Negativity destroys and/or minimizes confidence which contributes to closing a mind.

What negativity does, in context of learning, is to encourage secrecy, resentment, avoidance and close mindedness. Again this stuff is all known as a consequence of punishment, which is what negativity - as discouraging behaviour is associated with.

Apparently a more effective way forward is to model the behaviour that one wants to encourage and ignore the behaviour one wants to discourage - extinction.

thomblake, consider a high distinction as an A+ grade. Perhaps as along the lines of Newtonian Mechanics. It's mostly right.

Sure, if you're running in debate mode and thinking in terms of 'sides' or 'us versus them' and trying to 'win', then that might be something to do. Solution: don't do that in the first place.

Indeed, a valuable point. So what's up with the score keeping system of LW then. It encourages thinking in terms of sides and competition. -1, not my side, +1 my side. -1 lost, +1 won.

Don't worry, everything you believe is almost certainly wrong - don't expect to find yourself in the 95% correct state any time soon. We're running on corrupted hardware in the first place, and nowhere near the end of science. We can reduce hardly any of our high-level concepts to their physical working parts.

lol. Fair enough. I would place the 95% not on some unknown scale of what is absolutely true - that science doesn't yet know, but instead on the relative scale of what science currently knows. Does that make a difference to your point?

First, fix those too.

Yep, tough to become self less, yet still place enough value upon oneself to not be a door mat. Rudyard Kiplings "If" shows a pathway.

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you. If all men count with you, but none too much. http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_if.htm

Eastern philosophy also has approaches - that are a thousand years ahead of western science.

Vaniver. Mate. I accept that you believe

It seeks to minimize arrogance and maximize doubt.

but I dispute that it achieves those. I believe instead that it maximises arrogance and maximises doubt in the others point of view, and in maximising doubt in the other persons view we minimize our doubt in our own view.

The belief that it's difficult to be completely right, encourages people to look for that gap that is "wrong" and then drive a wedge into it and expand it until it's all that's being talked about.

If 95% is correct and 5% is wrong, criticising the 5% is a means to hurting the person - they have after all gotten 95% correct. It's not rational to discount peoples feelings by focusing upon their error and ignoring their correctness. It's destructive, it breaks people. Sure some few thrive on that kind of struggle - most don't, again this is proven stuff. And I'm not going to post 10 freeking sources on that - all that's doing for me is wasting my time and providing more opportunity for others to confirm their bias by fighting against it. If someone wants to find that information it's out there.

When you (or anyone else) got a high distinction for a unit or assignment or exam, was that a moment to go, fuck - didn't remember that a pre ganglionic fibre doesn't look anything like a post gangleoic nerve (aka ds9), or was it a moment to leap for joy and go, you little ripper I got 95%!

I agree negativity has its uses, often it's about "piss off" and go away, leave me alone; sometimes that's useful, but you'll note that those fall on the arrogant side of emotions - that of self. (this will get a wedge driven in it too, heck I could drive one in, but it remains somewhat true).

Vaniver, I'd consider it a positive discussion to talk about negativity. Would you mind explaining to me where "negativity has its uses".

And to show that I consider the

It seeks to minimize arrogance and maximize doubt.

viewpoint.

Yeh, ok I get that, when we apply the concept to ourselves then we are minimizing our arrogance and maximizing our doubt. And that'll work. We'll second guess ourselves, we'll edit our posts, and re edit, and check our dictionaries and quote our sources and these are all useful things. They keep us honest. But what about when we apply those concepts to others - as is our tendency due to the self serving bias and the group serving bias?

thanks for the link paper-machine, that's quite a reasonable policy.

If I wasn't downvoted to such a degree that I have no opportunity to downvote, I might consider implementing it. I'll certainly use the concept to more thoroughly mitigate my annoyance about those unable to follow argument.

I'll up vote you in accordance with my policy. Which is that if a person says a single useful thing, regardless of the rest of their post, I'll give it a +1.

