When I visited Oxford a few weeks ago I brought up a subject which has been bugging me lately – we don’t understand what makes research topics “silly.” For example: Apparently most people the world over think aliens exist, think searches might find them, think that would be a very important discovery, but think the subject is way too silly to justify government funding.
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.
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?
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.)
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...
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.
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.
Compiling the list so far seems to suggest four categories of silliness:
Epistemic silliness:Not common sense/low prior probabilityApparently obviously/trivially wrong (or right)Evidence similar cases involve fraud/does not workNot 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/categoriesSnobberyWrong branding
Political silliness:Lack of critical mass giving supportPolitically impossibleSacred 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.
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. ...
>>> 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.
Agree with the concepts of "yuk" and "silly" above. There is also the problem when people have a lot invested in a particular line of thinking or political position. There is a strong bias toward dominant positions on settled issues. For example, being for selling organs is still a pretty whacky position. Not so whacky as 15 years ago, when I first thought encountered the issue, gave it some thought, and came to the whacky conclusion, but still enough to raise eyebrows at the dinner table. Or take "price gouging" in times of crisis, like raising the price of gas during a hurricane. One tine I defended the price gougers at the dinner table, my Dad (a good Republican) said I was a disgrace to my last name for even considering the idea that there could be benefits. One thing I've concluded is that you have to be a different kind of cat -- a very different kind of cat -- to even dig into the opposite sides of so-called settled issues. It's probably a kind of specialization, in that when you see how one of these settled issues breaks down, you start seeing how a lot of settled issues break down. And then you find yourself drawn to settled issues that beg to be broken down. And so, yeah, your curiosity bias makes the continual rebukes of your interests seem like groundhog day.
I think ideas are declared "silly" in Robin Hanson's sense when (1) they collide with "common sense" <en>and (2) there isn't yet an established body of experts commanding enough authority to make those ideas respectable. Action at a distance, string theory and the Everett interpretation of Quantum Mechanics all do violence to various commonsensical views about the world, but they are not generally thought to be silly because there are sufficiently many reputable physicists reassuring the rest of us that these views are worth taking seriously. By contrast, the simulation hypothesis, futarchy, or the abolitionist project are generally laughed out of court because as well as "not making sense" they are advocated by a tiny minority of enthusiasts.
Of course, the basic question posed by Robin will remain unanswered until we specify what common sense is and hence what views offend it. But I think the notion of common sense lends itself more naturally to investigation than the elusive notion of "silliness".
"People consider things silly if they feel that these things are useless for propagating their own genes (or someone else's genes, thanks to mirror neurons) into future generations in their own lifetime. [graf break] Examples of silliness: [...] none of these things will attract reproductive females to you [...]"
Of course people want to be healthy and sexually satisfied, but no one actually cares about fitness per se. "Adaptation-executers, not ..." &c. Also, not everyone is seeking reproductive females.
I think the problem with Futarchy (besides the name) is that it doesn't address the issues people have with government. There's a bias involved. I think, regardless of the availability of alternative non-character-centric solutions, people always see institutional problems in terms of character. Thus, the only legitimate (none silly) change we can make in government is getting the right people in power; the only legitimate change we can make in education is finding better teachers; the only legitimate change we can make in medicine involves the quality of medical practitioners; etc. When it comes to institutions of this nature there always seems to be an artificial barrier to non-character-centric solutions. So, while alternative solutions may be perceived as workable, they're always trumped by the need for "better" leaders/teachers/doctors/etc.
I doubt that there is one common factor in all cases; things are thought to be silly for many different reasons, in many cases simply by association with something else which is thought to be silly, such as science fiction.
I didn't realize that people thought that futarchy is silly. But given that they do, I would suggest that there is one simple reason: the name "futarchy," which strikes me as a little silly, for reasons unintelligible to me. I suspect that if you give up giving the thing a name and simply describe it in a roundabout way, people might be less likely to think of it 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.
