Lack of diversity may be a problem because then you’ve got a lower chance of getting the right answer somewhere in there. It doesn’t mean that everyone is thinking correctly. Do you subscribe to truth relativism? Otherwise, what could be thought about that doesn’t have a correct answer?
If everyone is thinking in the same way, you have a good result only if that one way is the correct way. If there are a variety of different ways, all of which appear good, they will produce varying proposals which can be considered for their direct practical consequences, and when the different methods come into conflict, all can be tested and potentially improved.
You might object that you have deduced the correct way of thinking, and therefore you do not need to be concerned with this. Two counter-arguments: 1) You are most likely overconfident, and the consequences of overconfidently removing all other methods of thinking are likely to be a catastrophic Black Swan when an unseen flaw hits you. 2) To the best of our knowledge, the objectively correct way of thinking is AIXI, which is literally unimplementable.
A disagreement on any of those questions reduces to either incorrect reasoning or differing preferences. People having identical preferences may be uncommon, but I don’t think you can say it means someone isn’t thinking.
Risk management through diversification is a totally different use of the word diversification, and that can be followed by a single person also; I don’t have to have two contradictory opinions to not invest all my money/resources/time in one basket.
Of the 3 examples you mentioned:
1 is not something people actively “think” about, but is in a sense “automatic”, although there is disagreement.
If you feel 2 doesn’t have a correct answer, then it seems you’re endorsing some form of moral nihilism, in which case the question is meaningless. (Note: this is the position which I myself hold.)
For 3, people are not actually looking for the “best” answer; they want a satisfactory answer. There is a best answer, but it’s usually not worth the effort to find. (For any sufficiently complicated problem, of course.) There may be multiple satisfactory answers, but it’s not a sign that someone isn’t thinking if everyone comes up with the same satisfactory answer.
Risk management through diversification is a totally different use of the word diversification
Totally different than what?
1 is not something people actively “think” about
Sure they do, but to make it more stark let me change it a bit: “Am I pretty?”
More generally, this example represents the whole class of subjective opinions.
If you feel 2 doesn’t have a correct answer, then it seems you’re endorsing some form of moral nihilism
Not quite, just rejecting moral realism is quite sufficient here. But in any case, people do think about it, in different ways, and I don’t know how would one determine what is a “correct” answer.
This example represents the distinction between descriptive and normative.
For 3, people are not actually looking for the “best” answer; they want a satisfactory answer.
Also, not quite. People do want the best answer, it’s just that they are often satisfied with a good-enough answer. However the question of what is “best” is a hard one and in many cases there is no single correct answer—the optimality is conditional on certain parameters.
This example represents the individuality of many “correct” answers—what is correct depends on the person.
Diversity of opinions is helpful for risk management, specifically the risk that you commit all your resources to the single idea that turns out to be wrong. This is commonly known as “don’t put all your eggs into one basket”. Risk management is not only about money.
if you don’t know how to determine a correct answer, there’s not much to think about until you do.
I strongly disagree. In fact, figuring out how would you recognize a correct answer if it happens to bite you on the ass is the major thing to think about for many problems.
The benefit I mentioned above of diversity (higher chance of getting the right answer) is the same thing as what you’re talking about then, not like you said :”That, too, but there are other issues as well”. If you can recognize the correct answer when you see it, then the use of diversity is to increase your chances of getting the right answer.
So are we down to the only correct use of the original quote is when people aren’t sure how to recognize a correct answer?
Nope. The thing is, it’s not a “correct”—“not correct” binary dilemma. For any reasonably complex problem there might be a single “correct” answer (provided what you consider optimal is fully specified) and a lot of different “technically not correct” answers. Those “technically not correct” answers are all different and will rise to different consequences. They are not the same—and if getting the “technically correct” answer is unlikely, you do care about which “incorrect” answers you’ll end up using.
Basically, diversification helps with dealing with the risks of having to accept “technically not correct” answers because the technically correct one is out of reach.
Why? Thinking is not limited to answering well-defined questions about empirical reality.
As a practical matter, I think lack of diversity in thinking is a bigger problem than too much diversity.
