Hanson finds fascinating stuff. I continue to insist that the primary failing of the LessWrong and Moldbuggian spaces is the same as the primary failing of Paul Krugman: epistemological insularity, with a failure to update on non-insider information. Hanson finds the mechanism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
From the paper:
If our multi-dimensional-information theory is correct, it changes the focus of the puzzle about belief polarization. Rather than ask what are the causes of polarization, this suggests that instead we should ask why they may have di erent views of the
world and why they don't share all the information that shaped their individual views? What keeps them from communicating enough to draw their "world views" together? That is, why would they doubt rationality of others?
Gosh, what does keep us from sharing our world views? Perhaps the fact that it took us 40 years to form them? How many bytes is my worldview, how do I upload it, and how thick of a cable connects to your brain-plug? Or could it be that my worldview is partially shaped by all sorts of private experiences? Or maybe it is the fact that many of our ideas are encoded in our brains only as neural weights, and not as specific, articulable memories?
Indeed...it took us 40 years to form our worldview...and my long-standing, taoist-inspired opinion here is... that's good behavior for your first 35-40 years. Build a strong worldview...if you don't...you're easily bamboozled.
But after 35-40 years, you really ought to tone down your certainty in your own worldview by a large factor. Other smart people have built worldviews too...and though they are different, you have little (valid, meta-) reason to believe others' worldviews are less correct than yours.
you have little (valid, meta-) reason to believe others' worldviews are less correct than yours.
Oh I can assert epistemic humility as well as the next guy. Hume was right: nobody knows anything and we've no wholly trustworthy basis to assert otherwise!
But! Of course there is reason to believe my views are more correct: I am a contrarian by nature, and my views are therefore atypically based on my own experience, learning, and philosophical work, including putting them up against the views of the vast majority in internet cage-fights. Me against the mob, mano a mano in the virtual octagon. Or sometimes me against a fellow contrarian. Some of my views have changed via this method; the survivors are a hardy breed of gladiator.
As versus having conventional, received views, as are 98% of the views held by 98% of the people, which have never been stress tested.
Post a Comment