Tag Archives: Psychology

How To Doubt

By Robin Hanson · January 5, 2011 6:00 pm · Comments (15)

Doubting conventional wisdom seems pretty central to my style and central issues. So I took some time to ponder the general issue of doubt. Here’s what I came up with.

The relation between confident and doubtful states of belief is like that between the three corners of a triangle and the points within the area of the triangle. Even though there are far more area points than corner points, area points are more similar to each other, in a distance sense. In the same way, there are far more states of doubt than confidence, yet states of doubt are more similar to each other, in that they lead to similar decisions.

What can you do about serious skepticism, i.e., the possibility that you might be quite mistaken on a great many of your beliefs? For this, you might want to consider which of your beliefs are the most reliable, in order to try to lean more on those beliefs when fixing the rest of your beliefs. But note that this suggests there is no general answer to what to do about doubt – the answer must depend on what you think are actually your most reliable beliefs.

When seeking your most reliable beliefs, to help fix other beliefs, you might be tempted to just consider simple beliefs like “George is my friend” or “carrots are orange.” But you may do better to rely on your less often stated beliefs that it is quite unlikely for a great many of your “independently” generated beliefs to all be mistaken.

That is, our most potent beliefs for dealing with doubt are often our beliefs about the correlations between errors in other beliefs. This is because having low error correlations can imply that related averages and aggregates are very reliable. For example, if there is little correlation in the errors your eyes make under different conditions in judging brightness, then you need only see the same light source under many conditions to get a reliable estimate of its brightness.

Since beliefs about low error correlations can support such strong beliefs on aggregates, in practice doubt about one’s beliefs often focuses on doubts about the correlations in one’s belief errors. If we guess that a certain set of errors have low correlation, but worry that they might really have a high correlation, it is doubts about such hidden correlations that threaten to infect many other beliefs.

So then what do we actually worry about, when we worry that our belief errors might be correlated? It seems to me that we mainly worry about two sources of correlated error:

  • Hidden psychological tendencies: We worry that our mind are built in such a way as to give related errors on what appear to be unrelated topics. Our minds might, for example, be biased toward high estimates of our ability, for many kinds of unrelated abilities.
  • Hidden social coordination: We worry that our social groups coordinate so as to give related errors from what appear to be unrelated social sources. Sources that share a common ideology might, for example, make similar errors on diverse topics.

Most academic consideration of radical skepticism happens in philosophy. But the above analysis suggests that if you were serious about actually doubting, instead of just discussing doubt, you’d want to study psychology and social sciences, especially hidden psychological biases and social coordination. Getting a grip on these subjects might position you well to actually consider the possibility that you might in fact be quite mistaken about a great deal.

Of course once you do understand psych and socsci, there is no guarantee that such understanding enables you to, on your own, powerfully address your doubts.  If fact, you may end up agreeing with me that our best approach is for would-be doubters to coordinate to support new institutions that better reward correction of error, especially correlated error.  I refer of course to prediction markets.

In sum: States of doubt are diverse, yet lead to similar decisions, relative to states of confidence. To productively doubt, you’ll want to identify beliefs in which you have greater confidence. When your belief errors have low correlation, you can have quite high confidence in certain aggregate beliefs. So doubts about belief error correlations are central to real skepticism. Since most doubts about correlations seem to arise from concerns about hidden mental tendencies and social coordination, a serious doubter will give those topics the most attention. And an ambitious doubter might join me in supporting something like prediction markets.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , , ,

Good With Bad Traits

By Robin Hanson · October 27, 2010 9:20 am · Comments (6)

Here’s something odd to ponder: we generally think we are better than average, but tend to think we have particular personality traits that are less socially desirable. Two from the latest JPSP:

The tendency for people to evaluate themselves more favorably than an average-peer—the better-than-average effect (BTAE)—is among the most well-documented effects in the social-psychological literature. The BTAE has been demonstrated in many populations with various methodologies. … For dimensions on which the self is positively evaluated, enhancement motives restrict the extent to which average-peer assimilation occurs. But for dimensions on which the self is negatively evaluated, enhancement motives amplify average-peer assimilation. (more)

Consensus studies from 4 cultures—in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, and Germany—as well as secondary analyses … from 29 cultures suggest that there is a cross-culturally replicable pattern of difference between internal and external perspectives for the Big Five personality traits. People see themselves as more neurotic and open to experience compared to how they are seen by other people. External observers generally hold a higher opinion of an individual’s conscientiousness than he or she does about him- or herself. As a rule, people think that they have more positive emotions and excitement seeking but much less assertiveness than it seems from the vantage point of an external observer. … A relatively strong negative correlation (r = −.53) between the average self-minus-observer profile and social desirability ratings suggests that people in most studied cultures view themselves less favorably than they are perceived by others (more)

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as:

