Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
On the subject of something called “the illusion of skill”:
Kahneman begins by talking about evaluations that he, as a young man with an undergraduate degree in psychology, was asked to conduct regarding the leadership abilities of soldiers in the armed forces.
This involved watching how a group of eight collectively solved a problem that involved lifting a log over a wall. By observing the contributions made by each person, and how they interacted with one another, Kahneman attempted to predict the future. Which of these soldiers possessed qualities that would lead them to excel at officer training school?
Later, these predictions were checked against real world results. Kahneman explains:
Because our impressions of how well each soldier performed were generally coherent and clear, our formal predictions were just as definite. We rarely experienced doubt…We were quite willing to declare: “This one will never make it,”…or “He will be a star.”
…as it turned out, despite our certainty…our forecasts were largely useless…
Now here’s where it gets especially interesting:
But this was the army. Useful or not, there was a routine to be followed, and there were orders to be obeyed…The dismal truth about the quality of our predictions had…very little effect on the confidence we had in our judgments…
Even in a situation where people knew that their predictions were invalid, no course correction occurred. Not only did the evaluations continue to take place, Kahneman and his colleagues continued to feel a sense of confidence about what they were doing.
He calls this the “illusion of skill” — and says it illustrates something important about how the human brain works. Similar behaviour has been observed on the part of private individuals who buy and sell investment stocks — as well as on the part of professional investors. In Kahneman’s words:
Mutual funds are run by highly experienced and hard-working professionals who buy and sell stocks to achieve the best possible results for their clients. Nevertheless, the evidence from more than 50 years of research is conclusive: for a large majority of fund managers, the selection of stocks is more like rolling dice…At least two out of every three mutual funds underperform the overall market in any given year…The funds that were successful in any given year year were mostly lucky; they had a good roll of the dice.
Kahneman relates an experience in which he was invited “to speak to a group of investment advisers in a firm that provided financial advice…to very wealthy clients.” Beforehand, the firm gave him access to anonymized data detailing the investment outcomes of 25 of its employees over an eight-year period.
These employees all “felt they were competent professionals performing a task that was difficult but not impossible, and their superiors agreed.” But after crunching the numbers (the same ones that were used to determine the size of year-end bonuses), Kahneman was surprised to discover that the results once again “resembled what you would expect from a dice-rolling contest.”
So what happened next?
What we told the directors of the firm was that…the firm was rewarding luck as if it were skill. This should have been shocking news to them…There was no sign that they disbelieved us…After all, we had analyzed their own results, and they were certainly sophisticated enough to appreciate their implications…I am quite sure that both our findings and their implications were quickly swept under the rug and that life in the firm went on just as before. The illusion of skill..is deeply ingrained in the culture of the industry. Facts that challenge such basic assumptions — and thereby threaten people’s livelihood and self-esteem — are simply not absorbed. The mind does not digest them.
Article goes on to provide a link to Kahneman’s essay.
I think the Nobel Prize winner has discovered Architects and Medicators, the latter of whom have a tendency to, reducing the whole thing down to its most simple and direct level of expression and understanding, go through life making an opiate out of every experience. One thing I’ve noticed about group deliberations is that some of the people in attendance see the meeting activity as not a necessary overhead, but as the thinking process itself. It is a distinction that becomes lost easily, even when the responsibilities are shared effectively. You have mastery over some of the vital subject matters, but others among them are outside of your ken, so of course you will need to share your knowledge with others before a decision can be made…by anyone…
…but then, when the concern turns to simpler things. The most base things. “I like this rock band and I do not like that one” — even things like that, they remain just as dependent on the group-sharing as they were in the business meeting that afternoon. We use words like “introvert” and “extrovert” to describe people who must ration their depleting energy, or enjoy the opportunity to recharge it again, respectively, in these group environments. It is noted that the extrovert, in solitude, is less comfortable and may even become frustrated. What is not much talked-about is the confusion some of them have. They’ve been conditioned to make decisions in groups. It isn’t like painting a picket fence or weeding a garden, you can’t just say “I was doing that activity in a group, now I’ll just do exactly the same thing now that I’m alone.” Making a decision by yourself is a whole different thing, requiring a whole different discipline. It is not raw intelligence, but the selection of disciplines, that sets the Medicators and the Architects apart from each other.