Lack of diversity may be a problem because then you’ve got a lower chance of getting the right answer somewhere in there. It doesn’t mean that everyone is thinking correctly. Do you subscribe to truth relativism? Otherwise, what could be thought about that doesn’t have a correct answer?
If everyone is thinking in the same way, you have a good result only if that one way is the correct way. If there are a variety of different ways, all of which appear good, they will produce varying proposals which can be considered for their direct practical consequences, and when the different methods come into conflict, all can be tested and potentially improved.
You might object that you have deduced the correct way of thinking, and therefore you do not need to be concerned with this. Two counter-arguments: 1) You are most likely overconfident, and the consequences of overconfidently removing all other methods of thinking are likely to be a catastrophic Black Swan when an unseen flaw hits you. 2) To the best of our knowledge, the objectively correct way of thinking is AIXI, which is literally unimplementable.
That, too, but there are other issues as well—e.g. risk management through diversification.
Is she pretty?
Should I be a vegetarian?
What’s the best way of tackling that problem?
A disagreement on any of those questions reduces to either incorrect reasoning or differing preferences. People having identical preferences may be uncommon, but I don’t think you can say it means someone isn’t thinking.
The issue discussed isn’t whether it is a problem that some people might think (or prefer) alike. The issue is (emphasis mine):
Risk management through diversification is a totally different use of the word diversification, and that can be followed by a single person also; I don’t have to have two contradictory opinions to not invest all my money/resources/time in one basket.
Of the 3 examples you mentioned:
1 is not something people actively “think” about, but is in a sense “automatic”, although there is disagreement.
If you feel 2 doesn’t have a correct answer, then it seems you’re endorsing some form of moral nihilism, in which case the question is meaningless. (Note: this is the position which I myself hold.)
For 3, people are not actually looking for the “best” answer; they want a satisfactory answer. There is a best answer, but it’s usually not worth the effort to find. (For any sufficiently complicated problem, of course.) There may be multiple satisfactory answers, but it’s not a sign that someone isn’t thinking if everyone comes up with the same satisfactory answer.
Totally different than what?
Sure they do, but to make it more stark let me change it a bit: “Am I pretty?”
More generally, this example represents the whole class of subjective opinions.
Not quite, just rejecting moral realism is quite sufficient here. But in any case, people do think about it, in different ways, and I don’t know how would one determine what is a “correct” answer.
This example represents the distinction between descriptive and normative.
Also, not quite. People do want the best answer, it’s just that they are often satisfied with a good-enough answer. However the question of what is “best” is a hard one and in many cases there is no single correct answer—the optimality is conditional on certain parameters.
This example represents the individuality of many “correct” answers—what is correct depends on the person.
We were talking about diversity of opinions, and you switched to talking about diversity for risk management.
Also, if you don’t know how to determine a correct answer, there’s not much to think about until you do.
Diversity of opinions is helpful for risk management, specifically the risk that you commit all your resources to the single idea that turns out to be wrong. This is commonly known as “don’t put all your eggs into one basket”. Risk management is not only about money.
I strongly disagree. In fact, figuring out how would you recognize a correct answer if it happens to bite you on the ass is the major thing to think about for many problems.
The benefit I mentioned above of diversity (higher chance of getting the right answer) is the same thing as what you’re talking about then, not like you said :”That, too, but there are other issues as well”. If you can recognize the correct answer when you see it, then the use of diversity is to increase your chances of getting the right answer.
So are we down to the only correct use of the original quote is when people aren’t sure how to recognize a correct answer?
Nope. The thing is, it’s not a “correct”—“not correct” binary dilemma. For any reasonably complex problem there might be a single “correct” answer (provided what you consider optimal is fully specified) and a lot of different “technically not correct” answers. Those “technically not correct” answers are all different and will rise to different consequences. They are not the same—and if getting the “technically correct” answer is unlikely, you do care about which “incorrect” answers you’ll end up using.
Basically, diversification helps with dealing with the risks of having to accept “technically not correct” answers because the technically correct one is out of reach.