Comments on: Arbitrary Silliness http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/arbitrary-silli.html Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future. Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:03:10 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Why I’m an entrepreneur « blog.stik.com http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/arbitrary-silli.html#comment-440016 Why I’m an entrepreneur « blog.stik.com Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:05:23 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/04/arbitrary-silliness.html#comment-440016 [...] I may never understand why anti-aging research is considered creepy and futarchy is dismissed as silly, I have learned one very important lesson: Humans are quick to adapt to foreign circumstances when [...] [...] I may never understand why anti-aging research is considered creepy and futarchy is dismissed as silly, I have learned one very important lesson: Humans are quick to adapt to foreign circumstances when [...]

]]> By: SteveR http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/arbitrary-silli.html#comment-406148 SteveR Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:54:26 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/04/arbitrary-silliness.html#comment-406148 The problem with Vladimir's definition of silliness as (being in part) that which doesn't attract reproductive females (playing in garage bands, collecting stamps etc) is that the reason these reproductive females aren't attracted is because they think these are silly pursuits. So we haven't actually made any progress in our definition here, beyond that we should trust the good sense of women regarding what qualifies as silly. The problem with Vladimir’s definition of silliness as (being in part) that which doesn’t attract reproductive females (playing in garage bands, collecting stamps etc) is that the reason these reproductive females aren’t attracted is because they think these are silly pursuits. So we haven’t actually made any progress in our definition here, beyond that we should trust the good sense of women regarding what qualifies as silly.

]]> By: Mikaela http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/arbitrary-silli.html#comment-406147 Mikaela Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:26:26 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/04/arbitrary-silliness.html#comment-406147 In general, I think silliness is a reflection of how (non) 'useful' or 'relevant' something might seem to be. So in one end of the spectrum we have things that appear so far fetched and distant they seem irrelevant to the present or mid term future(like in Scott's examples) and on the other we have things that seem so 'obvious' and proximal (I'm really not sure if this is the right word..buy anyway..I'm thinking of the belly buttons) that they also seem irrelevant. Then theres a big mesh in the center of things people consider to be silly because of this lack of relevance.. Now, what determines if something is useful and/or relevant to individuals (or groups..)? we may have some universal wants and needs (things that reflect in higher fitness for example-Vladimirs post) but then theres a great mesh thats influenced by culture.... i also think, as Phil says, that culture is the largest component.. I was tempted to say that people who have never heard of science fiction per se, when asked what they thought of research on aliens might also say it is very silly.. but then again maybe not and maybe they would not deem it silly at all (as they have no contact with the stereotypes of science fiction and believe in creatures-aliens that harm livestock, crops..etc.)... but if you ask it compared to other research topics (tests on flu-drugs) then the silliness might kick in..so when considering it in research topics that 'relative' silliness might be quite important. I also agree (Phil) that even though someone mentioned above that string theory is not considered silly (here), I would say that probably the majority of people, at least in western countries (where I have been) still consider it silly.. and thats where McCain comes in saying studies of bears DNA is also silly. I dont think it is..but how could we (can we) convince him otherwise? because of its use? (relevance..)-maybe. I might say because of bears inherent right to exist but he might think thats silly so where do we go from there? anyway..bye! In general, I think silliness is a reflection of how (non) ‘useful’ or ‘relevant’ something might seem to be. So in one end of the spectrum we have things that appear so far fetched and distant they seem irrelevant to the present or mid term future(like in Scott’s examples) and on the other we have things that seem so ‘obvious’ and proximal (I’m really not sure if this is the right word..buy anyway..I’m thinking of the belly buttons) that they also seem irrelevant. Then theres a big mesh in the center of things people consider to be silly because of this lack of relevance.. Now, what determines if something is useful and/or relevant to individuals (or groups..)? we may have some universal wants and needs (things that reflect in higher fitness for example-Vladimirs post) but then theres a great mesh thats influenced by culture…. i also think, as Phil says, that culture is the largest component..
I was tempted to say that people who have never heard of science fiction per se, when asked what they thought of research on aliens might also say it is very silly.. but then again maybe not and maybe they would not deem it silly at all (as they have no contact with the stereotypes of science fiction and believe in creatures-aliens that harm livestock, crops..etc.)… but if you ask it compared to other research topics (tests on flu-drugs) then the silliness might kick in..so when considering it in research topics that ‘relative’ silliness might be quite important.

