•You didn’t know the names of the people commenting.
I’m not sure that’s the way to put it, but let me ask you this: How much stock do you put in the unsupported assertion of an anonymous person on the internet?
•You have faith that you’re more reliable than those people.
Please quote me where I made that assertion.
•You would lose your job if you weren’t so great at seeing through bullshit.
Well I need to be decent at a minimum. But basically yeah. I assess cases day in and day out. That’s a huge advantage. I know that I’m much better than I was 15 years ago, even though I was just as smart then as I am now.
•You have often failed to see through bullshit.
Sure, getting this kind of feedback is a good way to improve one’s judgment. Do you seriously disagree?
Boy was Upton Sinclair ever right.
:shrug: I agree, but employment is sadly not the only motivator for self-deception. Let me ask you this:
Do you agree that the tone of your post is a bit nasty?
I’m not sure that’s the way to put it, but let me ask you this: How much stock do you put in the unsupported assertion of an anonymous person on the internet?
How much stock do you put in the supported assertion of an anonymous person on the internet? I think that’s a more relevant question here. To what degree does a poster’s anonymity detract from his argument?
How much stock do you put in the supported assertion of an anonymous person on the internet?
Quite a lot. But I don’t think that’s the right question. See, the basic argument being made is that even though I have considered Mr. Anonymous’ arguments and decided they were without merit, I should still be significantly less certain of my position simply because a number of these anonymous people (making basically the same weak arguments) disagree with me. Did I misunderstand the argument being made?
the basic argument being made is that even though I have considered Mr. Anonymous’ arguments and decided they were without merit, I should still be significantly less certain of my position simply because a number of these anonymous people (making basically the same weak arguments) disagree with me. Did I misunderstand the argument being made?
Yes. The point is that in “deciding [the arguments] were without merit”, you didn’t take sufficient account of the quality (not merely the quantity, by the way) of the people making them.
If a high-quality person says “X is true”, you might be able to dismiss it if you have sufficient knowledge. But if they say “X is true because of A,B, and C”, you can’t dismiss X without also dismissing A, B, and C. And here the problem is with your judgement about A, B, and C, not (just) your judgement about X.
you didn’t take sufficient account of the quality (not merely the quantity, by the way) of the people making them.
I’m pretty confident that I did. If you see a problem with the arguments I made back in the original thread, please feel free to respond (preferably there) and I’m happy to consider your point in good faith.
To the extent that you don’t think that you’re more reliable than those people, you’re engaging in a treatment of evidence that is simply wrong. The fact of someone’s belief is evidence weighted according to the reliability of their mechanisms for establishing belief. That’s the principle behind Aumann’s Agreement Theorem.
I’m not sure I understand your point. My belief that I have superior judgment in this area is based on actual knowledge about myself and my experiences. “Faith” implies that there is no such basis.
I don’t recall claiming or implying that I was basing my assessment on “faith,” but I could be wrong. Which is why I am giving loqi a chance to back up his statement.
I’m not sure I understand your point. My belief that I have superior judgment in this area is based on actual knowledge about myself and my experiences.
But not knowledge of the other commenters and their experiences, whom you seem to have lumped into the reference class of “anonymous internet commenters,” which you assign a low assessment of competence.
If you want to find a lot of people with significant expertise in rendering judgment under uncertainty, I think this is a pretty good place to look.
If you want to find a lot of people with significant expertise in rendering judgment under uncertainty, I think this is a pretty good place to look.
What evidence I have seen does not give me much confidence in the critical thinking ability of posters here as a group, to put it politely. Not much different from “anonymous internet posters” in general.
What evidence I have seen does not give me much confidence in the critical thinking ability of posters here as a group, to put it politely. Not much different from “anonymous internet posters” in general.
Nobody seems to have answered this question directly, though it seems easy...
•You have faith that you’re more reliable than those people.
Please quote me where I made that assertion.
See the direct parent of the post you were replying to (which I think should have been obvious since it was presented as a summary):
It’s a combination of having little respect for the opinions of anonymous internet posters as well as faith in my own ability to look at incomplete evidence concerning real world disputes and draw reasonable conclusions.
Also, don’t you at least see the tension between:
You would lose your job if you weren’t so great at seeing through bullshit.
You have often failed to see through bullshit.
It seems the logical conclusion is that you’ve lost your job.
Ok, so you agree that in the exact post where I used the word “faith,” I summarized the factual basis for confidence in my own judgment?
