Imagine you told people: What looks like the sky above is actually the roof of a cave, and trees hold it up. The food we eat doesn’t give us nutrition; we get nutrition by rubbing rocks. The reason we wear clothes isn’t for modesty or protection from weather, but instead to keep cave frogs from jumping on our skin.
I'm with you Mr.Hanson, but you need to give out more reading lists and agendas and try to build a personal school of thought. You're only writing blog posts at this point. You should be trying to assemble an army.
Interesting post, Robin. However, I'm not sure what you're driving at in your discussion about norms. If you are dreaming of a paradise where there are no norms that sounds a bit extravagant.
My guess is that some norms or other are inevitable. Does overcoming bias necessitate no norms? The very idea that we can be free of bias sounds unrealistic.
Still, I'm interested in seeing where you're trying to take this.
Or maybe people are correctly being Bayseian and figuring out that the probability is high that you're trying to shame them about frogs and rubbing rocks. You're not--but they don't know that, and based on the information they do know, their reaction is rational.
It's like being a Nigerian prince who really does need to deposit some money to someone's bank account. If they disbelieve you and delete your email, they're being completely rational, even if you're telling the truth.
One of the main sources of bias (I think the main source) is subconscious illicit motivation. Intellectuals should welcome attention to their illicit motives.
[I'm waiting to read the chapter on author biases in Robin's em book. Will Robin discuss his potential illicit motives?]
Robin is actually right when you look at the bigger picture. A lot of society's resources are wasted on medicine and treatments for things that can either not be cured or would just go away if people sat it out, resting. In addition a lot of resources are spent trying to extend the lives of very old or very sick people by marginal amounts. This is true of all rich and medium income countries, though some are worse than others. Wanting to "care" even when "care" is harmful, useless or wasteful compared to some other way you could be helping society is a big motivator for such health care systems.
I think you are probably right. For example: When I was sick two weeks ago, I went to the doctor because of my terrible cough and other symptoms. That was medicine for health. Thus my thinking on the matter when I hear "medicine isn’t about health" is not that I am special, but that Robin is wrong.
Historically, politics has been mostly about distribution. Naturally under those circumstances it makes sense for people to support their group and not push for policies that benefit society as a whole. Perhaps, for the first part of the 20th century, society-wide improvements from better policy were large enough that distributional issues were secondary. Perhaps. But, if so, that period is over. For the the past 40 years, there have been large improvements in productivity - but they've essentially all been captured by rentiers. We are currently in a situation where distribution is more important than policy, and so people should be expected to support their groups.
The Meteuphoric blog recently committed the "me fallacy." [I don't think I completely appreciated Robin's point until I read Katja Grace's piece.]
The bias is the exclusive use of introspective data, oblivious to the reality that, if a given anti-idealist claim applies to an individual, he or she will initially resist.
The bias involves the determined use of the inside view.
I'm with you Mr.Hanson, but you need to give out more reading lists and agendas and try to build a personal school of thought. You're only writing blog posts at this point. You should be trying to assemble an army.
This is NOT "Empire Bias".
It does seem to me that people's opinions are too often informed by what they call 'rational ignorance'
Interesting post, Robin. However, I'm not sure what you're driving at in your discussion about norms. If you are dreaming of a paradise where there are no norms that sounds a bit extravagant.
My guess is that some norms or other are inevitable. Does overcoming bias necessitate no norms? The very idea that we can be free of bias sounds unrealistic.
Still, I'm interested in seeing where you're trying to take this.
I completely disagree that Robin means to exclude patient motivations.
Or maybe people are correctly being Bayseian and figuring out that the probability is high that you're trying to shame them about frogs and rubbing rocks. You're not--but they don't know that, and based on the information they do know, their reaction is rational.
It's like being a Nigerian prince who really does need to deposit some money to someone's bank account. If they disbelieve you and delete your email, they're being completely rational, even if you're telling the truth.
Fear of litigation could also be a motivation.
What do you mean when you say,“X is not about Y” is not about you"?
So what's the problem?
One of the main sources of bias (I think the main source) is subconscious illicit motivation. Intellectuals should welcome attention to their illicit motives.
[I'm waiting to read the chapter on author biases in Robin's em book. Will Robin discuss his potential illicit motives?]
Robin is actually right when you look at the bigger picture. A lot of society's resources are wasted on medicine and treatments for things that can either not be cured or would just go away if people sat it out, resting. In addition a lot of resources are spent trying to extend the lives of very old or very sick people by marginal amounts. This is true of all rich and medium income countries, though some are worse than others. Wanting to "care" even when "care" is harmful, useless or wasteful compared to some other way you could be helping society is a big motivator for such health care systems.
Right. But Robin is talking about the motivations of providers and funders and supporters of the medical system, not the motivations of patients.
But the slogan "Medicine isn't about health" doesn't make that clear.
I think you are probably right. For example: When I was sick two weeks ago, I went to the doctor because of my terrible cough and other symptoms. That was medicine for health. Thus my thinking on the matter when I hear "medicine isn’t about health" is not that I am special, but that Robin is wrong.
Historically, politics has been mostly about distribution. Naturally under those circumstances it makes sense for people to support their group and not push for policies that benefit society as a whole. Perhaps, for the first part of the 20th century, society-wide improvements from better policy were large enough that distributional issues were secondary. Perhaps. But, if so, that period is over. For the the past 40 years, there have been large improvements in productivity - but they've essentially all been captured by rentiers. We are currently in a situation where distribution is more important than policy, and so people should be expected to support their groups.
The Meteuphoric blog recently committed the "me fallacy." [I don't think I completely appreciated Robin's point until I read Katja Grace's piece.]
The bias is the exclusive use of introspective data, oblivious to the reality that, if a given anti-idealist claim applies to an individual, he or she will initially resist.
The bias involves the determined use of the inside view.
Not to speak of its grandiose quality.
It's direct all right. Directly in the opposite direction :)
I agree that the analogy is not as direct as one might like.