I also agree (Phil) that even though someone mentioned above that string theory is not considered silly (here), I would say that probably the majority of people, at least in western countries (where I have been) still consider it silly.. and thats where McCain comes in saying studies of bears DNA is also silly. I dont think it is..but how could we (can we) convince him otherwise? because of its use? (relevance..)-maybe. I might say because of bears inherent right to exist but he might think thats silly so where do we go from there?

anyway..bye!

]]> By: Phil Goetz http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/arbitrary-silli.html#comment-406146 Phil Goetz Sat, 05 Apr 2008 22:44:12 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/04/arbitrary-silliness.html#comment-406146 There are things that many people in this community consider silly, that society at large does not. - The ontological argument - Tariffs - Christianity - Either American political party - Caring about professional sports - Fashion - Smoking cigarettes - Macintosh computers Are the reasons this community has for considering things silly, different from the reasons the world at large has for considering things silly? When I tried to make a list of ideas that people who read this blog consider silly, that I don't; and of ideas that I consider silly, that people who read this blog don't, the lists both consisted entirely of ideas hated or advocated by libertarians. This suggests to me that ideology may be the largest component in bias about silliness. Then again, the difference between what Americans consider silly, and what Japanese consider silly, is large enough that culture may be the largest component. (Saying this made me realize that I don't know how to distinguish between culture and ideology.) There are things that many people in this community consider silly, that society at large does not.

- The ontological argument
- Tariffs
- Christianity
- Either American political party
- Caring about professional sports
- Fashion
- Smoking cigarettes
- Macintosh computers

Are the reasons this community has for considering things silly, different from the reasons the world at large has for considering things silly?

When I tried to make a list of ideas that people who read this blog consider silly, that I don’t; and of ideas that I consider silly, that people who read this blog don’t, the lists both consisted entirely of ideas hated or advocated by libertarians. This suggests to me that ideology may be the largest component in bias about silliness.

Then again, the difference between what Americans consider silly, and what Japanese consider silly, is large enough that culture may be the largest component. (Saying this made me realize that I don’t know how to distinguish between culture and ideology.)

]]> By: Dr. Jeffry Smith http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/arbitrary-silli.html#comment-406145 Dr. Jeffry Smith Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:31:19 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/04/arbitrary-silliness.html#comment-406145 Speaking of "wonky", one proposed research paper that came across my desk was: "The Impact of the Amazon Phenomenon, Wherein Some Women Have One Breast Removed In Order To Identify With Empowered Feminism". And that was to be a dissertation topic for a Ph.D. in Education... Speaking of “wonky”, one proposed research paper that came across my desk was: “The Impact of the Amazon Phenomenon, Wherein Some Women Have One Breast Removed In Order To Identify With Empowered Feminism”. And that was to be a dissertation topic for a Ph.D. in Education…

]]> By: LP http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/arbitrary-silli.html#comment-406144 LP Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:14:13 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/04/arbitrary-silliness.html#comment-406144 I'm willing to agree that there are probably all sorts of reasons certain research areas are 'silly,' but in my experience this often happens when the first person into the area (or the first well-known person to get into the area) makes wild claims that are not borne out by evidence, thus making themselves look foolish. Once this happens, everyone gets very nervous about the whole area because they're afraid of looking foolish like that first guy. And in order to provide a rationale for ignoring an entire area of research, they marginalize it. I’m willing to agree that there are probably all sorts of reasons certain research areas are ’silly,’ but in my experience this often happens when the first person into the area (or the first well-known person to get into the area) makes wild claims that are not borne out by evidence, thus making themselves look foolish. Once this happens, everyone gets very nervous about the whole area because they’re afraid of looking foolish like that first guy. And in order to provide a rationale for ignoring an entire area of research, they marginalize it.

