I spend a lot of time thinking about politics, and I find it hugely beneficial to force myself into assigning probabilities to my predictions. It’s silly, on the one hand, to intone “There is a 90% probability that this behaviour will continue” with the sureity of a Vulcan—my numbers are very, very poorly calibrated—but when I actually sit back to consider “How certain am I of this?” it helps remind me that I don’t know most of the time. This can motivate me to search for further evidence—and since I’m explicitly researching from a position of ignorance, I’m less prone to confirmation bias.
A second technique I employ is the Drake Equation to avoid the conjunction fallacy—I’ll always try and boil the elements down to the individual events, and multiply the probabilities. An interesting side effect of this is that it destroys almost every ideological movement—I’m thinking of environmentalism in particular. [EG Anthropic global warming X Catastrophic global warming X Reversability X (Prius+Carbon capture are net positives)] There are no easy solutions.
Let me break this down and see if I understand you.
Every ideological movement makes specific factual predictions. I think I agree with that. Conservatives will tell you that if we don’t do X, disaster will result. Liberals ditto. Marxists ditto. Gun control fanatics and gun nuts ditto. OK.
Those predictions are less likely to be correct than we tend to believe (conjunction fallacy). Agreed.
So I want to agree with you here.
But I don’t see how the conclusion can be correct, because being moderate (avoiding the ideologues) is also a form of political ideology that makes specific predictions. “If we continue to muddle through and ignore the ideologues on all sides, things will be more or less ok” is also a prediction, isn’t it?
I think that Moderatism—by my sloppy definition—would also qualify as one of these ideological movements, the difference being that its core premise is “Polite dinner conversation is the be-all-end-all to politics: don’t get controversial!”
Idealogical movements tend to start off with One Great Idea, which happily explains about 70% of reality by its heuristic, and then covers up the other 30% with ‘Just So’ explanations. Regardless of their roots, they become creatures designed for mass appeal—rather than rationalistic theories to explain reality.
Ignoring the party-specific heuristics, and looking at the tenets themselves, I come across some ideas which I’m extremely certain of, and are often the most radical within the movement—crazy ideas which have trouble flowering without the supporting manure of the rest of the ideology.
For instance, on the fringe Right:
-Gay sex is a major health hazard, given the infection rates of HIV (roughly 700 times as dangerous as straight sex)
-There are almost certainly intellectual and behavioural differences between the races
-Patriarchal forces are far less damaging than Feminist ideology
On the fringe Left
-Institutional violence is a distinct reality, with many specific examples which can be pointed to
-There is no line in the sand between legal drugs and illegal drugs; you cannot differentiate between the two; heroin should be legal
-The primacy of individual liberty is the only sane way to organize a society
Every camp has a few things that it’s right about—Marxists, Anarchists, Statists, et cetera—but the individual tenets are extremely uncomfortable to hold or argue without (for example) buying into all of the comfortable delusions that Sarah Palin exemplifies (if you’re a Conservative). It’s easy to shout “I am an anti-Statist! Racism is bad! Borders and immigration laws are wrong!” It’s far more difficult to say “I’m an anti-Statist, and racism is a poor heuristic, but importing people with no skills, and no cultural history of Classical Liberalism is a danger to our society.”
I guess what I’m saying is that while this approach necessarily dissolves radical ideologies it doesn’t necessarily affect radical ideas.
Small note: If you want P(Prius is net positive), you should try P(AGW)×P(prius|AGW) + P(not AGW)×P(prius|not AGW). I.e. use the sum rule too, otherwise you end up calculating a big conditional probability instead of the total probability.
I spend a lot of time thinking about politics, and I find it hugely beneficial to force myself into assigning probabilities to my predictions. It’s silly, on the one hand, to intone “There is a 90% probability that this behaviour will continue” with the sureity of a Vulcan—my numbers are very, very poorly calibrated—but when I actually sit back to consider “How certain am I of this?” it helps remind me that I don’t know most of the time. This can motivate me to search for further evidence—and since I’m explicitly researching from a position of ignorance, I’m less prone to confirmation bias.
A second technique I employ is the Drake Equation to avoid the conjunction fallacy—I’ll always try and boil the elements down to the individual events, and multiply the probabilities. An interesting side effect of this is that it destroys almost every ideological movement—I’m thinking of environmentalism in particular. [EG Anthropic global warming X Catastrophic global warming X Reversability X (Prius+Carbon capture are net positives)] There are no easy solutions.
Let me break this down and see if I understand you.
Every ideological movement makes specific factual predictions. I think I agree with that. Conservatives will tell you that if we don’t do X, disaster will result. Liberals ditto. Marxists ditto. Gun control fanatics and gun nuts ditto. OK.
Those predictions are less likely to be correct than we tend to believe (conjunction fallacy). Agreed.
So I want to agree with you here.
But I don’t see how the conclusion can be correct, because being moderate (avoiding the ideologues) is also a form of political ideology that makes specific predictions. “If we continue to muddle through and ignore the ideologues on all sides, things will be more or less ok” is also a prediction, isn’t it?
Great point.
I think that Moderatism—by my sloppy definition—would also qualify as one of these ideological movements, the difference being that its core premise is “Polite dinner conversation is the be-all-end-all to politics: don’t get controversial!”
Idealogical movements tend to start off with One Great Idea, which happily explains about 70% of reality by its heuristic, and then covers up the other 30% with ‘Just So’ explanations. Regardless of their roots, they become creatures designed for mass appeal—rather than rationalistic theories to explain reality.
Ignoring the party-specific heuristics, and looking at the tenets themselves, I come across some ideas which I’m extremely certain of, and are often the most radical within the movement—crazy ideas which have trouble flowering without the supporting manure of the rest of the ideology.
For instance, on the fringe Right: -Gay sex is a major health hazard, given the infection rates of HIV (roughly 700 times as dangerous as straight sex) -There are almost certainly intellectual and behavioural differences between the races -Patriarchal forces are far less damaging than Feminist ideology
On the fringe Left -Institutional violence is a distinct reality, with many specific examples which can be pointed to -There is no line in the sand between legal drugs and illegal drugs; you cannot differentiate between the two; heroin should be legal -The primacy of individual liberty is the only sane way to organize a society
Every camp has a few things that it’s right about—Marxists, Anarchists, Statists, et cetera—but the individual tenets are extremely uncomfortable to hold or argue without (for example) buying into all of the comfortable delusions that Sarah Palin exemplifies (if you’re a Conservative). It’s easy to shout “I am an anti-Statist! Racism is bad! Borders and immigration laws are wrong!” It’s far more difficult to say “I’m an anti-Statist, and racism is a poor heuristic, but importing people with no skills, and no cultural history of Classical Liberalism is a danger to our society.”
I guess what I’m saying is that while this approach necessarily dissolves radical ideologies it doesn’t necessarily affect radical ideas.
Small note: If you want P(Prius is net positive), you should try P(AGW)×P(prius|AGW) + P(not AGW)×P(prius|not AGW). I.e. use the sum rule too, otherwise you end up calculating a big conditional probability instead of the total probability.