The mouse I use with my laptop is starting to fail (the wire seems to be starting to break, which I don't have the right equipment or skills to fix), which means I'll probably have to buy another one.
Why smart people are stupid (reposted from the Random Comments thread because I decided this was the right place).
Well this is all really true, the article's title is totes misleading. It's not that smart people are stupid; it's that you can construct a question that tricks people by taking advantage of the way they brain finds answers.
it's that you can construct a question that tricks people by taking advantage of the way they brain finds answers.
Actually, this point of yours is more misleading - it's not a matter of "tricking" and "constructing a question" - cognitive biases seem to run rather deep in human brain architecture. I'd say that they are the norm rather than the exception.
In any case, that's also not the main point of the article - the main point is that higher intelligence doesn't save you from these biases, but mostly just serves to make you think you're less biased when you are not.
Anyways, I found a link to the fulltext article - that would be better for discussion purposes. I haven't read it yet (I'm reading some of the background matter; this is the original article for the CRT test, which is pretty handy material.
So "totes" means "totally"? I guess the fail thread is the best place to see it being used as a serious word for the first time on the forum. I've never known the real meaning before, not thinking I'd ever read it or hear it from anyone I might otherwise respect as an intelligent adult. I just looked it up.
Well, it is a serious word in the sense of "he totes a gun", at least, but it's an even bigger fail that it's probably used in that sense way less often than to mean "totally".
Upon reading the article itself, it does seem that the New Yorker was misleading on a couple of points (though not what open_sketchbook brought up):
1) The New Yorker gives the false impression that cognitive sophistication generally increases bias - most biases are attenuated or unaffected (see the below quote)
The finding that the bias blind spot is more apparent among the more cognitively sophisticated individuals is contrary to much of the rest of the heuristics and biases literature where most biases are negatively correlated (or at least independent) with cognitive abilities (Bruine de Bruin et al., 2007; Chiesi et al., 2011; Del Missier et al., 2010, 2011; Finucane & Gullion, 2010; Kokis, Macpherson, Toplak, West, & Stanovich, 2002; Stanovich & West, 1998, 2000; Toplak et al., 2011; Weller, Levin, & Denburg, 2011; West et al., 2008).
2) It does seem to be exaggerating the strength of the evidence. A quote from the article says
The cognitive primitiveness of some of the processes causing the bias blind spot might be consistent with the failure of intelligence to attenuate the bias. However, this cannot explain the (albeit modest) positive correlations of the bias blind spot with cognitive sophistication that we found (see Table 2). The most likely explanation of this finding would probably be what we might term the “justified rating” account. Adults with more cognitive ability are aware of their intellectual status and expect to outperform others on most cognitive tasks. Because these cognitive biases are presented to them as essentially cognitive tasks, they expect to outperform on them as well. However, these classic biases happen to be ones without associations with cognitive ability.
Something about the sun screen I wore, the detergent I used, and white of my shirt has turned one of my new polo shirts yellow around the sleeves and collar. >_<
I somehow managed to get into an argument with someone worse than SRS, and worse than an Indignant Brony with a persecution complex -
An Indignant Brony with a persecution complex, who is also not only from SRS, but is one of the poorer examples from SRS, and has combined the two into a perfect-shitstorm of idiocy, with lightning made of ego burning white-hot.
How bad? Try "People who persecute bronies or don't like MLP are all just Ageist, Sexist homophobes literally 100% of the time." Oh, and offering me "Redemption" because apparently pointing out that this is a strawman is making a strawman, and making strawmen is wrong.
Speaking of, SRS has gone completely and totally over the rails these last few months. A couple of months ago a bunch of porn-negative, possible sex-negative second-wave folks settled in and promptly shoved the overton window into creepy conservative feminism-land. So now it's basically just them and over-the-top advocates for the disabled trying to be more offended than one another; basically exactly what you said, while ironically the general population of reddit has been better than ever, with many of the things SRS used to talk about cropping up in regular conversations with increasing frequency.
Well, it kinda was, in that there was a time where social-justice-y people could actually have a meaningful discussion in their subreddits. To be honest, I've always thought they were a little over the top in some ways, but I always figured the problem was me, not them.
Now, though, there aren't any discussions. Whoever jumps farthest to "offended" controls the conversation and anyone who disagrees is banned immediately. Pretty much everyone I hung out with there have moved on as a result.
