How do you identify motivated cognition in other people?
Some of the same ways I see it in myself. Specifically, when dealing with others:
Opposed to easy (especially quick or instant) tests: strong evidence of motivated stopping.
All for difficult (especially currently-impossible) tests: moderate evidence of motivated continuing.
Waiting on results of specific test to reconsider or take a position: moderate evidence of motivated continuing.
Seemingly-obvious third alternative: very strong evidence of motivated stopping. Caveat! this one is problematic. It is very possible to miss third alternatives.
Opposed to plausible third alternatives: weak evidence of motivated stopping—strong evidence with a caveat and split, as “arguments as soldiers” can also produce this effect. Mild caveat on plausibility being somewhat subjective.
In the case of XiXiDu’s comment, focusing on Ben Goertzel’s rejection is an example of waiting on results from a specific test. That is enough evidence to locate the motivated continuing hypothesis¹ - ie, that XiXiDu does not want to accept the current best-or-accepted-by-the-community answer.
The questions XiXiDu posed afterwards seem to have obvious alternative answers, which suggests motivated stopping. He seems to be stopping on “Something’s fishy about Eliezer’s setup”.
¹: As well as “Goertzel is significantly ahead of AI development curve”, “AGI research and development is a field with rigid formal rules on what does and doesn’t convince people”—the first is easily tested by looking at Ben’s other views, the second is refuted by many researchers in that field
Some of the same ways I see it in myself. Specifically, when dealing with others:
Opposed to easy (especially quick or instant) tests: strong evidence of motivated stopping.
All for difficult (especially currently-impossible) tests: moderate evidence of motivated continuing.
Waiting on results of specific test to reconsider or take a position: moderate evidence of motivated continuing.
Seemingly-obvious third alternative: very strong evidence of motivated stopping. Caveat! this one is problematic. It is very possible to miss third alternatives.
Opposed to plausible third alternatives: weak evidence of motivated stopping—strong evidence with a caveat and split, as “arguments as soldiers” can also produce this effect. Mild caveat on plausibility being somewhat subjective.
In the case of XiXiDu’s comment, focusing on Ben Goertzel’s rejection is an example of waiting on results from a specific test. That is enough evidence to locate the motivated continuing hypothesis¹ - ie, that XiXiDu does not want to accept the current best-or-accepted-by-the-community answer.
The questions XiXiDu posed afterwards seem to have obvious alternative answers, which suggests motivated stopping. He seems to be stopping on “Something’s fishy about Eliezer’s setup”.
¹: As well as “Goertzel is significantly ahead of AI development curve”, “AGI research and development is a field with rigid formal rules on what does and doesn’t convince people”—the first is easily tested by looking at Ben’s other views, the second is refuted by many researchers in that field
I recommend explaining that sort of thing when you say someone is engaging in motivated cognition.
I think it seems more like a discussable matter then and less like an insult.
Thanks for engaging with me; I now better understand where jimrandomh might have been coming from. I fully agree with Nancy Lebovitz here.