Telling a fact apart from an opinion, is the very first step. There are many more that come after that, but in recognizing the difference between fact and opinion, we’re already outside the skill set usually required in the group session. In fact, the meeting environment has an unfortunate tendency to fuse these two things together. This person over here, that person over there, they throw up these “trial balloons” which function as, and are thought-of as, “ideas”…what does it matter whether they’re factual or whether they involve speculation, reasoning, personal preferences, “shoulds”…they’re trial balloons. Some stay up, some sink to the ground. Decision made, action items assigned, meeting adjourned.
My point is, for someone who makes a living predicting things, it would take a powerful force for them to sit in judgment of hard data documenting that their predictive efforts have been, when measured, correct about as often as a shake of a Magic-8 ball; resolve to take this data and reform their processes, so they can acquire a better result; and then, emerge from the exercise with nothing changed. Especially when they’re convinced they did something to address the problem. This, too, would have to be chalked up to the group environment. People do their “thinking” by throwing up trial balloons and seeing what happens to them…alerted to the plain fact that this has generated a bad result, they do more of the same thinking to try to fix it, and end up making the same mistakes. You always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you always got.
Kahneman finishes strong:
Do the professionals have an adequate opportunity to learn the cues and the regularities? The answer here depends on the professionals’ experience and on the quality and speed with which they discover their mistakes. Anesthesiologists have a better chance to develop intuitions than radiologists do. Many of the professionals we encounter easily pass both tests, and their off-the-cuff judgments deserve to be taken seriously. In general, however, you should not take assertive and confident people at their own evaluation unless you have independent reason to believe that they know what they are talking about. Unfortunately, this advice is difficult to follow: overconfident professionals sincerely believe they have expertise, act as experts and look like experts. You will have to struggle to remind yourself that they may be in the grip of an illusion.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Well, “Our forecasts were better than blind guesses, but not by much.” Good example though.
Actually, that is not shown. There is competition among professionals, so their performance is matched against others with like skills. Professionals won’t be expected to outperform other professionals overall (they can’t all be above average), but should be able to avoid many mistakes, that is, to hedge. To show their ability is no better than rolling dice, they would have to be compared to, well, rolling dice.
Climate science makes many predictions that can be tested, including whether the Earth is absorbing net energy.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 07:32http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page7.php
Oops. The last statement should be attributed to “NoFrakkingConsensus”.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 07:33This reminded me of an expose some years back about stockbrokers and their advice. Turns out that blindly throwing darts at an enlarged copy of the stock market did better than 2/3 of what the “experts” picked. I mentioned this to a stockbroker once and he got very offended at the idea that random chance could outperform him. Why, he was a paid expert. Apparently, he was right and reality was wrong. In his mind anyway.
- Physics Geek | 08/05/2013 @ 09:51Physics Geek: Turns out that blindly throwing darts at an enlarged copy of the stock market did better than 2/3 of what the “experts” picked.
Would be interested in seeing such a study.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 09:54Me too. The thing with investments is, I don’t talk to the advisor to make more accurate picks than a coin-flip, I also want to get things back like, “I would ordinarily say buy, but at your stage of life you might want to consider staying out” — stuff like that. “Will it go up or down” is certainly an important piece of it, but it’s only a piece, not the whole equation.
To me, the impressive part of the article, and of your story, is the lack of willingness to follow through on the suggestion that the picking-strategy could stand some improvement. That’s the part that trickles into other endeavors — like projected increases in Earth mean temperature for example. The experts, as you say, must triumph over reality if those two are ever in conflict. Reality doesn’t have a degree, after all!
- mkfreeberg | 08/05/2013 @ 10:34mkfreeberg: To me, the impressive part of the article, and of your story, is the lack of willingness to follow through on the suggestion that the picking-strategy could stand some improvement.
Of course strategies can be improved. But, according to the article at least, most professionals work at about the same level.
mkfreeberg: The experts, as you say, must triumph over reality if those two are ever in conflict.
Never said any such thing.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2013 @ 10:41Atre we all agreed that “professional” merely implies somehow gettting paid for an “occupation “?