Speaking of, SRS has gone completely and totally over the rails these last few months. A couple of months ago a bunch of porn-negative, possible sex-negative second-wave folks settled in and promptly shoved the overton window into creepy conservative feminism-land. So now it's basically just them and over-the-top advocates for the disabled trying to be more offended than one another; basically exactly what you said, while ironically the general population of reddit has been better than ever, with many of the things SRS used to talk about cropping up in regular conversations with increasing frequency.
So basically, Churba, I'm sorry for doubting you.
S'alright man, the only reason I had any grounds to say it is because I've been there before, and seen social justice and feminist groups implode because of very similar things - It was less the differences between second and third wave feminists, in the example I'm speaking of, but more simply a group being taken over by the more extreme elements of that group.
It's simply become clearer over time, particularly seeing Archangelle "Your opinion on feminism is irrelevant because you're a man" Dworkin in action, and observing any people of any particular group that they defend who disagrees with them in any way being mocked as a "Special snowflake", which is uncomfortably close to calling people an "Uncle tom", because it's identical in all but the specific words used.
Similar situation to what you're experiencing, basically, except when you were confronted about it, it was earlier in the process.
I don't think less of you for it, dude, were our roles reversed, I'd have doubted you too.
Well, it kinda was, in that there was a time where social-justice-y people could actually have a meaningful discussion in their subreddits. To be honest, I've always thought they were a little over the top in some ways, but I always figured the problem was me, not them.
Now, though, there aren't any discussions. Whoever jumps farthest to "offended" controls the conversation and anyone who disagrees is banned immediately. Pretty much everyone I hung out with there have moved on as a result.
Well, maybe you should start a non-shitty social-justice-y community?
I've actually just been chilling on tumblr a lot more. Same passion, but a much less hostile environment so they don't have to be nearly as defensive, and the non-centralized nature means nobody gets to dominate the discussion or ban anyone or whatever. Plus, I can seek out constructive, artsy people instead of dealing with folks so bent out of shape with frustration that they just lash out all the time, something I myself was guilty of.
SRS was also bad for me, for serious. It was super unhealthy to just have really scummy people and depressing news stories pop up on my front page constantly. With tumblr, I get positive messages constantly! Whee skinners box of feminism!
Also, I don't think it'd be terribly awesome if a straight white dude started a social justice community.
Also, I don't think it'd be terribly awesome if a straight white dude started a social justice community.
I think that's a curious position to hold - surely, if you're going for genuine social justice, then it doesn't matter a damn who starts it, but rather, what is done with it.
Well, it's just I would be in a rather poor position to moderate discussion with the aim of creating a chill environment, which is what I'd want to do.
Comments
In any case, that's also not the main point of the article - the main point is that higher intelligence doesn't save you from these biases, but mostly just serves to make you think you're less biased when you are not.
Anyways, I found a link to the fulltext article - that would be better for discussion purposes. I haven't read it yet (I'm reading some of the background matter; this is the original article for the CRT test, which is pretty handy material.
1) The New Yorker gives the false impression that cognitive sophistication generally increases bias - most biases are attenuated or unaffected (see the below quote) 2) It does seem to be exaggerating the strength of the evidence. A quote from the article says
An Indignant Brony with a persecution complex, who is also not only from SRS, but is one of the poorer examples from SRS, and has combined the two into a perfect-shitstorm of idiocy, with lightning made of ego burning white-hot.
How bad? Try "People who persecute bronies or don't like MLP are all just Ageist, Sexist homophobes literally 100% of the time." Oh, and offering me "Redemption" because apparently pointing out that this is a strawman is making a strawman, and making strawmen is wrong.
So basically, Churba, I'm sorry for doubting you.
Now, though, there aren't any discussions. Whoever jumps farthest to "offended" controls the conversation and anyone who disagrees is banned immediately. Pretty much everyone I hung out with there have moved on as a result.
It's simply become clearer over time, particularly seeing Archangelle "Your opinion on feminism is irrelevant because you're a man" Dworkin in action, and observing any people of any particular group that they defend who disagrees with them in any way being mocked as a "Special snowflake", which is uncomfortably close to calling people an "Uncle tom", because it's identical in all but the specific words used.
Similar situation to what you're experiencing, basically, except when you were confronted about it, it was earlier in the process.
I don't think less of you for it, dude, were our roles reversed, I'd have doubted you too.
SRS was also bad for me, for serious. It was super unhealthy to just have really scummy people and depressing news stories pop up on my front page constantly. With tumblr, I get positive messages constantly! Whee skinners box of feminism!
Also, I don't think it'd be terribly awesome if a straight white dude started a social justice community.
Either way:
Well, it's just I would be in a rather poor position to moderate discussion with the aim of creating a chill environment, which is what I'd want to do.