Comments on: One Argument Against An Army http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/one-argument-1.html Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:03:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Eliezer Yudkowsky http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/one-argument-1.html#comment-416813 Eliezer Yudkowsky Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:07:28 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/one-argument-against-an-army.html#comment-416813 <i>this sort of abstract discussion about a possible error would greatly benefit from real and documented examples in which the described error cropped up</i> <a href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/media-risk-bias.html#comment-80079547" rel="nofollow">this OB comment</a> this sort of abstract discussion about a possible error would greatly benefit from real and documented examples in which the described error cropped up

this OB comment

]]> By: Nick Tarleton http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/one-argument-1.html#comment-416812 Nick Tarleton Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:29:37 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/one-argument-against-an-army.html#comment-416812 Likely both groups hold false, self-serving factual beliefs and perceive denial of those beliefs (which a true article will inevitably contain) as hostile to them (and agreement with them as neutral). Likely both groups hold false, self-serving factual beliefs and perceive denial of those beliefs (which a true article will inevitably contain) as hostile to them (and agreement with them as neutral).

]]> By: Doug S. http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/one-argument-1.html#comment-416811 Doug S. Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:08:39 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/one-argument-against-an-army.html#comment-416811 <blockquote>both groups thought the article was hostile to their positions</blockquote> They might both be correct about that.

both groups thought the article was hostile to their positions

They might both be correct about that.

]]> By: pdf23ds http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/one-argument-1.html#comment-416810 pdf23ds Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:41:39 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/one-argument-against-an-army.html#comment-416810 I *do* remember a bit more detail about one study, though. Two different groups, one sympathetic to Israelis and the other to Palestinians (and maybe a third with no sympathies) were shown the same, fairly neutral article describing quite a bit about the conflict. Both groups held their positions more strongly after reading the article, and both groups thought the article was hostile to their positions. I *do* remember a bit more detail about one study, though. Two different groups, one sympathetic to Israelis and the other to Palestinians (and maybe a third with no sympathies) were shown the same, fairly neutral article describing quite a bit about the conflict. Both groups held their positions more strongly after reading the article, and both groups thought the article was hostile to their positions.

]]> By: Carl Shulman http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/one-argument-1.html#comment-416809 Carl Shulman Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:04:49 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/one-argument-against-an-army.html#comment-416809 "Unfortunately, my recollection of that study is weak. To the best of my memory, though, it was only a survey of people's blog/news reading habits combined with a test of dogmatism, not one where they actually instructed people in different groups to read more of fewer opposing arguments." One worry would be that ideological enthusiasm leads to greater interest in politics in general. "Perhaps people tend to read low-quality opposing arguments only, for whatever reason" Blogs may link to arguments from the opposing side in order to mock them, selecting those which are most objectionable from the perspective of their ideological allies. “Unfortunately, my recollection of that study is weak. To the best of my memory, though, it was only a survey of people’s blog/news reading habits combined with a test of dogmatism, not one where they actually instructed people in different groups to read more of fewer opposing arguments.”
One worry would be that ideological enthusiasm leads to greater interest in politics in general.

“Perhaps people tend to read low-quality opposing arguments only, for whatever reason”
Blogs may link to arguments from the opposing side in order to mock them, selecting those which are most objectionable from the perspective of their ideological allies.

]]> By: Nick Tarleton http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/one-argument-1.html#comment-416808 Nick Tarleton Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:52:43 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/one-argument-against-an-army.html#comment-416808 Perhaps people tend to read low-quality opposing arguments only, for whatever reason, resulting in the effect I described above. They could even be reading <a href="http://www.fstdt.com/" rel="nofollow"><i>really</i> low-quality opposition</a> for pure entertainment - I sometimes do this, but on reflection it's probably bad for me. Perhaps people tend to read low-quality opposing arguments only, for whatever reason, resulting in the effect I described above. They could even be reading really low-quality opposition for pure entertainment – I sometimes do this, but on reflection it’s probably bad for me.