I can’t find words like competent, productive, adept, or correct, associated with “professional”, “profess”, or “profit” in ANY of my dictionaries.
There WAS some gobblety gook about (professed?) Liberal Arts and Sciences.
- CaptDMO | 08/06/2013 @ 10:20Never said any such thing.
Sorry for being unclear, this was directed to PG.
- mkfreeberg | 08/06/2013 @ 10:27CaptDMO: I can’t find words like competent, productive, adept, or correct, associated with “professional”, “profess”, or “profit” in ANY of my dictionaries.
Merriam-Webster
- Zachriel | 08/06/2013 @ 15:53professional, engaged in one of the learned professions
profession, a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation
…who may be quite skilled at that profession requiring specialized knowledge, or might very well suck at it.
- mkfreeberg | 08/06/2013 @ 16:10mkfreeberg: …who may be quite skilled at that profession requiring specialized knowledge, or might very well suck at it.
Well, sure. But presumably less likely than when hiring novices or rolling the dice (at least not distinguishable by Kahneman’s test).
- Zachriel | 08/07/2013 @ 05:27Oooh! Oooh! Oooh!
LAST!!!!!
- Severian | 08/07/2013 @ 07:53Dunno if that’s going to work here, Mr. Lasty McLasterson…
The disagreement that emerges, here, has to do with internalizing versus externalizing the reasoning process. I have no quarrel for those who choose to externalize, leave the reasoning up to outsiders, and thus leave themselves entirely unable to describe the rationale behind how a conclusion was reached outside of some paraphrase of “I’m just following the process, the decision was made by that other guy, over there.” They can keep doing that, so long as I’m remain unaffected by it in any way.
For myself, I choose to internalize. It matters to me that, even though Justin Bieber is paid a lot for making music, he sucks at it; that even though Twilight Saga made lots of money, it sucks.
Professional-suckage is actually commonplace. And it’s mostly because of what’s described in the article. They may or may not possess the ability to reach the right decision some of the time, most of the time, or more-often compared to a novice. But their professional status often clouds their judgment upon re-evaluating, they tend to exclude as a possibility that they may have made the wrong decision because they are being paid.
It even happens, more than most people suspect I think, that professionals are chartered specifically to check the work of other professionals, and end up rubber-stamping it as sort of a “professional courtesy” (combined with everyday unchecked laziness).
But, to each their own. Some folks like to think, some folks like to read, and copy, and cite, and toss up links, and pretend they’ve been thinking. It’s like a radio station being heard in the car, or wallpaper in the living room or bedroom, as long as it has no effect on the other car/household it’s all good.
- mkfreeberg | 08/07/2013 @ 08:34mkfreeberg: I have no quarrel for those who choose to externalize, leave the reasoning up to outsiders, and thus leave themselves entirely unable to describe the rationale behind how a conclusion was reached outside of some paraphrase of “I’m just following the process, the decision was made by that other guy, over there.”
(Took a quite some time for us to understand what you meant by “externalizing”, which seems to mean appeal to authority. We would have thought it meant being explicit in your reasoning, which was the source of our confusion. Your odd, heterodox terminology sometimes makes it difficult to understand your reasoning.)
mkfreeberg: Professional-suckage is actually commonplace.
We have no doubt of that. We were discussing the limitations of Kahneman’s test of professional investors. The test shows they operate at similar levels of ability, but doesn’t adequately compare their ability to random selection of investments.
mkfreeberg: Some folks like to think, some folks like to read, and copy, and cite, and toss up links, and pretend they’ve been thinking.
Our comment about Kahneman didn’t come from another source, but from an analysis of his essay.
- Zachriel | 08/07/2013 @ 08:46Did the Zachriel really just accuse you of “odd, heterodox terminology [which] sometimes makes it difficult to understand your reasoning”?
Did that really just happen? 🙂
Eh, if you want to do another 300+ comments of copy-paste and deliberate obtuseness, well… it’s your blog. I’m just in it to pick on Spergs.
- Severian | 08/07/2013 @ 12:49Severian: just accuse you of “odd, heterodox terminology
Not really an accusation, but just something noted. It’s easy enough to find the orthodox use of terms a dictionary or encyclopedia. Indeed, several entries to this blog have concerned made-up terms.
