[YESNO] Idea Suppoort
12 views
Skip to first unread message
Andy Dufresne
Jun 14, 2019, 2:06:33 PM6/14/19
to FIGG
Most people judge ideas by how supported they are. This practice is so
common that English has lots of words to describe how supported ideas
are. People sometimes have a mental model that they’re carefully
weighing evidence to come up with the amount of support.
Even though almost everybody does it, it’s bad to judge ideas by
support.
One problem with judging ideas by support is that support amounts are
arbitrary and subject to bias, not objective. The words people use to
describe support don’t have a standard meaning from person to person.
That’s a problem because evidence isn’t a physical quantity that can
be measured and compared objectively like weight. So people can assign
any weight they want to various pieces of evidence. There’s nothing in
reality available to clearly disagree with whatever weights they
assigned.
For example lots of people think the weight of the evidence is in favor
of socialist ideas. They’ll claim things in favor of socialism, and
say they are super important and high weight: recipients of the loot are
more likely to value it highly than the people it’s taken from, the
recipients of the loot have been direct or indirect victims of bad stuff
in the past, and more equality in whatever area they’re advocating
socialism would be good. And they’ll minimize the importance and
weight of evidence against socialism: taking stuff from people who
earned it disincentivizes production, the process of socializing
something destroys rather than creates wealth, and attempts at forcing
equality of outcome lead to tyranny and oppression.
Even if they were all true, none of those items for and against
socialism are actually weighable. So the socialist can tell himself his
weights are entirely reasonable, socialism is the correct course of
action, and everyone who disagrees is biased. But maybe he’s the one
who is biased, and there’s no way for him to find out.
Another problem with judging ideas by support is that it leads to
ignoring criticism. If you think an idea has a lot of support, you may
hear a criticism and think that it reduces the support some but that
there’s still enough support that the idea is, overall, well
supported.
That’s a problem because ignoring even one criticism can lead to
pursuing ideas you could have known were not capable of solving the
problem they were intended to solve.
For example people will often marry someone with a known major flaw that
destroys the marriage. Like maybe the person is irresponsible about
spending money. They think of 100 good and important things about
marrying this person and just the one problem with spending money. They
are sure that just the money problem isn’t enough to detract from all
the good stuff about their spouse.
Even if the 100 good things are all true and important, not being on the
same page about money will destroy a marriage. There are ways to solve
it, like keeping finances separate. But even if that would work (it
often doesn’t for various reasons) you’re not gonna think of and do
those solutions if you just ignore the money criticism because you think
it only detracts a little from the 100 other good things.
--Andy
common that English has lots of words to describe how supported ideas
are. People sometimes have a mental model that they’re carefully
weighing evidence to come up with the amount of support.
Even though almost everybody does it, it’s bad to judge ideas by
support.
One problem with judging ideas by support is that support amounts are
arbitrary and subject to bias, not objective. The words people use to
describe support don’t have a standard meaning from person to person.
That’s a problem because evidence isn’t a physical quantity that can
be measured and compared objectively like weight. So people can assign
any weight they want to various pieces of evidence. There’s nothing in
reality available to clearly disagree with whatever weights they
assigned.
For example lots of people think the weight of the evidence is in favor
of socialist ideas. They’ll claim things in favor of socialism, and
say they are super important and high weight: recipients of the loot are
more likely to value it highly than the people it’s taken from, the
recipients of the loot have been direct or indirect victims of bad stuff
in the past, and more equality in whatever area they’re advocating
socialism would be good. And they’ll minimize the importance and
weight of evidence against socialism: taking stuff from people who
earned it disincentivizes production, the process of socializing
something destroys rather than creates wealth, and attempts at forcing
equality of outcome lead to tyranny and oppression.
Even if they were all true, none of those items for and against
socialism are actually weighable. So the socialist can tell himself his
weights are entirely reasonable, socialism is the correct course of
action, and everyone who disagrees is biased. But maybe he’s the one
who is biased, and there’s no way for him to find out.
Another problem with judging ideas by support is that it leads to
ignoring criticism. If you think an idea has a lot of support, you may
hear a criticism and think that it reduces the support some but that
there’s still enough support that the idea is, overall, well
supported.
That’s a problem because ignoring even one criticism can lead to
pursuing ideas you could have known were not capable of solving the
problem they were intended to solve.