]]> By: Marci http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/arbitrary-silli.html#comment-406143 Marci Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:31:39 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/04/arbitrary-silliness.html#comment-406143 Not much is intrinsically silly. Like Schroedinger's cat, the judgement seems to occur at the moment of observation and is wholly dependent on the observer. That said, clown shoes and mutton-chop sideburns are absolutely and unavoidably silly. Not much is intrinsically silly. Like Schroedinger’s cat, the judgement seems to occur at the moment of observation and is wholly dependent on the observer. That said, clown shoes and mutton-chop sideburns are absolutely and unavoidably silly.

]]> By: Anders Sandberg http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/arbitrary-silli.html#comment-406142 Anders Sandberg Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:42:37 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/04/arbitrary-silliness.html#comment-406142 Compiling the list so far seems to suggest four categories of silliness: Epistemic silliness: Not common sense/low prior probability Apparently obviously/trivially wrong (or right) Evidence similar cases involve fraud/does not work Not enough credibility supporting experts or other evidence Practical silliness: No benefit to fitness or clear practical use Social silliness: Associated with low status groups/ideas/signals/categories Snobbery Wrong branding Political silliness: Lack of critical mass giving support Politically impossible Sacred values being violated Maybe it is enough to trigger one of the categories to get yuck-factor like triggering of the others as rationalisation. Beside the instructive stories about how silly things have become non-silly, we should look at how non-silly things become silly. Fortunately both areas sound like exactly what historians regard as non-silly. Compiling the list so far seems to suggest four categories of silliness:

Epistemic silliness:
Not common sense/low prior probability
Apparently obviously/trivially wrong (or right)
Evidence similar cases involve fraud/does not work
Not enough credibility supporting experts or other evidence

Practical silliness:
No benefit to fitness or clear practical use

Social silliness:
Associated with low status groups/ideas/signals/categories
Snobbery
Wrong branding

Political silliness:
Lack of critical mass giving support
Politically impossible
Sacred values being violated

Maybe it is enough to trigger one of the categories to get yuck-factor like triggering of the others as rationalisation.

Beside the instructive stories about how silly things have become non-silly, we should look at how non-silly things become silly. Fortunately both areas sound like exactly what historians regard as non-silly.

]]> By: Alan Crowe from Hulver's site http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/arbitrary-silli.html#comment-406149 Alan Crowe from Hulver's site Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:29:14 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/04/arbitrary-silliness.html#comment-406149 <strong>Social dynamics of the Silly stigma</strong> Robin Hanson is a clever man with interesting ideas so he has been forced to consider the question of why certain ideas get rejected out of hand as "silly". He asks for answers on Overcoming Bias. Silliness is an unstable social circularity. ... Social dynamics of the Silly stigma

Robin Hanson is a clever man with interesting ideas so he has been forced to consider the question of why certain ideas get rejected out of hand as “silly”. He asks for answers on Overcoming Bias.
Silliness is an unstable social circularity. …

]]> By: Vladimir Golovin http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/arbitrary-silli.html#comment-406141 Vladimir Golovin Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:31:01 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/04/arbitrary-silliness.html#comment-406141 >>> Of course people want to be healthy and sexually satisfied, but no one actually cares about fitness per se. I agree -- nobody cares about their gene propagation per se. What people care about is maximizing the values of certain "indicators" built into them by the evolution, which correspond to things like orgasms, full belly, clean water around, shelter, company of reproductive mates (not necessarily females, of course :), smiling children, cohesion with the tribe etc etc. Dawkins has an excellent paragraph on this somewhere in his books, I'm just too lazy to look up the actual quote. Also, I fully agree with previous posters who included the conformity factor into their definition of silliness. Conformity, as demonstrated by the experiments Solomon Asch, is definitely one of the things I'd like to add to my definition I posted earlier. >>> Of course people want to be healthy and sexually satisfied, but no one actually cares about fitness per se.

I agree — nobody cares about their gene propagation per se. What people care about is maximizing the values of certain “indicators” built into them by the evolution, which correspond to things like orgasms, full belly, clean water around, shelter, company of reproductive mates (not necessarily females, of course :) , smiling children, cohesion with the tribe etc etc. Dawkins has an excellent paragraph on this somewhere in his books, I’m just too lazy to look up the actual quote.

Also, I fully agree with previous posters who included the conformity factor into their definition of silliness. Conformity, as demonstrated by the experiments Solomon Asch, is definitely one of the things I’d like to add to my definition I posted earlier.

]]>