- Zachriel | 08/07/2013 @ 15:17Externalize:
Externalize the reasoning process? Seems pretty clear to me. Unambiguous, too, especially within context. “It’s so, because that guy over there said it is; if you want a rationale, you have to go talk to him, I’m just following orders.”
- mkfreeberg | 08/07/2013 @ 16:15mkfreeberg: Externalize the reasoning process?
Neither definition seems to fit your usage. 1) To make manifest your reasoning is how we thought you were using it, that is, to state it explicitly, to write it down, to explicate it.
2) To attribute to causes, well, an argument is not a cause; and to rationalize means to find excuses.
There’s already the term appeal to authority, if that is what you mean. It really doesn’t matter, as long as you’re consistent, that’s fine. You could use scare-quotes to avoid any ambiguity.
This is all parenthetical. Did you have something to say about Kahneman?
- Zachriel | 08/07/2013 @ 16:25It’s weird how you’re still confused and complaining my usage falls outside the definition, when the definition the dictionary uses as an example concerns a guy “externalizing” to avoid blame. Externalized lack of ability to succeed; externalize the reasoning process; if there’s some subtle fine nuance of meaning between how the dictionary uses it and how I’m using it, it entirely escapes me, but at any rate it doesn’t seem sufficient to create real confusion.
Are you phoning in from some alternate universe in which a reasoning process cannot be externalized, because it was never possible for it to be internalized in the first place?
- mkfreeberg | 08/07/2013 @ 16:29mkfreeberg: Are you phoning in from some alternate universe in which a reasoning process cannot be externalized, because it was never possible for it to be internalized in the first place?
In analytical reasoning, to externalize means to record and organize the thought process, such as by making notes, lists, diagrams, models, etc.. It’s a common method of improving results.
http://www.google.com/search?q=analytical+reasoning+external
As we said it’s not a big deal. We understand your usage. Just keep in mind that it is not the usual meaning. Did you have something to say about Kahneman?
- Zachriel | 08/07/2013 @ 16:42Sorry, when you said “it’s easy enough to find the orthodox use of terms a dictionary or encyclopedia,” I must have taken your wording too literally. As we can see, once I did check MW, we found my usage did indeed comport with the orthodox meaning — there, at least.
I believe I’ve commented on Kahneman’s essay in the post, up above.
- mkfreeberg | 08/07/2013 @ 17:03mkfreeberg: Sorry, when you said “it’s easy enough to find the orthodox use of terms a dictionary or encyclopedia,” I must have taken your wording too literally.
And neither definition you provided fit very well.
mkfreeberg: I believe I’ve commented on Kahneman’s essay in the post, up above.
So you apparently don’t disagree with our analysis. Fair enough.
- Zachriel | 08/07/2013 @ 17:06If by “not fit very well,” what you really mean is “fit in exactly the same way the example in the dictionary fit,” then you’re correct.
- mkfreeberg | 08/07/2013 @ 17:13For some reason you provided two definitions, but you have indicated that the second is the one you mean. The problem with your usage is that to rationalize means to provide reasons to support the claim that external causes were at work. So, while the causes are external, the reasoning is not.
Sure, your usage has some connection to the Latin root word externus, but is inconsistent with normal usage, and not consistent with the definitions you provided. You seem to have taken as a point of pride the coining of terms. This seems to be an instance. But if you aren’t clear in your own mind when your usage is non-standard, then it will lead to confusion.
- Zachriel | 08/07/2013 @ 17:36We don’t need to get into the Latin. The dictionary, as I’ve pointed out twice now, has provided an example with regard to blame, which is identical to my usage with regard to reasoning.
So if by “not consistent with the definitions you provided,” you really mean “consistent with the definitions you provided,” you are correct.
- mkfreeberg | 08/07/2013 @ 18:17As usual you ignored the point we raised.
According to the definition you provided, the reasoning is internal about external causes. People rationalize when they want to avoid blame. Your use of externalize seems to be more akin to delegating the thinking process to others. Perhaps you do mean rationalizing. Who can tell?