For example people will often marry someone with a known major flaw that
destroys the marriage. Like maybe the person is irresponsible about
spending money. They think of 100 good and important things about
marrying this person and just the one problem with spending money. They
are sure that just the money problem isn’t enough to detract from all
the good stuff about their spouse.
Even if the 100 good things are all true and important, not being on the
same page about money will destroy a marriage. There are ways to solve
it, like keeping finances separate. But even if that would work (it
often doesn’t for various reasons) you’re not gonna think of and do
those solutions if you just ignore the money criticism because you think
it only detracts a little from the 100 other good things.
--Andy
Elliot Temple
Jun 15, 2019, 11:45:59 PM6/15/19
to FIGG, FIYG
On Jun 14, 2019, at 11:06 AM, Andy Dufresne <foxhunt1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most people judge ideas by how supported they are. This practice is so common that English has lots of words to describe how supported ideas are. People sometimes have a mental model that they’re carefully weighing evidence to come up with the amount of support.
when bringing up English words, examples would be good. but i think this is a writing issue, not a topical issue (i think you actually do know several words that you could have listed).
> Most people judge ideas by how supported they are. This practice is so common that English has lots of words to describe how supported ideas are. People sometimes have a mental model that they’re carefully weighing evidence to come up with the amount of support.
Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com
GISTE
Jun 16, 2019, 2:16:45 PM6/16/19
to FIGG
On Jun 14, 2019, at 1:06 PM, Andy Dufresne <foxhunt1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Most people judge ideas by how supported they are. This practice is so
> common that English has lots of words to describe how supported ideas
> weighing evidence to come up with the amount of support.
>
> Even though almost everybody does it, it???s bad to judge ideas by
>
> support.
My first thought after reading this sentence was, ???But ideas CANNOT be
judged by support.??? Then I assumed Elliot would say something like
this. Then he replied and didn???t say it. So now I want to analyze the
situation.
I guess that Andy knows that ideas cannot be judged by support but
didn???t say so.
I guess a better sentence for Andy???s meaning is: ???Even though almost
everybody does it, it???s bad to [try to] judge ideas by support
[because it???s literally impossible to support an idea].???
No comments below.
> One problem with judging ideas by support is that support amounts are
> arbitrary and subject to bias, not objective. The words people use to
> person.
>
> That???s a problem because evidence isn???t a physical quantity that
> can be measured and compared objectively like weight. So people can
> assign any weight they want to various pieces of evidence. There???s
> nothing in reality available to clearly disagree with whatever weights
> they assigned.
>
> For example lots of people think the weight of the evidence is in
> favor of socialist ideas. They???ll claim things in favor of
> they assigned.
>
> For example lots of people think the weight of the evidence is in
> socialism, and say they are super important and high weight:
> recipients of the loot are more likely to value it highly than the
> people it???s taken from, the recipients of the loot have been direct
> recipients of the loot are more likely to value it highly than the
> or indirect victims of bad stuff in the past, and more equality in
> whatever area they???re advocating socialism would be good. And
> they???ll minimize the importance and weight of evidence against
> socialism: taking stuff from people who earned it disincentivizes
> production, the process of socializing something destroys rather than
> creates wealth, and attempts at forcing equality of outcome lead to
> tyranny and oppression.
>
> Even if they were all true, none of those items for and against
> socialism are actually weighable. So the socialist can tell himself
> his weights are entirely reasonable, socialism is the correct course
> of action, and everyone who disagrees is biased. But maybe he???s the
> production, the process of socializing something destroys rather than
> creates wealth, and attempts at forcing equality of outcome lead to
> tyranny and oppression.
>
> Even if they were all true, none of those items for and against
> socialism are actually weighable. So the socialist can tell himself
> his weights are entirely reasonable, socialism is the correct course
> one who is biased, and there???s no way for him to find out.
>
> Another problem with judging ideas by support is that it leads to
> ignoring criticism. If you think an idea has a lot of support, you may
> hear a criticism and think that it reduces the support some but that
> there???s still enough support that the idea is, overall, well
> Another problem with judging ideas by support is that it leads to
> ignoring criticism. If you think an idea has a lot of support, you may
> hear a criticism and think that it reduces the support some but that
> supported.
>
> That???s a problem because ignoring even one criticism can lead to
> pursuing ideas you could have known were not capable of solving the
> problem they were intended to solve.
