Another explanation is motivated bias; we feel good thinking well of ourselves and badly of others, and because of that don’t look very critically at our positive claims about ourselves
Surely there must be more than the reason that you give.
akshatrathi
Karma: 30
I enjoyed your article and as a scientist, I’ve been interested to understand this: what seems an intuitive method to use to solve a scientific problem is not seen as an intuitive method while solving ‘other’ problems.
By ‘other’, I mean things like psychological problems or problems that arise from conflicts amongst people. It may be obvious why it is not ‘intuitive’ but what goes beyond my understanding is most will not even consider using the scientific method for the latter types of problem ever.
The zero-sum bias seems to be also responsible for the the concept of karma which is a ubiquitous concept (not just amongst Hindus). The roots of this can be found in the ancient religious texts like the Bhagvad Gita and go on to support what multifoliatrose says in the post.
The different emotions permitted for different sexes could well be because of evolutionary reasons not just social reasons.
That’s a really nice view to have on emotions. And frankly, I’ve known it all along but never put it the way you have. Cheers!
What bothers me is that in case of ‘emotional expressions’ in a profession, it is possible to fake it and am sure we have seen examples of such (hypocrites) in our life. But may be in a given situation it is rational to fake it.
PS: Could you give the source of the Hitler example?
Interesting piece.
I agree with Drahflow and utilitymonster here though. An argument needs to be made in the context of the audience. Unnecessary details about an argument may dilute the effect of your speech. And stating the obvious (which it may be to the audience) makes one look like an arrogant guy, who is assuming that the audience wouldn’t know.
Yet, I agree with you in the example you give about being truthful to kids. Making an argument based on truth and stating that truth may be a good way of dealing with kids. And as you claim it is showing in their development.
Say you survive the next 20 years and say your probability to die in the 20 years hence be < 10%. Would you sign up for cryonics then? If not, what is that probability of death which will make you sign up for cryonics?
PS: How did you come up with the probability of < 1% about your own death?
I second Michael’s question
I’ve resolved not to die before my parents do, because I don’t want them to suffer the grief my death would cause.
How would you make sure that will not happen?
Does a fighter plane have a black box, like the one that is there in passenger planes?
Yet in health, we see action as inherently dangerous; while in economics, we see inaction as inherently dangerous. Why?
That is a very good point, I must appreciate that you noticed it. I would say that one of the reasons that happens is because people resist change. In health, any action would mean there could be something wrong that can happen. Thus, it is made a mandate that every possible wrong be checked before such an action takes place. Hence, the inherent danger in action.
Where as in case of economics, actions are usually taken to stop a change from happening (Stimulus package, bailing out car companies, president goes shopping, etc.). Thus, inaction would be accepting change which people always oppose. Hence, the inherent danger in inaction.
I believe that scientists can change fields easily and sometimes make bigger impact in the new fields they enter. I think it’s because people who move do not look at the same problem from the traditional point-of-view. This enables us to come up with unique solutions. We are not trapped by dogma and if we are bold we can rise quickly.
-- Aubrey de Grey
He may have, for his own reasons, not been happy with the ease with which he achieved something great. His selfishness at this point is not for the fact that he may still be able to contribute to the field and yet he chooses not to but for the fact that he will be happier if he had to work harder on something before achieving greatness. That is his value system. I think his choice is justifiable.
The second advantage claimed for naturalism is that it is equivalent to rationality, because it assumes a model of reality in which all events are in principle accessible to scientific investigation.
So few of us really think. What we do is rearrange our prejudices.
-- George Vincent
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
-- Albert Einstein
We live in the matrix and Eliezer Yudkowsky is the architect.
The point of this post was to show that persisting at something while being irrational can only cause harm. Of course, “Never give up” is not bad advice, but Eliezer’s advice is be rational and accept defeat when you need to.
I must stress here the point that I appreciate clarity, order, meaning, structure, rationality: they are necessary to whatever provisional stability we have, and they can be the agents of gradual and successful change.
-- A. R. Ammons
I’m working on
1) Synthesising biologically active and structurally challenging molecules for my PhD. See link.
2) Relaxing Stories iPhone app: The app is able to relax the user in under five minutes by listening to visually enhanced stories read by soothing voices.
3) Science communication: Writing about latest advances in chemistry for a wider audience. Also, reaching out other graduate students and institutes to get involved in communicating science.