]]> By: pdf23ds http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/one-argument-1.html#comment-416807 pdf23ds Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:23:55 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/one-argument-against-an-army.html#comment-416807 Carl, you might confuse people by addressing me by my real name when I'm not using it. Unfortunately, my recollection of that study is weak. To the best of my memory, though, it was only a survey of people's blog/news reading habits combined with a test of dogmatism, not one where they actually instructed people in different groups to read more of fewer opposing arguments. I forget what the terms for these types of studies are. Carl, you might confuse people by addressing me by my real name when I’m not using it.

Unfortunately, my recollection of that study is weak. To the best of my memory, though, it was only a survey of people’s blog/news reading habits combined with a test of dogmatism, not one where they actually instructed people in different groups to read more of fewer opposing arguments. I forget what the terms for these types of studies are.

]]> By: Carl Shulman http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/one-argument-1.html#comment-416806 Carl Shulman Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:03:31 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/one-argument-against-an-army.html#comment-416806 Chris, Confirmation bias lab experiments show that people provided with mixed evidence wind up strengthening their initial beliefs. To clarify, are you saying that this study gave people the option to "intentionally seek out arguments that oppose their position," or recalling the ordinary confirmation bias experiments? Chris,

Confirmation bias lab experiments show that people provided with mixed evidence wind up strengthening their initial beliefs. To clarify, are you saying that this study gave people the option to “intentionally seek out arguments that oppose their position,” or recalling the ordinary confirmation bias experiments?

]]> By: pdf23ds http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/one-argument-1.html#comment-416805 pdf23ds Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:44:35 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/one-argument-against-an-army.html#comment-416805 <i>What can we actually observe? Relevant to what you describe, we can observe two things:</i> Also, we can observe (I read about a study that showed this) that people who intentionally seek out arguments that oppose their position tend to strengthen their belief in their position relative to people who only read friendly arguments. I forget exactly where I read this, unfortunately. What can we actually observe? Relevant to what you describe, we can observe two things:

Also, we can observe (I read about a study that showed this) that people who intentionally seek out arguments that oppose their position tend to strengthen their belief in their position relative to people who only read friendly arguments. I forget exactly where I read this, unfortunately.

]]> By: Eliezer Yudkowsky http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/one-argument-1.html#comment-416804 Eliezer Yudkowsky Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:31:35 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/one-argument-against-an-army.html#comment-416804 <i>This would be taken by many as a concession of defeat, just as would saying "After conditionalization on your evidence I have lowered by credence in P", and so will be hard for people to do in practice.</i> When I'm talking to people of that quality, I very rarely need to integrate substantial new evidence into my model. If evidence is not substantial you have no obligation to make a big deal of the fact that you are updating on it; this would be a Gricean deception. When someone does present you with substantial new evidence, you should consider that you may be dealing with one knowledgeable in the subject area; if so, conceding defeat, or showing before others that you have been presented with substantial new evidence, should not be out of the question. What categorical imperative would you want to apply for people who encounter substantial new evidence? If the appearance of conceding defeat is (for whatever reason) terribly scary, then you may, perhaps, choose between acknowledging new evidence internally and saying nothing about this externally; or you may fail to acknowledge it even internally. Neither course of action is especially virtuous, but self-deception is <i>not</i> more virtuous than silence. This would be taken by many as a concession of defeat, just as would saying “After conditionalization on your evidence I have lowered by credence in P”, and so will be hard for people to do in practice.

When I’m talking to people of that quality, I very rarely need to integrate substantial new evidence into my model.

If evidence is not substantial you have no obligation to make a big deal of the fact that you are updating on it; this would be a Gricean deception.

When someone does present you with substantial new evidence, you should consider that you may be dealing with one knowledgeable in the subject area; if so, conceding defeat, or showing before others that you have been presented with substantial new evidence, should not be out of the question. What categorical imperative would you want to apply for people who encounter substantial new evidence?

If the appearance of conceding defeat is (for whatever reason) terribly scary, then you may, perhaps, choose between acknowledging new evidence internally and saying nothing about this externally; or you may fail to acknowledge it even internally. Neither course of action is especially virtuous, but self-deception is not more virtuous than silence.

]]>