- Zachriel | 08/07/2013 @ 18:30Your point was that I wasn’t using the word properly and a quick trip to the dictionary would prove it. I went to the dictionary and found not only was my usage correct, but the example provided by the dictionary was functionally identical with my usage of it.
Now you’re trying to salvage some kind of hollow victory, trying to pretend the outcome was different, by dragging in all sorts of unrelated things like “analytical reasoning with external representations”; and has been the case a few times before, it’s become somewhat uncertain that you even understand what’s being discussed.
“He externalized his inability to succeed” and “He externalized the reasoning process” — whatever difference there is between those two, is outside the word “externalize.” So the word was used properly, it’s measurable that it was used properly. If you’re having trouble figuring it out, it may be because you don’t acknowledge that a reasoning process can ever be internalized — that nobody ever actually does it.
Which would make y’all, to reasoning, what this person is to making meat.
That’s something of a problem, to be sure. I’m not clear on how it becomes mine.
- mkfreeberg | 08/07/2013 @ 21:51mkfreeberg: Your point was that I wasn’t using the word properly and a quick trip to the dictionary would prove it. I went to the dictionary and found not only was my usage correct, but the example provided by the dictionary was functionally identical with my usage of it.
That’s fine. We must have misunderstood your usage then. When we see you write “externalize”, we will substitute “rationalize” per your definition.
mkfreeberg: “He externalized his inability to succeed” He rationalized his inability to succeed.
mkfreeberg: “He externalized the reasoning process” He rationalized his reasoning process.
English is a funny language. In context, rationalize can have different meanings. In the former, it usually means make excuses; in the latter, it usually means using logical or scientific principles.
We presume you use words in order to communicate? Idiomatic expressions can be tricky. When a meaning isn’t clear, it’s best to try a different syntax or expression. Instead, you seem to insist upon your chosen term, which is okay in this instance, as long as you make your meaning clear.
We think you mean by “externalize the reasoning process”, to rely upon the reasoning process of others, like farming out the work. Is that correct?
mkfreeberg: If you’re having trouble figuring it out, it may be because you don’t acknowledge that a reasoning process can ever be internalized — that nobody ever actually does it.
All people reason, if that is what you mean.
- Zachriel | 08/08/2013 @ 05:05That’s fine. We must have misunderstood your usage then. When we see you write “externalize”, we will substitute “rationalize” per your definition.
That wouldn’t be accurate. How about just interpret “externalize” the way Merriam-Webster does: ” to attribute to causes outside the self”.
Internal reasoning: The pea was not under the left cup or the right cup, it has to be under the middle cup. External reasoning: Someone tell me where the pea is.
From ALL you’ve written at this site and elsewhere, it seems you might be getting confused because you’re familiar with practicing only the latter, and not the former.
- mkfreeberg | 08/08/2013 @ 06:04mkfreeberg: That wouldn’t be accurate.
Rationalize was certainly in the definition you provided. It was a good choice, because it showed how context can affect meaning.
mkfreeberg: How about just interpret “externalize” the way Merriam-Webster does: ” to attribute to causes outside the self”.
Because it’s contrary to conventional usage, so it leads to confusion if someone isn’t aware of your peculiar idioms.
And it still doesn’t quite work. “He attributed his reasoning process to causes outside himself”. That reads as if someone is controlling his mind, not that he is asking others about their knowledge or seeking advice. But whatever. Others may or may not be confused, but we’re aware of your usage. ‘
Your example of the pease explains your meaning quite well by the way.
- Zachriel | 08/08/2013 @ 06:34I agree it isn’t perfect; the collision of words & the more complex intentions seldom is. If you really think you have a good grasp of the meaning and a better way of expressing it, then I’m listening. But I think most people, seeing the words “internalize” and “externalize” used in close proximity to one another, will quickly figure out that what’s being distinguished is the location of something. There is no ambiguity about what that thing is, since “reasoning process” is the noun immediately following.
But we need not argue about whether you were confused, I’ll take your word for it. Sorry you lost time figuring out something I could’ve worded better. Again, if you think you’ve got a grasp, and a superior alternative, I’m all ears.