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!
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.)
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...
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.
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.
Compiling the list so far seems to suggest four categories of silliness:
Epistemic silliness:Not common sense/low prior probabilityApparently obviously/trivially wrong (or right)Evidence similar cases involve fraud/does not workNot 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/categoriesSnobberyWrong branding
Political silliness:Lack of critical mass giving supportPolitically impossibleSacred 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.
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. ...
>>> 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.
Agree with the concepts of "yuk" and "silly" above. There is also the problem when people have a lot invested in a particular line of thinking or political position. There is a strong bias toward dominant positions on settled issues. For example, being for selling organs is still a pretty whacky position. Not so whacky as 15 years ago, when I first thought encountered the issue, gave it some thought, and came to the whacky conclusion, but still enough to raise eyebrows at the dinner table. Or take "price gouging" in times of crisis, like raising the price of gas during a hurricane. One tine I defended the price gougers at the dinner table, my Dad (a good Republican) said I was a disgrace to my last name for even considering the idea that there could be benefits. One thing I've concluded is that you have to be a different kind of cat -- a very different kind of cat -- to even dig into the opposite sides of so-called settled issues. It's probably a kind of specialization, in that when you see how one of these settled issues breaks down, you start seeing how a lot of settled issues break down. And then you find yourself drawn to settled issues that beg to be broken down. And so, yeah, your curiosity bias makes the continual rebukes of your interests seem like groundhog day.
I think ideas are declared "silly" in Robin Hanson's sense when (1) they collide with "common sense" <en>and (2) there isn't yet an established body of experts commanding enough authority to make those ideas respectable. Action at a distance, string theory and the Everett interpretation of Quantum Mechanics all do violence to various commonsensical views about the world, but they are not generally thought to be silly because there are sufficiently many reputable physicists reassuring the rest of us that these views are worth taking seriously. By contrast, the simulation hypothesis, futarchy, or the abolitionist project are generally laughed out of court because as well as "not making sense" they are advocated by a tiny minority of enthusiasts.
Of course, the basic question posed by Robin will remain unanswered until we specify what common sense is and hence what views offend it. But I think the notion of common sense lends itself more naturally to investigation than the elusive notion of "silliness".
"People consider things silly if they feel that these things are useless for propagating their own genes (or someone else's genes, thanks to mirror neurons) into future generations in their own lifetime. [graf break] Examples of silliness: [...] none of these things will attract reproductive females to you [...]"
Of course people want to be healthy and sexually satisfied, but no one actually cares about fitness per se. "Adaptation-executers, not ..." &c. Also, not everyone is seeking reproductive females.
I think the problem with Futarchy (besides the name) is that it doesn't address the issues people have with government. There's a bias involved. I think, regardless of the availability of alternative non-character-centric solutions, people always see institutional problems in terms of character. Thus, the only legitimate (none silly) change we can make in government is getting the right people in power; the only legitimate change we can make in education is finding better teachers; the only legitimate change we can make in medicine involves the quality of medical practitioners; etc. When it comes to institutions of this nature there always seems to be an artificial barrier to non-character-centric solutions. So, while alternative solutions may be perceived as workable, they're always trumped by the need for "better" leaders/teachers/doctors/etc.
Reminded me of this -- McCain is not happy about "silly" project like studying bear DNA
http://www.sciam.com/articl...
This example is the silliness idea taken to extremes...
I think Unknown has a good point. I would categorize it as branding. Prediction-market based decision-analysis might be a wonky enough renaming.
I doubt that there is one common factor in all cases; things are thought to be silly for many different reasons, in many cases simply by association with something else which is thought to be silly, such as science fiction.
I didn't realize that people thought that futarchy is silly. But given that they do, I would suggest that there is one simple reason: the name "futarchy," which strikes me as a little silly, for reasons unintelligible to me. I suspect that if you give up giving the thing a name and simply describe it in a roundabout way, people might be less likely to think of it as silly.