Any political implications in your choice of wrists?

For me this approach isn’t just about bias, but more about the honest pursuit of truth more broadly (of which bias is an important part).

While I have a fairly clear in-group and out-group, I could probably some tools to remind me of my quest (recycling bins). Perhaps I can train myself, when I make claims in certain contexts, to review my claims for evidence, bias, etc. Or I could tattoo “BIAS” on my right wrist and “EVIDENCE” on my left.

I have to admit I noticed it immediately. But that’s because I’ve got many environmentalist friends (and dabble in it myself) so when it was mentioned that environmentalists use similar methods – that screamed “bias! bias! Warning: bias!”.

But most of you, Stuart especially, also eddie, seem to be more of the consequentialist school. If it works, do it.

I’m not sure I would go along with my proposals – they make me uncomfortable. But, if we wanted to do this, that would be the way I would do it. After all, religions and environmental movements are very sucessful at motivating people.

An example derived from looking at environmentalism in a Kantian imperative way (nicked vicously from the book “Underground economist”): should environmental conferences attempt to be carbon neutral? The author’s argument was that either the money available should be spent on more conferences, or the conference should be cancelled and all the money invested in carbon reduction – whichever is judged the most usefull environmental return.

I feel that “backing both horses” has many practical advantages (publicity-wise, especially – seeing how Al Gore has been criticised for having a big house offset by carbon reductions, imagine what it would be if it wasn’t offset? Note that the house is irrelevant to the substance of Gore’s point). However it also has the advantage of working in ignorance – if you’re not sure of the environmental impact of a conference compared with carbon reductions, then backing both can be a usefull hedge.

However, even if I was pretty sure that using biases to unbias people would work (taking all the pros and cons into account), I would probably avoid doing it until I was nearly certain – there seems to be a trace of Kantian imperative in me (or a dislike of being a hypocrite, take your pick). A bias, in other words.

I have known for many years that I should do this, but I seem to have great difficulty remembering to do it.

Maybe think of “facts about the world” as decided by a hidden FACT-parliment, including many political parties you would disagree with. So if some probable fact offends you, before rejecting it, wonder “maybe this fact was decided by the fascist party in the FACT-parliment” (a lot of the facts about genetic determinism might fit into that category). If something fits very neatly with your opinions, then wonder “did my favourite party really get a majority and get this fact passed? Or was it overruled by the nasty parties, making this “fact” an manifesto promise, nothing more? Or maybe this is a coalition fact – has some nice aspects to if, but also other aspects I haven’t noticed.
Very silly, but sometimes helps.

just as you seem to be more proposing a “think for yourself” club. These might be good first steps for some people, but they do embody substantial biases.

I don’t see it as a think for yourself (though that’s natural first step). Probably more as a “think for yourself” to figure out what you should use to come to the truth – including when to defer to the crowd, when to defer to the experts, and when to trust your own opinions. But I admit there is a huge hole – all those biases that we cannot overcome just by being aware of them. Are there any methods for overcoming these biases?

Neither do I.

so to talk about an ethical “bias” seems meaningless to me.

Still it is not meaningless.
Some (for whatever reason) tend to act “ethically”, that is, with concern about other people interests, some others tend to act with the utmost disregard for others or even for animals, earth ecosystems, whatever.
Thus this is indeed a bias with respect to their own behavior regardless of (proper) cognitive biases they may have.
The “ethical” biases only bring cognitive biases is they are unconscious, but some are fairly aware of their ethical/unethical position.

I was talking about that general idea only with regard to bias rather than the environment.

I don’t get what you mean here.

I was only talking about eliminating cognitive biases (not ethical/unethical) and for oneself (not for others).

I share Hopefully Anonymous’ attitudes. Other people being irrational is a problem so far as it leads them to do things that harm me, whereas my own irrationality will more frequently harm me.