= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
"From the inside, ideology usually looks like common sense."
--John Quiggin
http://crookedtimber.org/2009/04/22/the-ideology-that-dare-not-speak-its-name/
In response to
Rationality in the Media: Don't (New Yorker, May 2009)
While this may not be practically helpful since one can do little about one's IQ, some might find interesting this recent study showing correlation between cognitive skills and patience, as well as other economically valuable preferences.
If this is safe, the patient marshmallow kids' 210-point SAT advantage is unsurprising (if less than revealing in terms of causation).
(A quick search didn't turn this up on LW or OB, but excuse me if it's a repeat.)
From the abstract: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/04/23/0812360106.short?rss=1
Individuals with better CS are more patient, in both short- and long-run. Better CS are also associated with a greater willingness to take calculated risks. Second, CS predict social awareness and choices in a sequential Prisoner's Dilemma game. Subjects with better CS more accurately forecast others' behavior and differentiate their behavior as a second mover more strongly depending on the first-mover's choice. Third, CS, and in particular, the ability to plan, strongly predict perseverance on the job in a setting with a substantial financial penalty for early exit."
Ungated pdf: http://www.cemmap.ac.uk/resources/files/rustichini.pdf
In response to
Willpower Hax #487: Execute by Default
Given the various research suggesting that our back brains make decisions before "we" know about them (admittedly rather nicely challenged by Daniel Dennett in Freedom Evolves), here's to suggest that the only real influence we have on decisions is the processed information we feed into that back brain.
In other words, we formulate a problem, feed it back, and ask, "how do I feel about this?" Back comes the decision, with no take-it-or-leave-it options. It's a done deal.
In response to
The uniquely awful example of theism
Yes, theism is really a uniquely awful example.
Oversimplifying a little, let's divide the factors that lead to memetic success into two classes: those based on corresponding to evidence, and those detached from evidence. If we imagine a two-dimensional scattergram of memes rated against these two criteria, we can define a frontier of maximum success, along which any idea can only gain in one criterion by losing on the other.
Religion is what you get when you push totally for non-evidential memetic success. All ties to reality are essentially cut. As a result, all the other dials can be pushed up to 11. God is not just wise, nice, and powerful - he is all knowing, omnibenificent, and omnipotent. Heaven and Hell are not just pleasant and unpleasant places you can spend a long time in - they are the very best possible and the very worst possible experiences, and for all eternity. And so on; because all of these things happen "offstage", there's no contradictory evidence when you turn them up, so of course that's where they're going to end up.
This freedom is theism's defining characteristic. Even the most stupid pseudoscience is to some extent about "evidence": people wouldn't believe in it if they didn't think they had evidence for it, though we now understand the cognitive biases and other effects that lead them to think so. That's why there are no homeopathic cures for amputation.
I agree with other commentators that the drug war is the other real world idea that I would attack here without fear of contradiction, but I would still say that drug prohibition is a model of sanity compared to theism. Theism really is the maddest thing you can believe without being considered mad.
EDIT: as per requests, I've made a post about this: How Theism Works
Just to suggest another belief (and belief system) that at least approaches that frontier:
"There has not been one tax increase in history that actually raised revenue. And every tax cut, from the 1920s to Kennedy’s to ours, has produced more."
-Ronald Reagan to David Stockman and Martin Feldstein.
(It is perhaps only coincidental that the year was 1984.)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
This problem, if it happens frequently here, seems likely symptomatic of a larger tendency: folks here like accumulating catchy rationalist buzzwords, and dismissing the arguments of others by simply linking to the relevant OB/LW article.
This seems to apply to biases and other sorts of errors (or even just common objections!) as much as fallacies.
ETA: link - this is not a fallacy.
Not just when dismissing arguments. Discussions here--even top-level posts--often remind me of my sister's complaint about Louis Diat's Basic French Cooking--every recipe refers to other recipes, so you end up having to slaughter a calf in order to make vichysoisse.
It makes it bloody hard for us newbies who have read less than a few dozen posts on LW and OB--and internalized even fewer.
I realize it's difficult with many concepts being discussed here, but when possible try to define concepts briefly and clearly when writing about them?
And yes: instead of just naming a fallacy, clearly demonstrate how it is instantiated in the material being replied to. (In itself, an excellent teaching moment.)