If I really sat down and worked out my script there’d be new bits scribbled in different colour inks every day I read this blog. It would end up as a grotesque flow diagram with nested lists based on different outcomes to other lists.
I don’t think consciously keeping track of even a 6 point formal script each time I read an article would work out. I’d have less brain bandwidth left to actually think about it and I’d be less likely to notice things not on the list (no useable script will cover everything).
I do think it’s a good idea to occasionally figure out what script you’re implicitly following (kind of like you have) and look at tweaking it when it leads you astray, then consciously paying attention to this tweak till it becomes second nature. But not the whole list!
I tried formalizing everything, ended up with a grotesque and incomplete flowchart, and decided to make the formalized procedure less precise, by hiding all that complexity behind the word “decide” in the last step. I believe the actual procedure which implements that process is hard wired, and is something like:
Generate reasons for and against an action, and a weight for each.
Compute the total weights of the reasons for and against
Compare the difference between the weights to a threshold. Compare the ratio between the weights to a different threshold. If both thresholds are met, decide in favor. If neither threshold is met, decide against. Otherwise go back to generating reasons.
The first step (generating reasons) is sort of like exemplar selection and sort of like memory lookup, and is therefore greatly influenced by priming certain concepts beforehand.
I’m quite impressed by the post. I think it’s potentially valuable for helping to decode about how we think about reading articles, and that using it sometimes would be a useful exercise. I’m just not convinced about forming a habit of keeping at the front of my mind such a script whenever one encounters a fallacy.
As I said, I wouldn’t want to consciously do such a thing. But our brains are a messy spaghetti-coded hack, with vital systems inherited from reptiles, written by a blind idiot, and not exactly built for objectively debating how to override nature and de-bias itself. An informal and grotesque flow diagram is what I’d expect to get if I tried to formalize what my mind was really up to when trying to rationally judge and study these posts.
Ah. Yes, I’m pretty sure this blog and her older sister have made me more rational since I clumsily stumbled into the latter, and that’s probably involved the informal flow diagrams in my head becoming a little less grotesque through maintenance.
If I really sat down and worked out my script there’d be new bits scribbled in different colour inks every day I read this blog. It would end up as a grotesque flow diagram with nested lists based on different outcomes to other lists.
I don’t think consciously keeping track of even a 6 point formal script each time I read an article would work out. I’d have less brain bandwidth left to actually think about it and I’d be less likely to notice things not on the list (no useable script will cover everything).
I do think it’s a good idea to occasionally figure out what script you’re implicitly following (kind of like you have) and look at tweaking it when it leads you astray, then consciously paying attention to this tweak till it becomes second nature. But not the whole list!
I tried formalizing everything, ended up with a grotesque and incomplete flowchart, and decided to make the formalized procedure less precise, by hiding all that complexity behind the word “decide” in the last step. I believe the actual procedure which implements that process is hard wired, and is something like:
Generate reasons for and against an action, and a weight for each.
Compute the total weights of the reasons for and against
Compare the difference between the weights to a threshold. Compare the ratio between the weights to a different threshold. If both thresholds are met, decide in favor. If neither threshold is met, decide against. Otherwise go back to generating reasons.
The first step (generating reasons) is sort of like exemplar selection and sort of like memory lookup, and is therefore greatly influenced by priming certain concepts beforehand.
I’m quite impressed by the post. I think it’s potentially valuable for helping to decode about how we think about reading articles, and that using it sometimes would be a useful exercise. I’m just not convinced about forming a habit of keeping at the front of my mind such a script whenever one encounters a fallacy.
Would you claim that by reading this blog and maintaining an informal and “grotesque” flow diagram in your head, you are growing more rational?
As I said, I wouldn’t want to consciously do such a thing. But our brains are a messy spaghetti-coded hack, with vital systems inherited from reptiles, written by a blind idiot, and not exactly built for objectively debating how to override nature and de-bias itself. An informal and grotesque flow diagram is what I’d expect to get if I tried to formalize what my mind was really up to when trying to rationally judge and study these posts.
I agree with this post completely.
However, you didn’t answer my question. I asked “Would you claim that you are growing more rational?”
Ah. Yes, I’m pretty sure this blog and her older sister have made me more rational since I clumsily stumbled into the latter, and that’s probably involved the informal flow diagrams in my head becoming a little less grotesque through maintenance.