//The claim being made is that there are situations which are unambiguously not zero sum.//
I don’t disagree with that claim.
//You haven’t addressed that.//
A man called Nick Clegg recently took the advice of the author and acted against his zero-sum bias and decided to work with a leader from an opposition political party in a coalition government.
The outcome was positive-sum for Nick Clegg because he got to be Deputy Prime Minister, and for David Cameron because he got to be Prime Minister.
However, a lot of Liberal Democrat and Conservative voters (who as a group were represented by the two party leaders) got angry because they thought the situation of who should govern Britain was a zero-sum contest.
In this situation should the group have overcome its supposed zero-sum bias and urged the leaders to cooperate? Or perhaps they were right in their protests that it was a zero-sum situation, as the leadership deal, which is neither Conservative or Liberal, may turn out to be entirely self-serving for the careers of the two young party leaders and bad for Britain.
The proposed advice is not of use to this real world application.
//It may help for you to read the Sequences. No one is claiming that one should act like something is not zero sum when it is. Dealing with a cognitive bias is not accomplished by doing everything the exact opposite of what that bias would push you towards. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence. Fighting a cognitive bias doesn’t mean assuming the exact opposite. It means being aware of the bias and being alert for when the bias may be influencing judgment.//
I’ll take time to do so. I’m attracted to Bayesianism but I feel all this fighting business is getting away from science.
//Also, is it possible, if you please, to work a tiny bit on your grammar and punctuation?//
Capitals are back. I’ll take the hit for the grammar and punctuation.
In Less Wrong, you get a quote by putting a “>” in front of a line. There’s a button labeled “Help” under the box where you input comments that explains the formatting.
Ok, minor note, the standard quote format on LW uses a “>” at the beginning of what you want to quote.
I don’t disagree with that claim.
Then you don’t seem to actually disagree much with the essay in question.
The proposed advice is not of use to this real world application.
So? It isn’t going to apply in every situation. I’m going to try to make this point one last time because it doesn’t seem to be sinking in: The claim isn’t that we should see situations as not zero sum when they are, or that we shouldn’t be careful to consider what the sums are for different groups. The assertion is that people have a tendency to see things as zero sum even when they are not. Do you see why giving an example that is zero sum in some sense and not in another doesn’t impact the validity of that claim?
I’m attracted to Bayesianism but I feel all this fighting business is getting away from science.
Unfortunately, humans are not naturally good Bayesianisms. We’re not even naturally good traditional rationalists. We have a lot of cognitive biases. When we talk on LW about fighting we mean fighting against those biases so we can reason more accurately. Don’t confusion fighting with some sort of deep ideological meaning. In this sense, fighting means something like grappling with oneself. The only ones we are fighting with is our imperfect reasoning algorithms that evolved to handle a very different environment.
The assertion is that people have a tendency to see things as zero sum even when they are not. Do you see why giving an example that is zero sum in some sense and not in another doesn’t impact the validity of that claim?
Yes, but why is it new and useful information to know that people might have a zero-sum bias when one is aware one does not have an objective way to decide whether one should act to correct it in any given situation—i.e. should preference be given to the individual or the group, or the group or groups?
The concept “fight zero-sum bias” is just another way to say “think positive”, “always look on the bright side of life”, “be optimistic”. It’s nothing new, except the word “fight” makes this version war-like.
Unfortunately, humans are not naturally good Bayesianisms. We’re not even naturally good traditional rationalists. We have a lot of cognitive biases. When we talk on LW about fighting we mean fighting against those biases so we can reason more accurately. Don’t confusion fighting with some sort of deep ideological meaning. In this sense, fighting means something like grappling with oneself. The only ones we are fighting with is our imperfect reasoning algorithms that evolved to handle a very different environment.
I find the use of the word “fight” disconcerting. It’s a messy word. The way we think is a mechanical process. If there is a right way to think it has the potential to be explained. The word “fight”, which carries emotional and irrational connotations, need never be invoked. I don’t think this is a trivial point.
It’s possible that a zero-sum scenario may appear positive-sum once the zero-sum bias has been corrected, but that is merely a short term illusion because the fate of the individual is also tied to that of the group.
Also I disagree with the idea human psychology has evolved to “think the worst” of each other. Can it be proved we have a zero-sum bias? In many situations it would be more helpful to counter positive-sum bias—in Ponzi schemes, for example, not everyone can be a winner.
Yes, but why is it new and useful information to know that people might have a zero-sum bias when one is aware one does not have an objective way to decide whether one should act to correct it in any given situation—i.e. should preference be given to the individual or the group, or the group or groups?
Well, in general, being more aware of biases makes one more able to compensate for them if one has some set of goals. Many LWers are utilitarians for example in which case the group, indeed, the largest group, is all that’s relevant. In that context, this sort of bias could serously matter.
I find the use of the word “fight” disconcerting. It’s a messy word. The way we think is a mechanical process. If there is a right way to think it has the potential to be explained. The word “fight”, which carries emotional and irrational connotations, need never be invoked.
This may be a good point. To myself the word fight doesn’t have such strong connotations but it may very well do so for lots of people.
Also I disagree with the idea human psychology has evolved to “think the worst” of each other. Can it be proved we have a zero-sum bias? In many situations it would be more helpful to counter positive-sum bias—in Ponzi schemes, for example, not everyone can be a winner.
This seems like a very good point. Foolish optimism of that sort is very common. The Ponzi scheme example is a very good one which seriously undermines the central claim in the essay.
//The claim being made is that there are situations which are unambiguously not zero sum.//
I don’t disagree with that claim.
//You haven’t addressed that.//
A man called Nick Clegg recently took the advice of the author and acted against his zero-sum bias and decided to work with a leader from an opposition political party in a coalition government.
The outcome was positive-sum for Nick Clegg because he got to be Deputy Prime Minister, and for David Cameron because he got to be Prime Minister.
However, a lot of Liberal Democrat and Conservative voters (who as a group were represented by the two party leaders) got angry because they thought the situation of who should govern Britain was a zero-sum contest.
In this situation should the group have overcome its supposed zero-sum bias and urged the leaders to cooperate? Or perhaps they were right in their protests that it was a zero-sum situation, as the leadership deal, which is neither Conservative or Liberal, may turn out to be entirely self-serving for the careers of the two young party leaders and bad for Britain.
The proposed advice is not of use to this real world application.
//It may help for you to read the Sequences. No one is claiming that one should act like something is not zero sum when it is. Dealing with a cognitive bias is not accomplished by doing everything the exact opposite of what that bias would push you towards. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence. Fighting a cognitive bias doesn’t mean assuming the exact opposite. It means being aware of the bias and being alert for when the bias may be influencing judgment.//
I’ll take time to do so. I’m attracted to Bayesianism but I feel all this fighting business is getting away from science.
//Also, is it possible, if you please, to work a tiny bit on your grammar and punctuation?//
Capitals are back. I’ll take the hit for the grammar and punctuation.
In Less Wrong, you get a quote by putting a “>” in front of a line. There’s a button labeled “Help” under the box where you input comments that explains the formatting.
Ok, minor note, the standard quote format on LW uses a “>” at the beginning of what you want to quote.
Then you don’t seem to actually disagree much with the essay in question.
So? It isn’t going to apply in every situation. I’m going to try to make this point one last time because it doesn’t seem to be sinking in: The claim isn’t that we should see situations as not zero sum when they are, or that we shouldn’t be careful to consider what the sums are for different groups. The assertion is that people have a tendency to see things as zero sum even when they are not. Do you see why giving an example that is zero sum in some sense and not in another doesn’t impact the validity of that claim?
Unfortunately, humans are not naturally good Bayesianisms. We’re not even naturally good traditional rationalists. We have a lot of cognitive biases. When we talk on LW about fighting we mean fighting against those biases so we can reason more accurately. Don’t confusion fighting with some sort of deep ideological meaning. In this sense, fighting means something like grappling with oneself. The only ones we are fighting with is our imperfect reasoning algorithms that evolved to handle a very different environment.
Yes, but why is it new and useful information to know that people might have a zero-sum bias when one is aware one does not have an objective way to decide whether one should act to correct it in any given situation—i.e. should preference be given to the individual or the group, or the group or groups?
The concept “fight zero-sum bias” is just another way to say “think positive”, “always look on the bright side of life”, “be optimistic”. It’s nothing new, except the word “fight” makes this version war-like.
I find the use of the word “fight” disconcerting. It’s a messy word. The way we think is a mechanical process. If there is a right way to think it has the potential to be explained. The word “fight”, which carries emotional and irrational connotations, need never be invoked. I don’t think this is a trivial point.
It’s possible that a zero-sum scenario may appear positive-sum once the zero-sum bias has been corrected, but that is merely a short term illusion because the fate of the individual is also tied to that of the group.
Also I disagree with the idea human psychology has evolved to “think the worst” of each other. Can it be proved we have a zero-sum bias? In many situations it would be more helpful to counter positive-sum bias—in Ponzi schemes, for example, not everyone can be a winner.
Well, in general, being more aware of biases makes one more able to compensate for them if one has some set of goals. Many LWers are utilitarians for example in which case the group, indeed, the largest group, is all that’s relevant. In that context, this sort of bias could serously matter.
This may be a good point. To myself the word fight doesn’t have such strong connotations but it may very well do so for lots of people.
This seems like a very good point. Foolish optimism of that sort is very common. The Ponzi scheme example is a very good one which seriously undermines the central claim in the essay.