Since there exists a mathematical theory of causal models (in Bayesian networks and structural equation models) it is possible that you are refering to mathematics which describes a way to average causal models having what one might call “qualitative” differences (different number of equations in the two models, different number of terms in two equations, different number or identity of factors in two terms) rather than merely “quantitative” differences (different integral or real coefficients in the equations). If so, I would love to learn more about this crunchy mathematics.

But if the math you refer to assumes that Bob and Charlie have the same “qualitative” causal model and differ only in their beliefs about the correct values of the parameters of that model, do you really believe that the math is relevant to human beliefs about most things, particularly about aspect of reality as complex as politics?

George and alex, read ZM.

Grant, sometimes you can’t avoid having an opinion if you must take related action, but otherwise sure, avoid uninformed opinions.

But then, Robin, you go on to make a specific recommendation, namely, just accept the average belief on any topic unless certain conditions apply. Do you not agree that nothing you have said in the OP is evidence for the specific recommendation except for the very weak link that the specific recommendation is doing something? Do you not agree that the following is an invalid argument: there is no reason to believe that your beliefs are better than average, therefore you should adjust your beliefs towards the average?

Naturally I have been exposed to thousands of voices who advocate the specific recommendation or beliefs with a high conditional dependency on it, such as the belief that the more people involved in a decision, the better the decision will turn out. But how would you persuade someone to go with those thousands of voices who does not already believe that counting heads is a good method of getting closer to the truth when the alternative of thinking long and hard about the question is available?

So, if I am not mistaken, we calculate the difference between your opinion and the average opinion, square it, subtract the appropriate percentage from this corresponding to the heritability, then take the square root, then add that to the average opinion. In this case, we have:

90 – 50 = 40
40^2 = 1600
1600 – (.4)1600 = 960
sqrt(960) ~ 30.98
50 + 30.98 = 80.98 ~ 81, which is QED

Second. Define ‘Truth’. I dare you.

Third. The question we should be asking is who is providing information to the ‘majority’ of the cows/sheep with whom we should be aligning ourselves? How did they come by their information/beliefs? I’m way out of my area of expertise, but it seems to me like most are indoctrinated by their government (including public schooling), their church/religious organization and the media. So maybe the real question is; To what extent has that group actually *thought* about what they believe and why?

Facts:
———-
a) Let’s say that on a scale of 0 to 100, your position on property taxes is 90

b) The average position on this issue is 50

c) the table says that 41% of belief variation on this topic is genetic

So…
———–
then to eliminate this genetic component of your beliefs, you might reduce your position from 90 to 81, since this takes away 40% of the variance of your belief relative to the average.

????

How is this happening ? What are the actual equations ?

let’s say I have 90… while the average is 50… how come this 41% from “variance of your belief relative to the average” gives a 9, so that I get 81 as a result ?

Can you please elaborate on the actual equations that give this value ?

Thanks in advance.