Is the Duncan Black who wrote the article cited (“On the Rationale of Group Decision-Making”) the same Duncan Black who writes “eschatonblog.com″ (the very liberal blog)? It seems unlikely, but how many politically interested Duncan Blacks can there really be?
k3nt
Karma: 95
Just a caution: using the Notes program on iphone (the default program that the iphone and ipad come with, with the little yellow and brown icon) can be dangerous. Mine seems to randomly delete notes for no known reason. I stopped using this program entirely after it happened to me once. (In my case, it may have been due to taking too many large-ish videos that were sent to my ‘photostream’ and overloaded it, but I’m not certain of that.)
Obviously if that’s not the program you’re using then disregard.
If you read the study, they say that the “specific” questions they are asking are questions that were very salient at the time of the study. These are things that people were talking about and arguing about at the time, and were questions with real-world implications. Thus precisely not “trolley problems.”
But the study said:
“The statements in condition two were picked to represent salient and important current dilemmas from Swedish media and societal debate at the time of the study.”
Well I’ve finally gotten to this point in the series and I have to say how strange it is to have worked through a ton of very hairy quantum physics (which I still don’t fully understand, not really, not by a long shot) … only to have it utilized to bring down a hammer on a thoroughly stupid philosophical argument. Feels a little like using a car crusher to pop a balloon. But the ride has been enjoyable. Thanks.
Indeed!
Thanks for the link. I read the free chapter. The rest of it … $15+ for a kindle version? Seriously?
Here’s a line that spoke to me, toward the end of chapter 1:
“if you like the metaphor of your mind as a government, then “you”—the part of your brain that experiences the world and feels like you’re in “control”—is better thought of as a press secretary than as the president.”
For those who haven’t paid attention to too many press conferences, the job of the press secretary is to be a lying sack of s**t who will justify anything done by the administration, no matter how repugnant, stupid, immoral or illegal.
Which of course does seem to be the job of our ‘rational’ selves, way too much of the time.
I think there’s probably an interesting point in there but I can’t quite parse the text. Can you give an example?
Me, too.
Let me break this down and see if I understand you.
Every ideological movement makes specific factual predictions. I think I agree with that. Conservatives will tell you that if we don’t do X, disaster will result. Liberals ditto. Marxists ditto. Gun control fanatics and gun nuts ditto. OK.
Those predictions are less likely to be correct than we tend to believe (conjunction fallacy). Agreed.
So I want to agree with you here.
But I don’t see how the conclusion can be correct, because being moderate (avoiding the ideologues) is also a form of political ideology that makes specific predictions. “If we continue to muddle through and ignore the ideologues on all sides, things will be more or less ok” is also a prediction, isn’t it?
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/shelby-ss-2011-02.pdf
Sorry so late on the reply.
“-7.65% of your income into Social Security good luck getting that back”
The “Social Security will be eliminated before you collect any benefits” line is one of the great myths of USA politics. It’s being intentionally propagated by one political party (hint: the one that voted against SS and has been fighting against it ever since.) SS’s finances are in fine shape and the program can continue with minimal or no modification for many years to come.
Your link goes to a very brief piece arguing that most people don’t think they will get Social Security benefits. Which is true! People have been told this so often they are starting to believei it! But that is a very different question from whether folks will actually get Social Security benefits.
Anyway I know this is only orthogonal to your main point, but I had to object. Spreading misinformation doesn’t belong on a rationality blog.
I’m a bit baffled. What counts as “making a choice?” Is it the same as making a decision?
Here’s where my question comes from. I play poker online. Last night, in fact, for the first time ever I opened 8 different tables, and then I played at all 8 for almost 5 hours straight. My software says I played over 2,000 hands of poker. Each hand represents at least one decision, and often a series. Decision 1, fold or play this hand from this position. Decision 2, if play, raise or call. Decision 3, if still in the hand on the flop, bet/raise/call. And so on. So I probably made between 5,000 and 10,000 different decisions (“choices”?) in one evening.
The study would imply that I had massively reduced self-control after that, I assume. I went to bed pretty shortly thereafter, so I can’t speak to that one way or the other.
But it would also seem to imply that I must have played very bad poker during the last hour or so—my self-control must have been dead, and a critical part of playing good poker is self-control: folding hands that need folding can be a very difficult effort, especially when you have a good hand but your instincts are telling you it’s second-best. It’s so, so easy to talk yourself into a call “just to see,” but that habit costs real money.
Now it’s true that sometimes I do play worse poker as a session goes on, but sometimes I don’t. Last night, despite playing more hands in one session than I ever have before, I don’t think I fell apart toward the end.
Am I missing something very basic here? Probably so.
Can someone explain what it is? Thanks.
My baby boy was at or near the top of all the images for cuteness for about 1 year. Or I would have said so at the time.
This is all very well said. The site is clearly an attempt to argue one position on AGW, rather than to weigh the evidence that comes in. More than that, all evidence to the contrary is held to be deeply stupid and/or dishonest. The result is …. I don’t quite know how to put it. But the result is disturbing. It feels like one has stumbled into a strange single-person cult.
But when will it push back at you? Before or after it has triggered a mass extinction event?
There is evidence that there have been multiple mass extinction events in the planet’s history, some of which may have been caused by the earth getting too hot or too cold.
Maybe he had better things to do than hang out on your web site on your timetable?
I know i’m a dumbass sometimes. Re-reading I found the link at the top of the page even! Sigh.
I have bookmarked the blog now.
Love love love this article! A ton of interesting questions to chew on as I wrestle with this problem.
Thanks very much for the link. I bookmarked it and will return to it.
Muchas gracias. Probably should have been able to figure that out myself.