Comments on: Tell Your Anti-Story http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/tell-your-anti.html Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:21:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Grognor http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/tell-your-anti.html#comment-511836 Grognor Mon, 03 Oct 2011 06:05:55 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/07/tell-your-anti-story.html#comment-511836 Hero wins bias: people tend to overestimate their own chances of success. I would be SHOCKED if this didn't come at least SOMEWHAT from fiction. Also its inverse: society sucks bias: a disproportionately negative view of the world due to (and I realize this is non-fiction!) over-reporting of bad news and under-reporting of good news. News media actually <em>filter out</em> good news because it gets less ratings. Hero wins bias: people tend to overestimate their own chances of success. I would be SHOCKED if this didn’t come at least SOMEWHAT from fiction.

Also its inverse: society sucks bias: a disproportionately negative view of the world due to (and I realize this is non-fiction!) over-reporting of bad news and under-reporting of good news. News media actually filter out good news because it gets less ratings.

]]> By: Rob http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/tell-your-anti.html#comment-418085 Rob Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:52:43 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/07/tell-your-anti-story.html#comment-418085 Although could twists be called a bias? The Pro-Twist bias... I need to get to bed. Although could twists be called a bias? The Pro-Twist bias… I need to get to bed.

]]> By: Rob http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/tell-your-anti.html#comment-418084 Rob Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:50:55 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/07/tell-your-anti-story.html#comment-418084 @Harold's post. I think both those biases are really just components of possibly the most annoying, stupid bias in modern thinking: twists. Because there is a twist in almost every single novel, film and TV show, people now seem to expect them in life. It's almost as if they're disappointed when they get to the end of existence and all their dead friends don't arrive and tell them it was all just the product of a terrible, highly-advanced AI hell-bent on world domination, and now is the time to act. @Harold’s post.

I think both those biases are really just components of possibly the most annoying, stupid bias in modern thinking: twists. Because there is a twist in almost every single novel, film and TV show, people now seem to expect them in life. It’s almost as if they’re disappointed when they get to the end of existence and all their dead friends don’t arrive and tell them it was all just the product of a terrible, highly-advanced AI hell-bent on world domination, and now is the time to act.

]]> By: Harald Korneliussen http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/tell-your-anti.html#comment-418083 Harald Korneliussen Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:10:22 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/07/tell-your-anti-story.html#comment-418083 To get away from the rather silly IQ theories here (a couple of suggestions only: people who want to join high-IQ societies may be a queer bunch, high-IQ societies were formed and run by a certain kind of people, and it's not hard to increase your score on IQ tests greatly with a little practice) I offer the following suggestions of fiction bias: Anti-happiness bias: It's a happy family in a sunny village, the kids are singing, the parents are waving ... there must be something rotten underneath, to be gradually unraveled! Either that or they will meet a horrible fate pretty soon. I think traditional ways of achieving happiness are seriously undervalued because of this trend in fiction. Dark secret bias: Did you know Hitler was really a jew? Well, OK, he wasn't, but it has been claimed more than once. And just now I saw a discussion board where people discussed a murderer who had killed a gay man, and what was the suggestion? "I bet he was a supressed gay himself!". Because they always are in the stories (wasn't there some homophobia=closet gay logic in a recent movie?) To get away from the rather silly IQ theories here (a couple of suggestions only: people who want to join high-IQ societies may be a queer bunch, high-IQ societies were formed and run by a certain kind of people, and it’s not hard to increase your score on IQ tests greatly with a little practice) I offer the following suggestions of fiction bias:

Anti-happiness bias: It’s a happy family in a sunny village, the kids are singing, the parents are waving … there must be something rotten underneath, to be gradually unraveled! Either that or they will meet a horrible fate pretty soon. I think traditional ways of achieving happiness are seriously undervalued because of this trend in fiction.

Dark secret bias: Did you know Hitler was really a jew? Well, OK, he wasn’t, but it has been claimed more than once. And just now I saw a discussion board where people discussed a murderer who had killed a gay man, and what was the suggestion? “I bet he was a supressed gay himself!”. Because they always are in the stories (wasn’t there some homophobia=closet gay logic in a recent movie?)

]]> By: TGGP http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/tell-your-anti.html#comment-418082 TGGP Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:16:55 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/07/tell-your-anti-story.html#comment-418082 I'm with Hopefully Anonymous, though I can't really contribute much more beyond what he said. I suppose that the way I imagine the relationship between IQ and unbiasedness is one with an asymptote rather than a maximum anywhere. I’m with Hopefully Anonymous, though I can’t really contribute much more beyond what he said. I suppose that the way I imagine the relationship between IQ and unbiasedness is one with an asymptote rather than a maximum anywhere.

