Obviously, it’s epistemically good to change your mind after receiving better information… but there also seems to be a tendency to cling to our opinions. It seems that ‘being wrong’ negatively affects your self-image, status. Even if we (as aspiring rationalists) can overcome such biases, how to deal with that in a sub-rational world which sees things differently?
People seem to like people who are very confident about their ideas, rather than people that change their mind, even for apparently good reasons.
I noticed there is certain comic effect to immediately matter-of-factly agreeing with arguments on the side of your opponent’s position that are correct, but were picked as debate-soldiers, expected to be fought or in some way excused/objected to. :-)
I had enormous dirty fun with this while on holiday. I got talking to a very smart (ex-LLNL nuclear engineer) ninety-year-old who was also very right wing. He proposed to me that the Government should harvest the organs of homeless people in order to give them to combat veterans. What he wanted me to say, of course, was that this proposal was outrageous and wrong, that human life was of greater value than that, and so on, so he could then say that these people were a drain on society and the people who’d made such sacrifices were more important, and so on.
Instead I said “Wouldn’t it be cheaper to buy the organs from people in the third world? If you wanted to capture homeless people and take their organs, you’d need some sort of legal procedure to decide who was eligible, and there’d be appeals and so on, and it would all cost about as much as sentencing someone to death in the USA does now, which I’d guess must be hundreds of thousands of dollars at least. There must be plenty of people in poorer countries who would sacrifice their lives for a fraction of that money to feed their families in perpituity. There would be no use of force, no mistaken killings, and their organs would be higher quality. I’m not aware of a problem with getting organs for veterans, but if there is, that seems like a more efficient way to solve it.”
His response? He went and got his CV so I’d be impressed at what a smart fellow he was!
You may be able to get an even better kidney-for-the-buck ratio (and increased moral outrage) with a lottery system: get $5.000 for a one-in-ten chance of losing a kidney; or $50.000 for a one-in-ten chance of being killed and having all your organs harvested.
That would be like signing up for a particularly high-risk job, like soldier.
The optimal system would probably be one where ten victi, uh, candidates around the world are simultaneously given a sleeping pill, attached to a machine with a breathing tube, and once they are a sleep a central server under high scrutiny randomly triggers death on one of the machines; upon waking up, the survivors are given their money.
I was actually planning a ‘However, ’ in that comment but I will leave it as it is now. However, I do think that it is more common not to (openly) change one’s opinion—especially for people in power.
The rule-proving exception in the famous quote, attributed to Keyes:
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
(and I forgive him the colloquial use of the word ‘fact’...)
People seem to like people who are very confident about their ideas, rather than people that change their mind, even for apparently good reasons.
I’d certainly hope that I’m not one of the people who likes confident people, not mind changing people.
I have also found that since changing my mind more often as a result of reading Less Wrong, I’ve had people greatly approve of me publicly stating that I was wrong, and that someone has convinced me. So that’s some evidence against what you’re claiming.
It’s great you can change your mind when so compelled by the facts—and you are right, maybe people do underestimate how good it looks to (not too often :-) admit that you were wrong.
I’m currently trying to cultivate a more carefree/light-hearted/forager aesthetic to that end.
People like you more if you actually consider their opinions, and changing your mind is okay as long as it’s toward their beliefs.
From the third person perspective, this can look high status if you seem to be more cosmopolitan as a result of it. I emphasize the fact that I’m having lots of fun.
That doesn’t seem to have undermined people’s confidence in my advice, but I’m not sure how it impacts perceptions of leadership that I might have in the future.
Obviously, it’s epistemically good to change your mind after receiving better information… but there also seems to be a tendency to cling to our opinions. It seems that ‘being wrong’ negatively affects your self-image, status. Even if we (as aspiring rationalists) can overcome such biases, how to deal with that in a sub-rational world which sees things differently?
People seem to like people who are very confident about their ideas, rather than people that change their mind, even for apparently good reasons.
I noticed there is certain comic effect to immediately matter-of-factly agreeing with arguments on the side of your opponent’s position that are correct, but were picked as debate-soldiers, expected to be fought or in some way excused/objected to. :-)
I had enormous dirty fun with this while on holiday. I got talking to a very smart (ex-LLNL nuclear engineer) ninety-year-old who was also very right wing. He proposed to me that the Government should harvest the organs of homeless people in order to give them to combat veterans. What he wanted me to say, of course, was that this proposal was outrageous and wrong, that human life was of greater value than that, and so on, so he could then say that these people were a drain on society and the people who’d made such sacrifices were more important, and so on.
Instead I said “Wouldn’t it be cheaper to buy the organs from people in the third world? If you wanted to capture homeless people and take their organs, you’d need some sort of legal procedure to decide who was eligible, and there’d be appeals and so on, and it would all cost about as much as sentencing someone to death in the USA does now, which I’d guess must be hundreds of thousands of dollars at least. There must be plenty of people in poorer countries who would sacrifice their lives for a fraction of that money to feed their families in perpituity. There would be no use of force, no mistaken killings, and their organs would be higher quality. I’m not aware of a problem with getting organs for veterans, but if there is, that seems like a more efficient way to solve it.”
His response? He went and got his CV so I’d be impressed at what a smart fellow he was!
You may be able to get an even better kidney-for-the-buck ratio (and increased moral outrage) with a lottery system: get $5.000 for a one-in-ten chance of losing a kidney; or $50.000 for a one-in-ten chance of being killed and having all your organs harvested.
That would be like signing up for a particularly high-risk job, like soldier.
To ensure people don’t defect when they discover they’ve lost the lottery, you’d have to play lethal injection Russian Roulette.
The optimal system would probably be one where ten victi, uh, candidates around the world are simultaneously given a sleeping pill, attached to a machine with a breathing tube, and once they are a sleep a central server under high scrutiny randomly triggers death on one of the machines; upon waking up, the survivors are given their money.
OK, I think this thread is creepy enough now.
Only on LW one can get comments like that :-)
I was actually planning a ‘However, ’ in that comment but I will leave it as it is now. However, I do think that it is more common not to (openly) change one’s opinion—especially for people in power.
The rule-proving exception in the famous quote, attributed to Keyes:
(and I forgive him the colloquial use of the word ‘fact’...)
I’d certainly hope that I’m not one of the people who likes confident people, not mind changing people.
I have also found that since changing my mind more often as a result of reading Less Wrong, I’ve had people greatly approve of me publicly stating that I was wrong, and that someone has convinced me. So that’s some evidence against what you’re claiming.
It’s great you can change your mind when so compelled by the facts—and you are right, maybe people do underestimate how good it looks to (not too often :-) admit that you were wrong.
Admitting failures (or not) is discussed at length in the nice pop-psy Mistakes were made, but not by me.
I’m currently trying to cultivate a more carefree/light-hearted/forager aesthetic to that end.
People like you more if you actually consider their opinions, and changing your mind is okay as long as it’s toward their beliefs.
From the third person perspective, this can look high status if you seem to be more cosmopolitan as a result of it. I emphasize the fact that I’m having lots of fun.
That doesn’t seem to have undermined people’s confidence in my advice, but I’m not sure how it impacts perceptions of leadership that I might have in the future.