- mkfreeberg | 08/08/2013 @ 06:48mkfreeberg: There is no ambiguity about what that thing is, since “reasoning process” is the noun immediately following.
The ambiguity comes from it already having a meaning; externalized reasoning means to make the reasoning explicit or manifest.
Not a big deal. We’re more than happy to use your definition.
- Zachriel | 08/08/2013 @ 07:01Went to see what Wikipedia had to say about it, and they’re interpreting it precisely the way I intended:
You’d probably better get ahold of them.
- mkfreeberg | 08/08/2013 @ 07:16mkfreeberg: Usually ‘internalism’ refers to the belief that an explanation can be given of the given subject by pointing to things which are internal to the person or their mind who is considering them. Conversely, externalism holds that it is things about the world which motivate us, justify our beliefs, determine meaning, etc.
That isn’t consistent with your use. Your use of externalism means relying on the opinions of others. In the philosophy of mind, externalism means the mind is not only the nervous system, but the relationship of the nervous system with the world. In epistemology, it means knowledge produced by a reliable or objective process. So deducing the location of the pea, in your example, would be externalism in that sense.
This is very simplified, but gives you the idea.
- Zachriel | 08/08/2013 @ 08:30“Philosophy, the view that mental events and acts are essentially dependent on the world external to the mind, in opposition to the Cartesian separation of mental and physical worlds.”
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/externalism
[…] there’s the troll way, where you simply straight-up instruct people that words don’t mean what they mean. Click the link, and behold a writer being informed that when he writes […]
- D3: Doin’ the Humpty Hump | Rotten Chestnuts | 08/08/2013 @ 08:32Just spotted: Another totally wrong use of the word “externalize,” here
I make no representations as to the possible irony embedded in the posting of this particular quote. I’m just pointing it out, so that the Internet’s most vigilant syntax police can flag another offender.
- Severian | 08/08/2013 @ 09:01Oh dear, it seems we have to do some research to bring ourselves up to speed with the daunting knowledge base of said syntax-police…so we can get properly confused.
Look, I’m sure if we go prowling through the background and life-experience of how y’all managed to acquire this impressive knowledge base, so you could arrive at the proper state of confusion, we’d eventually get hip to how & why you became properly confused. But that would defeat the purpose of using words. They’re like application programming interfaces in a software module; the entire point is to arrive at a common understanding, a “gateway” of sorts, through which the more complex ideas can be “trucked.”
So evidently your confusion comes from an intransigent insistence on doorstop-delivery service. Even if I were in the business, y’all aren’t providing your doorstop address. Well, I guess now with this Oxford entry for an entirely different word, you’re at least providing a road map to it.
Why not just take the effort to figure out what the writer is trying to say? Isn’t that part of reading? You never did propose a superior alternative wording for me to consider using. I’m accustomed to people at least going through that minimal level of effort when they find my writing confusing.
It’s looking more and more like you’re “confused” by my pointing something out, just because you don’t want me pointing it out.
- mkfreeberg | 08/08/2013 @ 09:08Severian: Just spotted: Another totally wrong use of the word “externalize,” here
The use is consistent with the standard usage, “externalizing blame”, i.e. rationalizing.
mkfreeberg: Why not just take the effort to figure out what the writer is trying to say?
Z: This is all parenthetical. Did you have something to say about Kahneman?
Z: As we said it’s not a big deal. We understand your usage. Just keep in mind that it is not the usual meaning. Did you have something to say about Kahneman?
Z: So you apparently don’t disagree with our analysis (of Kahneman). Fair enough.
Z: We must have misunderstood your usage then. When we see you write “externalize”, we will substitute “rationalize” per your definition.
Z: We think you mean by “externalize the reasoning process”, to rely upon the reasoning process of others, like farming out the work. Is that correct?
Z: Your example of the pease explains your meaning quite well by the way.
Z: Not a big deal. We’re more than happy to use your definition.
- Zachriel | 08/08/2013 @ 09:15It’s just so bizarre, and worthy of inspection I think: Taking the effort to be confused about something that, without the effort applied, is actually quite plain. You still haven’t offered a better wording alternative. Without one, my phrasing, while not exactly perfect, tumbles into a colossal grab-bag of many other imperfect-but-acceptable phrasings, which whenever & wherever they may not be received with perfect understanding, can be simply backed up with some additional comment — like the thing with the peas, as you point out.
