All of FewerErrors's Comments + Replies

Correcting for correspondence bias means that more weight should be given to the situational explanation than the dispositional explanation, that I'm the sort of person who writes stupid articles that ramble on.

I may have misunderstood you here, but I interpret the correspondence bias differently. Correcting for it doesn't mean you should necessarily always put more weight on the situational explanation than the personality, which your example clearly shows would sometimes lead to mistakes. It means that you mostly don't give it as much weight as you sh... (read more)

-1OrphanWilde
The context by which the correspondence bias tends to be assessed, however, are in artificial environments where it leads to incorrect conclusions. How do we judge whether we give the correct weight or not? I have no idea where to place my priors on the possibility of a strong correlation; I'd guess that low rationalization is associated both with high and low FAE (owing to virtue ethics on one tail and rationalists on the other), and that the middle is a bit of a wash. My inclination is to look for studies. Know of any?

I think that this is a very valuable line of analysis, but unfortunately, labelling something as a "fallacy" is very black and white given that different people will consider different items to be central or non-central.

Would you say Yvain is commiting the Noncentral Fallacy by labeling it as a fallacy?

3Vladimir_Nesov
Labeling Noncentral Fallacy a "fallacy" is a noncentral case of Noncentral Fallacy, so calling said labeling an example of Noncentral Fallacy would be an example of Noncentral Fallacy.

This phenomenon sounds to me like what makes the setup for a financial bubble. People are so sure that one (or more) assumptions hold that they ignore all the signs that they're wrong. Maybe "The Semmelweiss Effect" is what you had in mind regarding a standard name? From Wikipedia: The Semmelweis reflex or "Semmelweis effect" is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms.

Hello everyone!

I'm on my second day of being 25, scandinavian working with outsourcing in India. Have a Master's in cybernetics.

I stumbled upon LessWrong the other day, and was surprised to find that someone had made a community with the purpose of being less wrong. Being less wrong about things was something I had decided on by myself before finding this place, and I thought it has been really cool to discover that many of my own thoughts weren't original at all. Someone had already thought, shared and discussed them a lot :)

Big inspirations for me have b... (read more)