Overcoming bias is a great tool to be able to learn new things that we wouldn’t have being able to accept because our bias would have preventend it.

I’m sorry if I’m not able to put it more clearly, but I’ve tried hard and I would have apreciated an argument showing me wrong. But c’est la vie, I suppose. So long

If you are advocating the conclusion the link suggests, that ties well to your disability comment. If you could not have done other than believe falsely because of a bias, you have no moral culpability in the matter and should not feel shame. You have new responsibilities now that you are aware of the role of bias in the matter, but you bear no fault to the extent that your ideas were dictated by neurological necessity. To me, that seems better than being told that you just messed up and have no excuse.

And as a practical matter, I am all for helping people to correct their beliefs. If allowing them to save face reduces commitments to false beliefs, I want to play up that aspect.

Should Anónima feel her self-image damaged, independently of X being false or wrong?

According to David Balan, she should: “Somehow the idea that my beliefs or claims or arguments can be airily dismissed as the product of this or that self-interested bias damages my self-image far more than does simply being shown to be wrong. ”

According to Anónima, Anónima should feel ashamed (at least a bit) if, and only if, MyHero shows X is wrong, and she shouldn’t feel more ashamed because she hasn’t listened to 2YO since it is the rational thing to do, as explained by Tobby. But even if it was an irrational bias, the fact is one can not always be concious of every bias one has.

So, in my opnion, it should be far more damaging to one’s self-image to be shown wrong than to be shown biased. But the damage shouldn’t last long because being shown wrong is one (hard) way to learn things and learning is great

You are rigth, the rational thing to do, since time is scarce, is to ignore the opinions of those you have a priori decided you should not take seriously because you don’t respect them intellectualy. The example of a 2year old is a boutade (provocation?), of course, but all of us ignore some grown ups because we don’t think they can teach us anything for whatever the reasons.

But then I’m also right that the fact of ignoring other people a priori is a bias, that we have decided _rationally_ not to overcome, and that can lead to ignore valid arguments, even with low probability.

That was the whole point of the post as I understood it: David Balan said he was willing to loose infinite time in not been caught been biased and my opinion is that if one wishes to act rationaly, one must accept that one can not overcome every bias one has.

My conclusion is that it’s not so important being biased (not listening to a 2 years old) as being wrong (if the 2 years old is right). One shoud try to overcome bias to avoid being wrong, not to avoid being biased and told so.

I wonder if part of this is not wanting to seem simple-minded, where others can have a simple model to predict your beliefs. Alas, there can also be a bias to seem complex and creative, which distorts away from simple common beliefs.

David Balan, I had come to suspect in the back of my mind that you were writing things for the purpose of setting me off (I know a guy who feels similarly about the name of the band Hootie and the Blowfish, though they have never interacted and he still doesn’t know what it is about the name that is playing a joke on him) and it gives me a sense of relief to know that you are putting consideration into my response. Unless of course you are merely playing a trick on me!

If one has unlimited resources (here = unlimited time), this is indeed an example of argument of authority. If one has limited resources, one doesn’t necessarily have time to address every “you’re a dummy” -argument. Then, the rational thing to do is to concentrate one’s efforts on the issue/argument where one’s expected marginal utility is the greatest. Given our knowledge of mental capacity of 2 year-olds the expected utility is very low. Thus, ignorance of arguments can be justified by scarcity.

This is an interesting comment. James I disagree, in part, with the idea that this would be the real reason for wanting to be unbiased. I do agree that I, and most people, strive to be worthy in whatever way possible.(Nobody is a nobody- everyone is an aspiring author, an amateur bicyclist, and etc. Stories of value.) I would disagree that wanting to believe that we’re valuable is a fully conscious intention. I may have read more into this than you intended however.

“Ignoring a 2 years old that calls you a dummy when you do or say something _only because he is 2 years_ old: is a bias, I’m afraid.”

For my two cents: I can recognize that someone is lazy, stupid, worthless, a bigot– whatever. If they tell me I look like I have four arms, I’ll shrug at the absurdity. If they tell me that I’m a lazy, stupid, worthless, bigot, I want to fight them. How odd.

John

Now that you know about the particular bias, you should avoid it, but no one would think badly of you for accidentally eating something that was made around peanuts. It may have taken you a while to realize that you have belief as attire, but now that you can tell yourself apart from your clothing, you can change your shirt. You might feel a little silly about that initial error, but you don’t need to take it personally that you bought a shirt that looked bad once you got it in good light.

Overcoming Bias is a great opportunity to correct errors without losing face. “No no, you weren’t wrong, that idea was. You were neurologically hard-wired to believe it, so you could hardly have avoided it. I certainly didn’t notice that bias until someone pointed it out to me. Come, let us learn together.”