]]> By: Hopefully Anonymous http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/tell-your-anti.html#comment-418081 Hopefully Anonymous Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:53:34 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/07/tell-your-anti-story.html#comment-418081 Michael, once again your examples are causing me to doubt your hypothesis. In this case of NAZI party participation by intellectuals in Austria. First I don't see much acknowledgment of the distinction between performance of belief/bias and actual belief/bias. I think a good test is the fluidity of external performance by these intellectuals post-NAZI regime. If for example, they were demonstrably quicker to power-align with new regimes post-NAZI reich than the general population, that would be an indication that their NAZI alignment was performative and that a higher IQ allowed them to be more fluid and adaptable performers. It's an empirical question which is probably researchable. I'm (hopefully) anonymous, but in my non-anonymous life I think it would be in my interest to publicly perform a belief system (including biases) which is normatively likeable, at least for the social circles and situations in which it is optimal for me to be liked. And the smarter I am (the better I am at pattern recognition, etc.) the better I think I'd be at these performances. Although I'll grant your point that relatively optimized hardware (cocktail party personality) can often trump a even a very positively deviantly good ability to analyze patterns to innovate social interaction strategies (or whatever it is one would do to apply one's high IQ to the challenges of situational social success). Michael, once again your examples are causing me to doubt your hypothesis. In this case of NAZI party participation by intellectuals in Austria. First I don’t see much acknowledgment of the distinction between performance of belief/bias and actual belief/bias. I think a good test is the fluidity of external performance by these intellectuals post-NAZI regime. If for example, they were demonstrably quicker to power-align with new regimes post-NAZI reich than the general population, that would be an indication that their NAZI alignment was performative and that a higher IQ allowed them to be more fluid and adaptable performers. It’s an empirical question which is probably researchable.

I’m (hopefully) anonymous, but in my non-anonymous life I think it would be in my interest to publicly perform a belief system (including biases) which is normatively likeable, at least for the social circles and situations in which it is optimal for me to be liked. And the smarter I am (the better I am at pattern recognition, etc.) the better I think I’d be at these performances. Although I’ll grant your point that relatively optimized hardware (cocktail party personality) can often trump a even a very positively deviantly good ability to analyze patterns to innovate social interaction strategies (or whatever it is one would do to apply one’s high IQ to the challenges of situational social success).

]]> By: michael vassar http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/tell-your-anti.html#comment-418080 michael vassar Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:02:31 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/07/tell-your-anti-story.html#comment-418080 Hopefully: I don't think you followed my example. "Where C actually aligns with natural biases, as for instance in the scientific racism of the early 20th century, it is entirely plausible along my model that the least biased will be the least cultured, which might mean something similar to the least intelligent individuals without organic retardation." In other words, no persistent disagreement here, my hypothesis coincides with yours. Extremely high IQ people who also have certain personality traits such as high openness and low agreeableness may be much more likely than the population norm to acquire expertise in the identification of logical flaws and consequentially to reject illogical or empirically trivially disprovable theories, but there are abundant data confirming, for instance, high NAZI party participation among intellectuals (especially in Austria) strongly suggesting that unusual personality as well as intelligence is required to reject cultural superstitions. Hopefully: I don’t think you followed my example. “Where C actually aligns with natural biases, as for instance in the scientific racism of the early 20th century, it is entirely plausible along my model that the least biased will be the least cultured, which might mean something similar to the least intelligent individuals without organic retardation.”
In other words, no persistent disagreement here, my hypothesis coincides with yours.

Extremely high IQ people who also have certain personality traits such as high openness and low agreeableness may be much more likely than the population norm to acquire expertise in the identification of logical flaws and consequentially to reject illogical or empirically trivially disprovable theories, but there are abundant data confirming, for instance, high NAZI party participation among intellectuals (especially in Austria) strongly suggesting that unusual personality as well as intelligence is required to reject cultural superstitions.

]]> By: lw http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/tell-your-anti.html#comment-418079 lw Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:41:07 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/07/tell-your-anti-story.html#comment-418079 This is crazy. Fairy tales, epic poetry, and other fiction that predates copyright often encapsulates a great deal of folk wisdom. Aesop, Grimm, and Homer are all fiction, right? There's a spectrum with such works at one end and hacks cranking out work for profit at the other. The insights of hacks into collective belief might be useful to identify bias, but it's a pretty limited probe. This is crazy. Fairy tales, epic poetry, and other fiction that predates copyright often encapsulates a great deal of folk wisdom. Aesop, Grimm, and Homer are all fiction, right? There’s a spectrum with such works at one end and hacks cranking out work for profit at the other. The insights of hacks into collective belief might be useful to identify bias, but it’s a pretty limited probe.

