Disagreement Experiment
A lab experiment induces common priors, tells each person of the actions of others, and yet still finds disagreement, in conflict with predictions from common knowledge of rationality:
We look at choices in round 1, when individuals should still maintain common priors, being indifferent about the true state. Nonetheless, we see that about 20% of the sample erroneously disagrees and favors one point of view. Moreover, while other errors tend to diminish as the experiment progresses, the fraction making this type of error is nearly constant. One may interpret disagreement in this case as evidence of erroneous or nonrational choices.
Next, we look at the final round where information about disagreement is made public and, under common knowledge of rationality, should be sufficient to eliminate disagreement. Here we find that individuals weigh their own information more than twice that of the five others in their group. When we look separately at those who err by disagreeing in round 1, we find that these people weigh their own information more than 10 times that of others, putting virtually no stock in public information. This indicates a different type of error, that is, a failure of some individuals to learn from each other. This error is quite large and for a nontrivial minority of the population.
Setting aside the subjects who make systematic errors, we find that individuals still put 50% more weight on their own information than they do on the information revealed through the actions of others, although this difference is not statistically significant. (more)
So in this experiment there is a bottom quintile of idiots, and everyone else seems roughly accurate in discounting the opinions of a pool of others containing such idiots. So in this experiment it seems the main reason people think they are better than others is that everyone, even idiots, don’t think they are idiots. I wonder how behavior would change if everyone was shown clearly that the idiots were no longer participating.
Dave, your statements seemed to be predicated on using a disagreement about AGW to label someone an “idiot”. Labeling someone an idiot (or not) is not my goal or the goal of my statements at all. My goal is for policy makers to have a correct understanding of reality so that a correct understanding of reality will be used to inform policy so that correctly informed policy will lead to a more prosperous and better world.
My very strong belief is that reality based policy is the best policy, and policies that are reality based have the least total bias against stakeholders. Non-reality based policies favor particular special interests at the expense of others.
I appreciate that Conservatives view the world differently than I do. I try to view the world through the lens of reality; of facts and logic. Conservatives tend to view the world by believing what people with high social status in that particular social hierarchy tell them. Social status in the Conservative social hierarchy is about position in the hierarchy. In a Conservative social hierarchy, people can be marginalized by high status Conservatives calling them idiots. People can become high status Conservatives by having or paying a lot of money to other Conservatives or by Conservatives saying that they are high status. The nature of Conservatism is to favor the existing social power structure, even (or especially) if it is wrong.
I don't disbelieve people because I think they are idiots, I disbelieve people because what they are saying doesn't correspond with reality and then I infer that they are idiots (or evil) for believing (or pretending) that it does.
What people believe and what people say has no influence on what actual reality is. Conservatives have a hard time accepting that because their world view is so tied-up with status and signaling on the social status hierarchy, not in trying to figure out what reality is actually like.
Thanks for the reply. You are clearly expressing your opinion. I will continue reading your posts.