>
> For example people will often marry someone with a known major flaw
> that destroys the marriage. Like maybe the person is irresponsible
> about spending money. They think of 100 good and important things
> about marrying this person and just the one problem with spending
> money. They are sure that just the money problem isn???t enough to
> problem they were intended to solve.
>
> For example people will often marry someone with a known major flaw
> that destroys the marriage. Like maybe the person is irresponsible
> about spending money. They think of 100 good and important things
> about marrying this person and just the one problem with spending
> detract from all the good stuff about their spouse.
>
> Even if the 100 good things are all true and important, not being on
> the same page about money will destroy a marriage. There are ways to
> solve it, like keeping finances separate. But even if that would work
> (it often doesn???t for various reasons) you???re not gonna think of
>
> Even if the 100 good things are all true and important, not being on
> the same page about money will destroy a marriage. There are ways to
> solve it, like keeping finances separate. But even if that would work
> and do those solutions if you just ignore the money criticism because
> you think it only detracts a little from the 100 other good things.
>
> --Andy
-- GISTE
> you think it only detracts a little from the 100 other good things.
>
> --Andy
Andy Dufresne
Jun 16, 2019, 3:32:23 PM6/16/19
to 'GISTE' via Fallible Ideas
On Jun 16, 2019, at 11:16 AM, 'GISTE' via Fallible Ideas
<fallibl...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2019, at 1:06 PM, Andy Dufresne
> <foxhunt1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Most people judge ideas by how supported they are. This practice is
>> so common that English has lots of words to describe how supported
>> ideas are. People sometimes have a mental model that they???re
>> carefully weighing evidence to come up with the amount of support.
>>
>> Even though almost everybody does it, it???s bad to judge ideas by
>> support.
>
> My first thought after reading this sentence was, ???But ideas CANNOT
> be judged by support.??? Then I assumed Elliot would say something
> like this. Then he replied and didn???t say it. So now I want to
> analyze the situation.
>
> I guess that Andy knows that ideas cannot be judged by support but
> didn???t say so.
>
> I guess a better sentence for Andy???s meaning is: ???Even though
> almost everybody does it, it???s bad to [try to] judge ideas by
> support [because it???s literally impossible to support an idea].???
I hadn’t got to the part where Elliot discusses how ideas can’t be
> On Jun 14, 2019, at 1:06 PM, Andy Dufresne
> <foxhunt1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Most people judge ideas by how supported they are. This practice is
>> so common that English has lots of words to describe how supported
>> ideas are. People sometimes have a mental model that they???re
>> carefully weighing evidence to come up with the amount of support.
>>
>> Even though almost everybody does it, it???s bad to judge ideas by
>> support.
>
> My first thought after reading this sentence was, ???But ideas CANNOT
> be judged by support.??? Then I assumed Elliot would say something
> like this. Then he replied and didn???t say it. So now I want to
> analyze the situation.
>
> I guess that Andy knows that ideas cannot be judged by support but
> didn???t say so.
>
> I guess a better sentence for Andy???s meaning is: ???Even though
> almost everybody does it, it???s bad to [try to] judge ideas by
> support [because it???s literally impossible to support an idea].???
judged by support so people are actually doing something different. I
have now, and my opinion isn’t as simple as “Andy knows that ideas
cannot be judged by support but didn???t say so.”
I think whether or not you can judge ideas by support depends on some
specific unstated ideas about what it means to judge ideas - well,
rationally, without bias, etc.
I think it is possible to: make up a list of factors upon which to judge
some set of ideas, assign a weight to each factor, assign a score to
each idea for each factor, multiply the factor weights by the factor
scores to get weighted scores, add up the weighted scores to get idea
scores and then judge the idea with the highest score as the best.
That’s a form of judging ideas by support that people can do. I used
to do that sort of thing.
Does that method work? I think that depends on what is meant by
“work”. It does produce an answer that has more appearance of
rationality than “cuz I said so.”
But it’s not actually a rational, unbiased answer and if that’s what
you’re after then it doesn’t work for that.
Why does the list of factors include A but not B? Bias, Intuition,
Authority - sometimes with some explanation too, but mostly bias etc.
Why is the weight for factor A 5 instead of 9? Same.
Why is the idea X score for factor A 3 instead of 20? Same.
--Andy
Elliot Temple
Jun 16, 2019, 3:57:08 PM6/16/19
to FIGG, FIYG
> On Jun 14, 2019, at 1:06 PM, Andy Dufresne <foxhunt1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Most people judge ideas by how supported they are. This practice is so common that English has lots of words to describe how supported ideas are. People sometimes have a mental model that they???re carefully weighing evidence to come up with the amount of support.