My reasoning for this policy is twofold. I reject the negativity that is encouraged by criticism and it's aim of proving or showing that some one is wrong, rather than proving oneself right. I accept that when one focuses upon the positive, or worthwhile components of someone's beliefs/actions/arguments one creates a valuable synergy that encourages a pathway towards truth and understanding.

Sometimes I don't implement my own policy, but hey, it's all a work in progress.

On reflection the sites name "lesswrong" really should have set off an alarm bell. I'm not interested particularly in being lesswrong. I am interested in being moreright.

Positive psychology and educational psychology have shown that positivity contributes more readily to learning than negativity.

I was forced to conclude that debating was not about reaching the truth, but about proving the other person wrong. G'day -Stablizer,

Welcome to lesswrong, I'm quite new here too. I read your intro and think you would probably thoroughly devour Edward De Bono's "I am right, you are wrong". I agree with you regarding debating (and criticism) and so does De Bono, he writes about it quite elegantly.

Cheers, peacewise.

Thanks Zetetic for giving your time for an in depth reply, much appreciated.

With regards to your request for a peer reviewed meta analysis of the existing evidence. Well I reckon you'll find that in Dr David Lewis book, "The Man Who Invented Hitler". A synopsis of which is provided as the first link posted.

http://www.dredmundforster.info/1-edmund-forster-adolf-hitler

At that link you will find in the "about" section that the author Dr Lewis is a reputable author, with suitable qualifications to discuss the issue of Hitler and hysterical blindness.

"French born Dr David Lewis, a neuropsychologist, best selling author and historical researcher, obtained his doctorate in experimental psychology at the University of Sussex. He later lectured there before quitting to become a full time research and author. He has written widely on the psychology of totalitarianism especially in relation to the rise of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism with articles appearing in such publications as International History and The Criminologist." - the first paragraph at the "about"

http://www.dredmundforster.info/about-dr-david-lewis

This is supported on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lewis_(psychologist)

Now fair enough, I personally haven't done the meta analysis and haven't presented one done by another - however I have provided the conclusions of research done on the subject by a respectable source.

Since you've requested more information, of a better quality, please have a look through this.

"It is known that Forster treated Hitler with auto-suggestion which allowed Hitler, on November 19th, 1918, a week after the end of the War, to be fully recovered, discharged, and returned to his regiment in Munich2,4." http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0004-282X2010000500032&script=sci_arttext

which has a bibliography that uses the aforementioned Dr Lewis as a reference. I include references 2, 3, 4 fyi, from the last link above.

"2. Gramary A. The internment of Adolf Hitler at the Hospital of Pasewalk, a case of hysterical blindness? Mental Health 2008;11:47-50. [ Links ] 3. Dr. Edmund Forster the man who invented Hitler: the making of the Führer. Available at http://www.dredmundforster.info/1-edmund-forster-adolf-hitler (accessed 12/19/2009). [ Links ] 4. Köpf G. The hysterical blindness of Adolf Hitler: history of a medical. Rev Psiq Clín 2006;33:218-224. [ Links ]"

Now this journal article is particularly interesting for it provides evidence that supports my belief that Dr Lewis does consider the veracity of Hitlers hysterical blindness as Dr Lewis is used as a source for both Hitler being Hysterically blind and arguments against Hitlers hysterical blindness. I would presume that since Dr Lewis considers both sides, yet is holding that Hitler was hysterically blind that Dr Lewis does indeed provide some form of meta analysis of the situation in his Book “The man who invented Hitler” – a review of which was linked.

Now onto the second link... http://www.abdn.ac.uk/news/archive-details-10772.php

Quite right that is a book review. It's a review of a book authored by Dr Thomas Weber MSt., DPhil (Oxon), FRHistS. Lecturer in Modern European, International, and Global Political History & Director, Centre for Global Security and Governance, also Reader in History and Director of the Centre for Global Security and Governance at the University of Aberdeen. Dr Weber also seems to me like another respectable source on the subject in question.