No, I don’t particularly care to parse all that enough to agree to anything. I was just answering your question since it seemed like nobody else had bothered to. People seem to have an odd problem answering questions with obvious-seeming answers, even though they are often helpful to people. For example, the other day on aiqus someone was asking how to type the | symbol, and the answer was straightforwardly a series of directions starting from locating the “Enter” key on a US keyboard. It turned out to be very helpful to the OP, as there was a piece of lint blocking the | symbol.. I was pleasantly surprised that the OP did not merely become the subject of ridicule, as I’ve often seen with ‘obvious’ seeming questions in other contexts.
Let me ask you basically the same question I asked the other poster:
No, I don’t particularly care to parse all that enough to agree to anything.
Suit yourself, but you will be missing the problem with loqi’s statement.
No thanks.
Again, it’s your choice. But I think that answering the question will help you to see why it’s not necessarily a contradiction to (1) have one’s livelihood depend on making good judgments; and (2) regularly make judgments which turn out to be wrong.
But I think that answering the question will help you to see why it’s not necessarily a contradiction
I saw that. That’s why I used the word ‘tension’ rather than the word ‘contradiction’.
(Though looking for a reference for how the word ‘tension’ is used in the discipline of Philosophy, I can’t seem to find anything online—it’s used extensively on SEP, and there was a book written in 1936 on the word’s proper use, but the sense used in Philosophy doesn’t even make it into OED).
A good rule of thumb: If it looks like someone is making an obviously stupid mistake, you’re probably misunderstanding them. It’s a benefit of the principle of charity.
I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that you knew all along that there wasn’t contradiction; that you were simply observing that there might appear to be a contradiction to some people?
Are you saying that you knew all along that there wasn’t contradiction
Yes
Are you saying that … you were simply observing that there might appear to be a contradiction to some people?
No, I was initially pointing to the tension between the two statements, and underscoring that by noting the seeming implication. You did not acknowledge the tension when those statements were juxtaposed by loqi, so I was trying to make it clear that they are in apparent conflict. Given “S will lose his job if he could not X” and “S often makes mistakes when trying to X”, it does not deductively follow that “S lost his job”, but it’s the result to bet on. Learning in that context that S did not lose his job, one should perform a Bayesian update to decrease the probability of the premises.
No, I was initially pointing to the tension between the two statements
Ok, I see your point now. But using the same principle of charity, it’s easy enough to read my statements so that they are not in contradiction (or tension) with eachother.
Do you agree that the tone of your post is a bit nasty?
Yes. It’s a combination of having little respect for the feelings of typically-wrong pseudonymous internet posters as well as faith in my own ability to look at incomplete justifications for sloppy reasoning and draw snarky conclusions.
I’m not sure that’s the way to put it, but let me ask you this: How much stock do you put in the unsupported assertion of an anonymous person on the internet?
Please quote me where I made that assertion.
Well I need to be decent at a minimum. But basically yeah. I assess cases day in and day out. That’s a huge advantage. I know that I’m much better than I was 15 years ago, even though I was just as smart then as I am now.
Sure, getting this kind of feedback is a good way to improve one’s judgment. Do you seriously disagree?
:shrug: I agree, but employment is sadly not the only motivator for self-deception. Let me ask you this:
Do you agree that the tone of your post is a bit nasty?
How much stock do you put in the supported assertion of an anonymous person on the internet? I think that’s a more relevant question here. To what degree does a poster’s anonymity detract from his argument?
Quite a lot. But I don’t think that’s the right question. See, the basic argument being made is that even though I have considered Mr. Anonymous’ arguments and decided they were without merit, I should still be significantly less certain of my position simply because a number of these anonymous people (making basically the same weak arguments) disagree with me. Did I misunderstand the argument being made?
Yes. The point is that in “deciding [the arguments] were without merit”, you didn’t take sufficient account of the quality (not merely the quantity, by the way) of the people making them.
If a high-quality person says “X is true”, you might be able to dismiss it if you have sufficient knowledge. But if they say “X is true because of A,B, and C”, you can’t dismiss X without also dismissing A, B, and C. And here the problem is with your judgement about A, B, and C, not (just) your judgement about X.
I’m pretty confident that I did. If you see a problem with the arguments I made back in the original thread, please feel free to respond (preferably there) and I’m happy to consider your point in good faith.
To the extent that you don’t think that you’re more reliable than those people, you’re engaging in a treatment of evidence that is simply wrong. The fact of someone’s belief is evidence weighted according to the reliability of their mechanisms for establishing belief. That’s the principle behind Aumann’s Agreement Theorem.