>>
>> Even though almost everybody does it, it???s bad to judge ideas by support.
Misquoting is not an acceptable way to post to FI. Andy did not write “it???s”.
>
>> Most people judge ideas by how supported they are. This practice is so common that English has lots of words to describe how supported ideas are. People sometimes have a mental model that they???re carefully weighing evidence to come up with the amount of support.
>>
>> Even though almost everybody does it, it???s bad to judge ideas by support.
Stop this. You’ve already been repeatedly asked to stop posting ??? by multiple people over a period of weeks. You aren’t listening and it’s not OK.
> My first thought after reading this sentence was, ???But ideas CANNOT be judged by support.??? Then I assumed Elliot would say something like this. Then he replied and didn???t say it. So now I want to analyze the situation.
>
> I guess that Andy knows that ideas cannot be judged by support but didn???t say so.
>
> I guess a better sentence for Andy???s meaning is: ???Even though almost everybody does it, it???s bad to [try to] judge ideas by support [because it???s literally impossible to support an idea].???
>
> No comments below.
Elliot Temple
www.elliottemple.com
Elliot Temple
Jun 16, 2019, 4:13:22 PM6/16/19
to FIGG, FIYG
On Jun 16, 2019, at 12:32 PM, Andy Dufresne <foxhunt1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2019, at 11:16 AM, 'GISTE' via Fallible Ideas <fallibl...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 14, 2019, at 1:06 PM, Andy Dufresne <foxhunt1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Most people judge ideas by how supported they are. This practice is so common that English has lots of words to describe how supported ideas are. People sometimes have a mental model that they???re carefully weighing evidence to come up with the amount of support.
>>>
>>> Even though almost everybody does it, it???s bad to judge ideas by support.
>>
>> My first thought after reading this sentence was, ???But ideas CANNOT be judged by support.??? Then I assumed Elliot would say something like this. Then he replied and didn???t say it. So now I want to analyze the situation.
>>
>> I guess that Andy knows that ideas cannot be judged by support but didn???t say so.
>>
>> I guess a better sentence for Andy???s meaning is: ???Even though almost everybody does it, it???s bad to [try to] judge ideas by support [because it???s literally impossible to support an idea].???
>
> I hadn’t got to the part where Elliot discusses how ideas can’t be judged by support so people are actually doing something different. I have now, and my opinion isn’t as simple as “Andy knows that ideas cannot be judged by support but didn???t say so.”
>
> I think whether or not you can judge ideas by support depends on some specific unstated ideas about what it means to judge ideas - well, rationally, without bias, etc.
>
> I think it is possible to: make up a list of factors upon which to judge some set of ideas, assign a weight to each factor, assign a score to each idea for each factor, multiply the factor weights by the factor scores to get weighted scores, add up the weighted scores to get idea scores and then judge the idea with the highest score as the best. That’s a form of judging ideas by support that people can do. I used to do that sort of thing.
>
> Does that method work? I think that depends on what is meant by “work”. It does produce an answer that has more appearance of rationality than “cuz I said so.”
>
> But it’s not actually a rational, unbiased answer and if that’s what you’re after then it doesn’t work for that.
it might not even be that biased if they thought critically about what factors to include and not include, and “sanity checked” the result, etc. they might have done error correction to prevent bias so the factors used, and their weightings, are not actually arbitrary, but then they omit that good thinking (or treat it as a minor note to be spoken about vaguely and briefly) when presenting their results.
> On Jun 16, 2019, at 11:16 AM, 'GISTE' via Fallible Ideas <fallibl...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 14, 2019, at 1:06 PM, Andy Dufresne <foxhunt1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Most people judge ideas by how supported they are. This practice is so common that English has lots of words to describe how supported ideas are. People sometimes have a mental model that they???re carefully weighing evidence to come up with the amount of support.
>>>
>>> Even though almost everybody does it, it???s bad to judge ideas by support.
>>
>> My first thought after reading this sentence was, ???But ideas CANNOT be judged by support.??? Then I assumed Elliot would say something like this. Then he replied and didn???t say it. So now I want to analyze the situation.
>>
>> I guess that Andy knows that ideas cannot be judged by support but didn???t say so.