The book in question I presume will also provide you with a bibliography and likely more information than either you or I care to examine for ourselves. I put it to you that Dr Weber is a respectable source, that his account supports Dr Lewis on the issue of Hitlers hysterical blindess and the use of autosuggestion as a treatment.

Further you have quoted the following as evidence for the 2nd link in question being inadequate ;

“Hitler himself claimed that the war ended for him when he had to spend weeks in an army hospital after having been blinded by mustard gas. Circumstantial evidence and hearsay, however, have led to the suggestion that Hitler was, in fact, suffering from and treated for psychosomatic blindness. This hypothesis could never be conclusively tested, as Hitler had his medical file destroyed and had his henchmen kill those people with knowledge of the file,” said Dr Weber

However perhaps in your scanning of the 2nd link you did not read the paragraph that follows the above quote. I include it fyi.

The letters made available to him (Dr Weber) were exchanged between two prominent American physicians and confirm that Hitler was treated for hysterical amblyiopia, the psychiatric or conversion disorder commonly known as hysterical blindness. This previously unseen evidence is included in the paperback version of Hitler’s First War, due out on October 13.

I put it to you that the link is indeed "very good supporting evidence"!

Now onto what Hitler himself said about the occasion...

In Mein Kampf (which most scholars agree cannot be taken as completely factual), Hitler (1925/1999) reports that on the evening of October 13, 1918, gas shells rained on them “all night more or less violently. As early as midnight, a number of us passed out, a few of our comrades forever. Toward morning I, too, was seized with pain which grew worse with every quarter hour, and at seven in the morning I stumbled and tottered back with burning eyes; taking with me my last report of the war. A few hours later, my eyes had turned into glowing coals; it had grown dark around me” (p. 202). During the next month, Hitler stated that the piercing pain in his eyes had diminished and that he could now perceive broad outlines of objects around him. He wrote that he began to believe that he would recover his eyesight well enough to work again but not well enough to be able to draw again. On November 10, Hitler reported that a pastor came to the hospital to announce that Germany would capitulate and that the German fatherland would thus be exposed to “dire oppression.” Hitler reported, “Again everything went black before my eyes; I tottered and groped my way back to the dormitory, threw myself on my bunk, and dug my burning head into my blanket and pillow” (p. 204). copy pasted from http://vanilla47.com/Adolf%20Hitler%20Mein%20Kampf/Understanding%20Madmen%20A%20DSM-IV%20Assessment%20of%20Adolf%20Hitler%20Individual%20Differences%20Research%202007,%20Vol.%205,%20No.%201%20pp.%2030-43.pdf

Mein Kampf, aka Hitler himself, supports that Hitler certainly did suffer blindness during the time period in question. Secondly of note Hitler wrote that "again everything went black before my eyes" upon receiving news of Germany's surrender, revealing that he was indeed not blinded by mustard gas, but instead suffered mentally to such an extent it affect his vision. Also that Hitler was in hospital at the time the Pastor gave the news revealed that he indeed was in hospital and for blindness.

Are we there yet? Have I provided enough evidence for LW to remove those -1's and start placing them instead upon the "loopy" comment that obviously did far less research on the matter than myself? Probably not, newbies, especially outspoken newbs, are always treated more harshly than long timers, that's just the way of things. Observationally it seems quite a few members of LW for all their support of rationality are prone to the bias that is known as :

group-serving bias - explaining away outgroup member’ positive behaviours; also attributing negative behaviours to their dispositions (while excusing such behaviour by one’s own group). (Myers, D. Social Psychology 10th ed. 2010)

Thus, they can be more impulsive while maintaining the same beliefs about risk.

I'll unpack that... Thus, they can be overconfident while maintaining the same beliefs about risk. Being impulsive is being overconfident, impulsive is a lack of estimating risk, which is underestimating risk.

That's exactly what I'd expect a respectable sober adult to say.

Then you have the fortunate ability to accurately predict accurate statements.

To quote, use a greater-than sign at the beginning of the line. For more formatting help, click "show help" below the comment box.

Thanks thomblake, I'll test that just now.