I’m not sure I understand your point. My belief that I have superior judgment in this area is based on actual knowledge about myself and my experiences. “Faith” implies that there is no such basis.
I don’t recall claiming or implying that I was basing my assessment on “faith,” but I could be wrong. Which is why I am giving loqi a chance to back up his statement.
But not knowledge of the other commenters and their experiences, whom you seem to have lumped into the reference class of “anonymous internet commenters,” which you assign a low assessment of competence.
If you want to find a lot of people with significant expertise in rendering judgment under uncertainty, I think this is a pretty good place to look.
What evidence I have seen does not give me much confidence in the critical thinking ability of posters here as a group, to put it politely. Not much different from “anonymous internet posters” in general.
Just in this instance, or in general?
Based on the 10 or 20 or so threads I have participated in over the last couple years here.
If “have faith” is changed to “believe” everyone here should agree.
Nobody seems to have answered this question directly, though it seems easy...
See the direct parent of the post you were replying to (which I think should have been obvious since it was presented as a summary):
Also, don’t you at least see the tension between:
It seems the logical conclusion is that you’ve lost your job.
Ok, so you agree that in the exact post where I used the word “faith,” I summarized the factual basis for confidence in my own judgment?
That would be the case if my livelihood depended on exercising perfect judgment at all times. Which fortunately it does not.
Let me ask you basically the same question I asked the other poster:
Do you agree that getting feedback about one’s judgment (including being wrong from time to time) is helpful in improving one’s judgment?
No, I don’t particularly care to parse all that enough to agree to anything. I was just answering your question since it seemed like nobody else had bothered to. People seem to have an odd problem answering questions with obvious-seeming answers, even though they are often helpful to people. For example, the other day on aiqus someone was asking how to type the | symbol, and the answer was straightforwardly a series of directions starting from locating the “Enter” key on a US keyboard. It turned out to be very helpful to the OP, as there was a piece of lint blocking the | symbol.. I was pleasantly surprised that the OP did not merely become the subject of ridicule, as I’ve often seen with ‘obvious’ seeming questions in other contexts.
No thanks.
Suit yourself, but you will be missing the problem with loqi’s statement.
Again, it’s your choice. But I think that answering the question will help you to see why it’s not necessarily a contradiction to (1) have one’s livelihood depend on making good judgments; and (2) regularly make judgments which turn out to be wrong.
I saw that. That’s why I used the word ‘tension’ rather than the word ‘contradiction’.
(Though looking for a reference for how the word ‘tension’ is used in the discipline of Philosophy, I can’t seem to find anything online—it’s used extensively on SEP, and there was a book written in 1936 on the word’s proper use, but the sense used in Philosophy doesn’t even make it into OED).
Well you also said “It seems the logical conclusion is that you’ve lost your job.”
Indeed, that’s why I used the word “seems”.
A good rule of thumb: If it looks like someone is making an obviously stupid mistake, you’re probably misunderstanding them. It’s a benefit of the principle of charity.
I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that you knew all along that there wasn’t contradiction; that you were simply observing that there might appear to be a contradiction to some people?
Yes
No, I was initially pointing to the tension between the two statements, and underscoring that by noting the seeming implication. You did not acknowledge the tension when those statements were juxtaposed by loqi, so I was trying to make it clear that they are in apparent conflict. Given “S will lose his job if he could not X” and “S often makes mistakes when trying to X”, it does not deductively follow that “S lost his job”, but it’s the result to bet on. Learning in that context that S did not lose his job, one should perform a Bayesian update to decrease the probability of the premises.
Ok, I see your point now. But using the same principle of charity, it’s easy enough to read my statements so that they are not in contradiction (or tension) with eachother.
Yes. It’s a combination of having little respect for the feelings of typically-wrong pseudonymous internet posters as well as faith in my own ability to look at incomplete justifications for sloppy reasoning and draw snarky conclusions.
Ok, and again my questions:
Please quote me where I made that assertion.
Sure, getting this kind of feedback is a good way to improve one’s judgment. Do you seriously disagree?
Please quote me where I accused you of having faith that you’re more reliable than those people.
Right here:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/84j/amanda_knox_post_mortem/52b8
By the way, I have my own rules of debate. One rule is that I will not engage with people who “strawman” me, i.e. misrepresent my position.
I also won’t engage with people who refuse to answer reasonable questions to let me understand their position. So I will try one last time:
Please quote me where I made that assertion.
Sure, getting this kind of feedback is a good way to improve one’s judgment. Do you seriously disagree?
Your choice.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Ok bye.