>>
>> I guess a better sentence for Andy???s meaning is: ???Even though almost everybody does it, it???s bad to [try to] judge ideas by support [because it???s literally impossible to support an idea].???
>
> I hadn’t got to the part where Elliot discusses how ideas can’t be judged by support so people are actually doing something different. I have now, and my opinion isn’t as simple as “Andy knows that ideas cannot be judged by support but didn???t say so.”
>
> I think whether or not you can judge ideas by support depends on some specific unstated ideas about what it means to judge ideas - well, rationally, without bias, etc.
>
> I think it is possible to: make up a list of factors upon which to judge some set of ideas, assign a weight to each factor, assign a score to each idea for each factor, multiply the factor weights by the factor scores to get weighted scores, add up the weighted scores to get idea scores and then judge the idea with the highest score as the best. That’s a form of judging ideas by support that people can do. I used to do that sort of thing.
>
> Does that method work? I think that depends on what is meant by “work”. It does produce an answer that has more appearance of rationality than “cuz I said so.”
>
> But it’s not actually a rational, unbiased answer and if that’s what you’re after then it doesn’t work for that.
> Why does the list of factors include A but not B? Bias, Intuition, Authority - sometimes with some explanation too, but mostly bias etc.
>
> Why is the weight for factor A 5 instead of 9? Same.
>
> Why is the idea X score for factor A 3 instead of 20? Same.
The way people envision judging ideas by support is impossible. They don’t and can’t do what they would like to be doing.
But they do a variety of other stuff which is possible. It has flaws like being biased and inadequately critical. And they mix in some CR without realizing that part of what they are doing is not at all in the “support” school of thought.
The CR they mix in is a bad implementation of part of CR.
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/137043/greenspuns-tenth-rule-does-every-large-project-include-a-lisp-interpreter
> Greenspun's tenth rule (actually the only rule) states that: Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.
It’s the same with support-style epistemology:
Any sufficiently complicated inductivist or justificationist thinking contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Critical Rationalism.
But that doesn’t stop them from *also* doing some biased, uncritical, bad stuff which could reasonably called support-based thinking.
it also depends on the level of thinking you’re looking at. the essential core of their thinking, at an unconscious level, must be evolutionary CR type stuff or they couldn’t even learn enough to understand sentences and have a discussion. but as far as their conscious thinking goes, they can do stuff like how college rankings or walk scores are done. that could not work as the essential part of creativity, but can be used, well or badly, in subsidiary roles. btw stuff like car rankings are not even useless or totally wrong if you know what it is and how to use it correctly. you can define measures of things, and measure them, if you have an explanation of why and how that particular measure will be useful in a particular context, for a particular problem. even a mediocre measure created by someone else can provide useful info to you if you know what it is and think of a way to use it. sometimes people do this stuff fairly reasonably, using explanations to govern measures, and being critical, but don’t understand what they’re doing.
Elliot Temple
www.elliottemple.com
Andy Dufresne
Jun 20, 2019, 2:58:09 PM6/20/19
to FIGG
I consider to be inferior methods.
I have kinda the same problem with religion. I have explicit conclusions
like: God doesn’t exist, faith is dumb, prayer is just talking to
yourself, etc. Because of those conclusions I find it hard to develop
and keep in mind a model of someone who believes those things and yet
isn’t just being dumb all the time.
--Andy
Elliot Temple
Jun 22, 2019, 4:09:09 PM6/22/19
to FIGG, FIYG
- learn the correct (in your opinion) ideas better, more thoroughly, etc
- discuss with people (who you judge incorrect) and get experience with how they think. you can ask them questions, see how they respond to various things, get more familiar with their thinking
- read literature from the schools of thought you disagree with and see what it says
E.g. you could talk with Kieren in the discussion at:
http://curi.us/1595-rationally-resolving-conflicts-of-ideas
For some reason, other people don’t seem to have much interest in such discussions. I do them pretty regularly and at length. Other people don’t and then know less. The discussions help with understanding other people’s thinking and with explaining your own (and exposing it to criticism). I learn faster than others *and* practice more *and* read more, and then other ppl complain that philosophy is hard and they aren’t succeeding a lot, or something, while passing up opportunities like this (which you were aware of, or could have been if you cared to be, before I mentioned it in this email).
Not that understanding standard confusions is a top priority. If you want to stay weak at that for now, and focus on something else, that could be reasonable.
Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages