Hmm, what about such things as feeling that you need to defend the truth from criticism rather than find a way to explain it better? Or nagging doubts that you’re ignoring, or a feeling that your opponents are acting the way they are because they’re stupid or evil? Or wanting to censor someone else’s speech? I take all these things as alarm signals.
A communist friend of mine once said, after I’d nailed her into a corner in a political argument about appropriate rates of pay during a fireman’s strike, “Well under socialism there wouldn’t be as many fires.”. I reckon that there must be a feeling associated with that sort of thing.
Defending the truth from criticism also feels exactly the same as defending what you wrongly think is the truth from criticism.
The feelings you list correspond to very common ways people behave. So they’re very weak evidence that you’re wrong about something. Unless you’re a trained rationalist who very rarely has these feelings / behaviors.
Most people first acquire a belief—whether by epistomologically legitimate ways or not—and then proceed to defend it, ignore contrary evidence and feel opponents to be stupid, because that’s just the way most people deal with beliefs that are important to them.
This is the most forceful version I’ve seen (assumed it had been posted before, discovered it probably hasn’t, won’t start a new thread since it’s too similar):
But by definition, there can’t be any particular feeling associated with simply being wrong. Indeed, the whole reason it’s possible to be wrong is that, while it is happening, you are oblivious to it. When you are simply going about your business in a state you will later decide was delusional, you have no idea of it whatsoever. You are like the coyote in the Road Runner cartoons, after he has gone off the cliff but before he has looked down. Literally in his case and figuratively in yours, you are already in trouble when you feel like you’re still on solid ground. So I should revise myself: it does feel like something to be wrong. It feels like being right.
Schulz hasn’t been quoted here before, but you might’ve seen my use of that quote on http://www.gwern.net/Mistakes to which I will add a quote of Wittgenstein making the same quote but much more compressed and concisely:
One can mistrust one’s own senses, but not one’s own belief. If there were a verb meaning “to believe falsely”, it would not have any [meaningful] first person, present indicative.
Being wrong about something feels exactly the same as being right about something.
It occurs to me that “being wrong” can be divided into two subcategories—before and after you start seeing evidence or arguments which undermine your position.
With practice, the feeling of being right and seeing confirming information can be distinguished from the feeling of being wrong and seeing undermining information. Unfortunately, the latter feeling is very uncomfortable and it is always tempting look for ways to lessen it.
-- many different people, most recently user chipaca on HN
Hmm, what about such things as feeling that you need to defend the truth from criticism rather than find a way to explain it better? Or nagging doubts that you’re ignoring, or a feeling that your opponents are acting the way they are because they’re stupid or evil? Or wanting to censor someone else’s speech? I take all these things as alarm signals.
A communist friend of mine once said, after I’d nailed her into a corner in a political argument about appropriate rates of pay during a fireman’s strike, “Well under socialism there wouldn’t be as many fires.”. I reckon that there must be a feeling associated with that sort of thing.
Defending the truth from criticism also feels exactly the same as defending what you wrongly think is the truth from criticism.
The feelings you list correspond to very common ways people behave. So they’re very weak evidence that you’re wrong about something. Unless you’re a trained rationalist who very rarely has these feelings / behaviors.
Most people first acquire a belief—whether by epistomologically legitimate ways or not—and then proceed to defend it, ignore contrary evidence and feel opponents to be stupid, because that’s just the way most people deal with beliefs that are important to them.
This is the most forceful version I’ve seen (assumed it had been posted before, discovered it probably hasn’t, won’t start a new thread since it’s too similar):
Kathryn Schulz, Being Wrong
But I’m not comfortable endorsing either of these quotes without a comment.
chipaca’s quote (and friends) suggest to me that
my “being wrong” and “being right” are complementary hypotheses, and
my subjective feelings are not evidence either way.
Schulz’s quote (and book) suggest to me that
my “being wrong” is broadly and overwhelmingly true (my map is not the territory), and
my subjective feeling of being right is in fact evidence that I am very wrong.
I’d prefer to emphasize that “You are already in trouble when you feel like you’re still on solid ground,” or said another way:
Becoming less wrong feels different from the experience of going about my business in a state that I will later decide was delusional.
Schulz hasn’t been quoted here before, but you might’ve seen my use of that quote on http://www.gwern.net/Mistakes to which I will add a quote of Wittgenstein making the same quote but much more compressed and concisely:
It occurs to me that “being wrong” can be divided into two subcategories—before and after you start seeing evidence or arguments which undermine your position.
With practice, the feeling of being right and seeing confirming information can be distinguished from the feeling of being wrong and seeing undermining information. Unfortunately, the latter feeling is very uncomfortable and it is always tempting look for ways to lessen it.