Track Records

By Robin Hanson · September 29, 2010 10:40 am · Comments (7)

More evidence that a huge way to improve your accuracy is track records: simply write down your forecasts and check their accuracy later:

In the context of a Super Bowl loss (Study 1), a presidential election (Studies 2 and 3), an important purchase (Study 4), and the consumption of candies (Study 5), individuals mispredicted their affective reactions to these experiences and subsequently misremembered their predictions as more accurate than they actually had been. … This recall error results from people’s tendency to anchor on their current affective state when trying to recall their affective forecasts. Further, those who showed larger recall errors were less likely to learn to adjust their subsequent forecasts and reminding people of their actual forecasts enhanced learning. These results suggest that a failure to accurately recall one’s past predictions contributes to the perpetuation of forecasting errors. (more)

What we need are techs to make it very easy for record our forecasts as we go about our lives, and to review them later for accuracy.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Why Is USA Different?

By Robin Hanson · September 22, 2010 10:00 am · Comments (21)

An excellent article back in June reviewed the many ways psychologists mostly get data from a very unrepresentative sample of humanity, what they call the WEIRD: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. In the process, they review ways the US is exceptional:

Americans are, on average, the most individualistic people in the world. … American parents, for example, were the only ones in a survey of 100 societies who created a separate room for their baby to sleep. …

[In 1996], compared with other Western industrialized societies, Americans were found to be the most patriotic, litigious, philanthropic, and populist (they have the most positions for elections and the most frequent elections, although they have among the lowest voter turnout rates). They were also among the most optimistic, and the least class-conscious. They were the most churchgoing in Protestantism, and the most fundamentalist in Christendom, and were more likely than others from Western industrialized countries to see the world in absolute moral terms.

In contrast to other large Western industrialized societies, the United States had the highest crime rate, the longest working hours, the highest divorce rate, the highest rate of volunteerism, the highest percentage of citizens with a post-secondary education, the highest productivity rate, the highest GDP, the highest poverty rate, and the highest income-inequality rate; and Americans were the least supportive of various governmental interventions. …

In a survey of people from six Western countries, only Americans preferred a choice from 50 different ice
cream flavors compared with 10 flavors. Likewise, Americans (and Britons) prefer to have more choices on menus in upscale restaurants than do people from other European countries. … Americans respond more defensively to death thoughts than do those from other countries. …

Perhaps it is this extreme tendency for Americans to punish free-riders, while not punishing cooperators, that contributes to Americans having the world’s highest worker productivity. American society is also anomalous, even relative to other Western societies, in its low relational focus in work settings, which is reflected in practices such as the encouragement of an impersonal work style, direct (rather than indirect) communication, the clear separation of the work domain from the non-work, and discouragement of friendships at work.

In their main article the authors don’t speculate on why WEIRD folks act so differently, but when pressed by comments they suggest:

[Consider] the relative strangeness, in a broad global and historical context, of modern middle-and upper-class American beliefs, values, cultural models, and practices vis-a`-vis childrearing. … These practices impact cognitive, linguistic, and motor development, including long-term cognitive outcomes. …  We speculate that in the context of mobile, meritocratic societies, … cultural evolutionary processes rooted in our evolved tendencies to imitate successful and prestigious individuals will favor the spread of child-rearing traits that speed up and enhance the development of those particular cognitive and social skills that eventually translate into social and economic success in these populations. This kind of cultural evolutionary process may be part of what is driving the dramatic increases in IQ observed in many industrialized nations over the last century, along with increases in biases toward analytical reasoning and individualism. It would also explain the obsession with active instruction of all kinds shown by middle- and upper-class Americans.

It sure seems that these Canadian authors are suggesting that the US (which on a world scale is almost like Canada) is different mainly because the US is better: stronger US competition has more quickly selected for kid-raising norms that make more successful kids, and work norms that are more productive. Seems a remarkably self-centered interpretation for an article claiming that US psychologists are too self-centered.  Doesn’t make it wrong of course, but it is noteworthy that they didn’t even notice its self-centeredness.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Laughter

By Robin Hanson · July 23, 2010 9:15 am · Comments (13)

I’ve written before about how we are mostly unconscious of our many status moves – ways we constantly act to raise and lower our prestige and dominance relative to those around us.  If anything we are in even more denial about status moves involving smiles, and especially laughter.  We tell ourselves we merely laugh in response to things that are “funny” and no, that has no function at all, it is just a harmless evolutionary accident.  Not true at all:

  • “According to a classic study of laughter … in … the shopping mall – they documented 1200 instances of laughter, and found that only 10 to 20 per cent of them were responses to anything remotely resembling a joke. Most laughter was in fact either triggered by a banal comment or used to punctuate everyday speech. … We are 50 per cent more likely to laugh when speaking than when listening, and 30 times gigglier in a social setting than when alone without a social surrogate such as a television. … Our first laughs occur at between 2 and 6 months of age … triggered by surprise in a safe situation (think peek-a-boo). … It encourages babies to explore the world by making them feel happy and safe. When infants begin to engage in rough-and-tumble play, laughter signals that the intentions are not serious. … Through its catching nature … laughter can unify the mood and behaviour of a group. … An “in” joke can exclude outsiders from a clique, for example. Laughter can be used to show who is boss and malicious laughter is an effective weapon of intimidation.” (more)
  • “Right from the start, boys are the laugh-getters, the buffoons and the school clowns who entertain the giggling girls, … in lonely hearts columns, … men tend to advertise their sense of humour and women seek a funny man. Provine believes this shows … female laughter in the presence of men is a signal of submission. … Many studies have shown that dominant individuals, from tribal elders to workplace bosses, are more likely to orchestrate laughter than their subordinates, using it as a means of wielding power either to bond their followers or to divide and rule.”  (more)
  • “Berk showed 14 volunteers 20-minute clips from humorous television programmes … both cholesterol levels and systolic blood pressure fell.” (more)
GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

Far Idealism Puzzles

By Robin Hanson · July 21, 2010 11:00 am · Comments (11)

In far mode we attend to more general abstract explicit goals.  These tend to be more idealistic goals:

“Values are more likely to be expressed through value-congruent judgments and behaviors when individuals think abstractly about their actions, and not when they think concretely.” … By “values” these psychologists actually mean what I’ll call “ideals” – abstract, as opposed to concrete, goals that we verbally, and usually proudly, embrace.

I’ve mentioned a few other patterns that fit with this, such as that sex is near while love is far, and that on a fast sinking ship it was every man for himself, but on a slow sinking ship social ideals more determined who survived.

But I should also mention some patterns that don’t fit as neatly.  For now, I’ll just put these puzzles out there:

1. We help others more when we envision a particular person in need,  not a big group in need. (more)

2. Schools help induce far mode, creativity is far, yet schools reduce creativity.

3. We are less likely to procrastinate on a task framed as near:

Participants were asked to respond to a questionnaire via e-mail within 3 weeks. … Individuals were less likely to procrastinate performing the task when the questionnaire induced a more concrete construal. Furthermore, this effect did not depend on the attractiveness, importance, or perceived difficulty of the task. (more)

4. We make more indulgent choices for others than we make for ourselves:

Consumers typically manage these personal goals by combining indulgent and virtuous choices. When choosing for others, however, this is not the case. Consumers then focus on a pleasure‐seeking goal, which leads to indulgent choices for others. … Consumers tend to make more indulgent choices for others than for themselves, unless the concept of management is highly accessible or people are making choices for the distant future. (more)

5.  Power is far, lower classes have less power, yet lower classes are more generous:

Across 4 studies, lower class individuals proved to be more generous (Study 1), charitable (Study 2), trusting (Study 3), and helpful (Study 4) compared with their upper class counterparts. Mediator and moderator data showed that lower class individuals acted in a more prosocial fashion because of a greater commitment to egalitarian values and feelings of compassion. (more)

6. We care less about things that are far.  We care less about hypothetical and low probability events, about outcomes further in the future, and about people who are more socially distant.

Added 8p: It isn’t especially elegant, but a simple resolution of these puzzles is just to say that nearfar isn’t the only factor that influences idealism.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Be Stingy With Praise

By Robin Hanson · July 19, 2010 10:15 am · Comments (17)

There are two basic schools of thought on moral praise:

Be generous: Praise people generously, telling them that lots of things they do are moral, even marginal acts that seem questionable. This gets people into the habit of thinking they are especially moral, and makes them more receptive to later requests to act moral. Better to have people pretend to be moral than not to care at all about morality.

Be stingy: Praise people sparingly, and only for acts that seem clearly and strongly moral. Since people want to be moral, they will try harder to meet your higher standards, which will induce more moral behavior overall. It will also better ensure than their moral contributions are real, and not just what folks like to think are moral.

Recent studies seem to favor the stingy school:

It seems that we have a good/bad balance sheet in our heads that we’re probably not even aware of. For many people, doing good makes it easier — and often more likely — to do bad. It works in reverse, too: Do bad, then do good. …

Voters given an opportunity to endorse Barack Obama for president were more likely to later favor white people for job openings. … people who bought green products were more likely to cheat and steal than those who bought conventional products. … After getting high-efficiency washers, consumers increased clothes washing by nearly 6 percent. Other studies show that people leave energy-efficient lights on longer. … Choose between buying a vacuum cleaner or designer jeans. Participants who were asked to imagine having committed a virtuous act before shopping were significantly more likely to choose jeans.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Why Be Shy

By Robin Hanson · June 22, 2010 5:00 pm · Comments (35)

Many people are shy. Shy folks are not only easily embarrassed, they are also embarrassed by the fact that they are easily embarrassed. They tend to assume that shyness is unattractive, and that it mainly indicates lack of courage or strength. They wish they weren’t shy.

If you are shy and this is how you think, I have good news for you: shyness has important positive aspects. In particular: shyness promotes intimacy. Intimacy is a feeling of closeness, based in part on mutual vulnerability.  A person who is comfortable around most folks, talking or doing most anything, finds it harder to create mutual vulnerability. How can you tell such a person is comfortable with you, as opposed to conformable with everything?

In contrast, a shy person who is awkward and embarrassed around most folks, or when talking about many topics, can more easily show that they treat you differently. If they are less awkward around you, and are willing to talk to you less awkwardly about usually-awkward topics, you can take that as a good sign that you have achieved some level of intimacy. They treat you with less caution, presumably because they are less afraid you will hurt them. In this way, a shy person can more easily show you that you are special to them.

To better bond, be shy.  Reserve some topics as ones you will not talk with just anyone about, and some activities as ones you will not do with just anyone.  Then by selectively talking and doing, you can signal your intimacy with some relative to others.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as:

Is Blue Far?

By Robin Hanson · May 2, 2010 9:00 pm · Comments (46)

A Colours in Cultures diagram got me thinking.  Some cross-cultural associations (weak in parens):

  • PINK: healthy, children, femininity, (erotic)
  • GREEN: life, nature, growth, eternity, religion, compassion, jealousy
  • WHITE: purity, luxury, trust, truce, peace, (death)
  • RED: heat, danger, anger, passion, success, excitement, desire,  marriage, love, (erotic)
  • BLUE: cold, rational, art, gods, freedom, loyalty, unhappy, trouble
  • BLACK: evil, bad luck, self-cultivation, penance, style, authority, (death)
  • PURPLE: decadence, flamboyance, gratitude, wisdom, beauty, cruelty, mystery
  • YELLOW: illness, cowardice, deceit, fun, joy, repels evil, strength
  • BROWN:  earthy, (reliable)
  • ORANGE: warmth, learning, (family, friendly, healing)

I couldn’t resist looking for concept-color schemes to explain these.  After all, the concepts associated with key colors must be important concepts. My guesses:

  • PINK: healthy skin, esp. nipples/lips/genitals, = red + white = clean sex
  • GREEN: nature, nature spirits & their emotions
  • WHITE: clean
  • RED: fire/blood/blush, hot emotions, especially domination & sex
  • BLUE: sky/water, far objects & mental mode
  • BLACK: night/dark, bad/selfish
  • PURPLE: rare, = red+blue = far domination = high class/status?
  • YELLOW: urine/puss, sun = relaxed playful mood?
  • BROWN: dirt/ground
  • ORANGE: fire??

I’ve ordered the colors from easy to hard to interpret.  Pink, green, and white seem pretty obvious.  Red, blue, and black are less clear, but we seem to have a rough handle on them.  Purple, yellow, orange, and brown seem hardest to understand.

After my amateur effort above, I went looking for other accounts, finding this, this, this, and this.  Not sure I’ve found the good stuff though. Hat tip to Katja Grace.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Memories Lie

By Robin Hanson · April 20, 2010 5:30 pm · Comments (16)

[Academic philosophers] Russ and I have presented our joint work in a number of venues now … and normally when we do so, … we set up a random beeper … When the beep sounds, each audience member is to think about what was going on in her last undisturbed moment of inner experience before the beep. We then use a random number generator to select an audience member to report on her experience. We interview her right there, discussing her experience and the method with the audience and each other. We’ll do this maybe three times in a three-hour session.

As a result, we now have a couple dozen samples of reported inner experience during our academic talks, and the most striking thing we’ve found is that people rarely report thinking about the talk. … Most audience members, listening to most academic talks, spend most of their time with some distraction or other at the forefront of their stream of experience. They may not remember this fact because when they think back on their experience of a talk, what is salient to them are those rare occasions when they did make a novel connection or think up an interesting objection.

(I think the same is true of sex thoughts. People often say they spend a lot of time thinking about sex, but when you beep them they very rarely report it. It’s probably that our sex thoughts, though rare, are much more frequently remembered than other thoughts and so are dramatically overrepresented in retrospective memory.)  (more)

We too easily assume we know what we have been doing.  Most who think they are obsessed with sex, or that they pay attention to academic talks, are wrong.  While understanding its content is what you are supposed to do at an academic talk, attending is probably more about showing your dedication and monitoring.  Similarly, our society places a high premium on sex, and looks down on the asexual.  In both cases our bias seems to be to assume we have doing whatever would make the best impression if it were true.  If you can be this mistaken about stuff this basic, how wrong could you be about other things?

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,