]]> By: Hopefully Anonymous http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/tell-your-anti.html#comment-418078 Hopefully Anonymous Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:09:39 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/07/tell-your-anti-story.html#comment-418078 Michael, Frankly your examples are causing me to doubt your theory. I don't think increasing intelligence beyond the 99th% would make an early 20th century individual more susceptible to actually believe scientific racism theories, although I grant that it might make people of average or moderately above average intelligence more susceptible to those theories that people a standard deviation in intelligence or more below. It might make them more likely to perform belief in scientific racism, which is different from actual belief (although it may be difficult for observers to separate performance from actual belief, perhaps increasingly difficult as the performer becomes more intelligent). I know we've had a continuing disagreement on this topic, but I think it has been fruitful. The bottom line in my opinion is it doesn't take much empirical inquiry or critical thinking to cast doubt on many elements of scientific racism, and Frederick Douglass was hardly either inaccessible or a lone agent as a person of african descent from which one could determine intelligence variance in that population. I'm not even sure how scientific racists addressed intelligence variance within as opposed to between members of racial groups in that era, but I doubt it becomes something harder to consider as the assessor's IQ exceeds the 99th%. So, I think having an IQ significantly above the 99th% would only make it easier to see logical flaws and empirical weaknesses as underpinnings to fashionable scientific theories of a given era -which would argue for an increasingly lower actual bias (even if they may perform a higher bias than people of 99th%, for example, to outcome optimization as a relatively smart person in the midst of a biased population). Michael,
Frankly your examples are causing me to doubt your theory. I don’t think increasing intelligence beyond the 99th% would make an early 20th century individual more susceptible to actually believe scientific racism theories, although I grant that it might make people of average or moderately above average intelligence more susceptible to those theories that people a standard deviation in intelligence or more below. It might make them more likely to perform belief in scientific racism, which is different from actual belief (although it may be difficult for observers to separate performance from actual belief, perhaps increasingly difficult as the performer becomes more intelligent).

I know we’ve had a continuing disagreement on this topic, but I think it has been fruitful.

The bottom line in my opinion is it doesn’t take much empirical inquiry or critical thinking to cast doubt on many elements of scientific racism, and Frederick Douglass was hardly either inaccessible or a lone agent as a person of african descent from which one could determine intelligence variance in that population. I’m not even sure how scientific racists addressed intelligence variance within as opposed to between members of racial groups in that era, but I doubt it becomes something harder to consider as the assessor’s IQ exceeds the 99th%.

So, I think having an IQ significantly above the 99th% would only make it easier to see logical flaws and empirical weaknesses as underpinnings to fashionable scientific theories of a given era -which would argue for an increasingly lower actual bias (even if they may perform a higher bias than people of 99th%, for example, to outcome optimization as a relatively smart person in the midst of a biased population).

]]> By: michael vassar http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/tell-your-anti.html#comment-418077 michael vassar Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:02:39 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/07/tell-your-anti-story.html#comment-418077 Hopefully: Keep in mind that I am talking about minimum aggregate bias by some undefined metric as a result of the C vector. Specific biases will reach nadir at levels of learning speed that depend on the degree to which C points away from natural biases. Where C actually aligns with natural biases, as for instance in the scientific racism of the early 20th century, it is entirely plausible along my model that the least biased will be the least cultured, which might mean something similar to the least intelligent individuals without organic retardation. For instance, "learned professors" and the like might have rejected the plausibility of Fredrick Douglas actually writing his essays due to their supposedly scientific belief that a black man could not plausibly have attained that level of verbal fluency. Earlier still, young earth scientific theories would have probably lead to some threshold beyond which more intelligent people rejected the theory of evolution at a greater rate than less intelligent people who understood the basic idea of evolution but not the more complex content of thermodynamics did. It is possible that some group of people might build evidence based models by which they can personally debias themselves in a more fine-tuned fashion than is done by C. Such a group, if small, might lead to the existence of a low bias outliers with respect to certain actively confronted biases at some IQ level far above the low-bias peak generated by C, but would not lead to the average level of bias at the group's average IQ being substantially lower than that at the C generated peak. Anyway, it doesn't seem to me that other people are still participating on this thread and my wrists limit my typed words per day. Call me if you want to discuss this more. Hopefully: Keep in mind that I am talking about minimum aggregate bias by some undefined metric as a result of the C vector. Specific biases will reach nadir at levels of learning speed that depend on the degree to which C points away from natural biases. Where C actually aligns with natural biases, as for instance in the scientific racism of the early 20th century, it is entirely plausible along my model that the least biased will be the least cultured, which might mean something similar to the least intelligent individuals without organic retardation. For instance, “learned professors” and the like might have rejected the plausibility of Fredrick Douglas actually writing his essays due to their supposedly scientific belief that a black man could not plausibly have attained that level of verbal fluency. Earlier still, young earth scientific theories would have probably lead to some threshold beyond which more intelligent people rejected the theory of evolution at a greater rate than less intelligent people who understood the basic idea of evolution but not the more complex content of thermodynamics did. It is possible that some group of people might build evidence based models by which they can personally debias themselves in a more fine-tuned fashion than is done by C. Such a group, if small, might lead to the existence of a low bias outliers with respect to certain actively confronted biases at some IQ level far above the low-bias peak generated by C, but would not lead to the average level of bias at the group’s average IQ being substantially lower than that at the C generated peak.

Anyway, it doesn’t seem to me that other people are still participating on this thread and my wrists limit my typed words per day. Call me if you want to discuss this more.

]]>