People like to discuss what characters in stories and films should do; news stories serve a similar role, with the benefit of meaty realism.

For instance, discussing terrorists yields ideas about the value of appeasement and the nature of rationality. Forming opinions about the current Polonium poisoning crisis between the UK and Russia might tell us things about the flexibility of laws, or how much to trust governments, or appeasement, again, or whether it’s always right to stand on principle – or any other philosophical point that might happen to spin off from it.

Then there are the discussions which really are just empty pomposity. I’m glad to say I don’t encounter them often. Usually anything important-sounding really is important, not just in its material effects but philosophically.

The woman in the joke’s small issues ought really to lead her into a dialogue with her husband’s big issues. If his position is that the West is devious and meddling and the Soviets aren’t so bad, for instance, perhaps they should be buying starkly functional furniture that reflects the struggle of the workers – certainly nothing showy with gold knobs on; and perhaps they should be sending their children on educational trips to a commune.

The joke suggests to me that the husband and wife are actually working in opposition, and the wife has the upper hand while the husband’s opinions are ignored.

The bias I see relates to discussions aimed at deciding what the right large-scale policies are for these various challenges. Most discussions of climate change tend to focus on what should be done about it. That’s why it is so intense, skeptics seem motivated by dislike of the collectivist and invasive policies which the threat would seem to call for.

The problem is that most people can’t do anything significant about it, so arguments over policies expend time and effort without direct benefit. The benefits and motivations must be indirect, related to the process of argumentation itself. If people generally admitted this, that they argue just for the love of argumentation, or to show how well they fit into their social subculture, then I wouldn’t call it a bias. But I see a disconnect between what seems to motivate people in these debates and what must be their actual motivation. Persistently failing to recognize the truth about one’s own motivations is an error and a bias.

I’d guess that the instinctual motive is to know enough about what is happening in the wider world that you may enable your wife and children to “escape from the oppressors scourge”, or invest in it or whatever. Less important in these relatively peaceful times, perhaps, but it seems to me that even today, people in the US who strongly identify with the Democrats or Republicans promise to leave the country when the bad guys gain power.

What if we accept this claim, but choose only the goal of showing off our mental skills, and reject the goals of showing group loyalty or denigrating outsiders. Can we create social contexts in which discovering the truth is the best way to show off our mental skills? Can those contexts displace other contexts when contexts compete?

“There’s nothing necessarily wrong with doing things for these reasons, but the problem is that for most of us, our own motivations are obscured. Most of us don’t realize that is why we are arguing about the war in Iraq or international trade. We are deceiving ourselves, and if we are going to overcome this bias, we need to recognize the truth.”

What do you think most people perceive as their motivation for spending so much time on big issues?

It was still an enjoyable read, though.

So I think your defeatism is misplaced, Hal. If you think that your ideas are good you should share them, because other people might agree with you.

I agree many people use politics to sound informed and intelligent, but I don’t think those who discuss these issues out of true concern are spending excessive time/energy on issues they have no real control over. For example: the existence, or lack thereof, of an afterlife will not change no matter how much we think about it and try and figure it out. But does this mean we shouldn’t even think about it? Our conclusions, while not changing whether or not an afterlife exists, have a ripple effect on all our decisions. And so it is with certain people and politics, I think.

“My impression of Overcoming Bias is that these are generally academic types who are admirably committed to the truth, but I doubt that it will “sell in Peoria”.”

Based on my opinion, at certain times, truth needs to be a beneficial advantage whether it sells or not.

Anna:)

Anna:)