Which I’ve found, with “externalize the reasoning process,” is necessary only very rarely. Very, very rarely.
- mkfreeberg | 08/08/2013 @ 09:25Not a big deal. We’re more than happy to use your definition.
- Zachriel | 08/08/2013 @ 09:27Thanks for clearing that up.
- mkfreeberg | 08/08/2013 @ 09:31It seems that appeal to authority is a variety of ‘externalizing the reasoning process’. Other types would include getting advice from a trusted friend, a child learning from an adult, accepting commands in a hierarchy, or parroting what you read in the news.
- Zachriel | 08/08/2013 @ 09:33David Stove once said, of some other philosopher: “One must be very learned indeed to find things as hard to understand as _____ does.”
The same sort of thing is happening here, I’d wager: “I don’t understand” means “I don’t like what you have to say and wish you’d stop.” They’ve even provided a sort of how-to guide to not understanding something:
There’s repeatedly asking for unnecessary clarification (Z: We think you mean by “externalize the reasoning process”, to rely upon the reasoning process of others, like farming out the work. Is that correct?)
There’s pretending that the main topic is a digression (Z: This is all parenthetical. Did you have something to say about Kahneman?)
There’s attempting to change the subject by “assuming the sale” (Z: So you apparently don’t disagree with our analysis (of Kahneman). Fair enough.)
There’s trying to force the issue by means of false courtesy (Z: We must have misunderstood your usage then. When we see you write “externalize”, we will substitute “rationalize” per your definition.)
There’s combining various of the above (Z: As we said it’s not a big deal. We understand your usage. Just keep in mind that it is not the usual meaning. Did you have something to say about Kahneman?)
And so on. It really is fascinating, all this effort spent on deliberate obtuseness.
…. Unless it really IS obtuseness, in which case I think we’ve got one for the psych textbooks here.
- Severian | 08/08/2013 @ 09:35It seems that appeal to authority is a variety of ‘externalizing the reasoning process’. Other types would include getting advice from a trusted friend, a child learning from an adult, accepting commands in a hierarchy, or parroting what you read in the news.
To use another analogy I’ve recently read (wish I recalled where), calling all of these “types of externalizing the reasoning process” is kind of like saying “Smith pushed a woman out of the path of a speeding bus, and Jones pushed a woman into the path of a speeding bus; therefore both Smith and Jones have a problem with violence towards women.”
I find an obvious difference between getting trusted advice and learning from an adult, vs. parroting what you’ve heard or (to go back to where we started) attributing everything to an external source, including the reasoning process that is properly one’s own. The first two are from people who want information, the better to inform their own thinking and conclusions; the others are from those who’d much rather not be bothered with those things. It’s not so much the actual thinking – we’ve seen quite clearly in this thread the kind of effort some sorts of reasoning requires – I think it’s really just that the responsibility of it is too much. Outsourcing all of that thinking means that you never get brought to book for the consequences.
It’s very much like the consternation over Obama’s quote about things we didn’t build: he listed a bunch of works of government – education, roads and bridges, utilities – and threw “you own a business” in the midst of it. That one thing is not at all like any of the others, but he pretended it was, and clearly intended that it should be thought of as the same, just another item in the list of things Our Wonderful Government bountifully supplies. When called on it, he whined about context, as if he himself hadn’t meant “you own a business” to be seen in the same context as infrastructure issues.
Asking advice and learning = “parroting what you hear in the news.” Private initiative = public works. Up is down, and in any case none of it is my responsibility. In short, “I didn’t build that.”
- nightfly | 08/08/2013 @ 10:12Well, granting that it is really obtuseness and we just managed to get it cleared up just now.
It might be worth pointing out that this externalization, or whatever ya wanna call it, is exactly how a sleight-of-hand magic trick works. Appeal to authority, word of a trusted friend, accepting commands in a chain of command, parroting what is read in books or in newspapers. Such externalizations of reasoning are often necessary. A boss reading a report from a subordinate, and factoring it in to a report to his superior within a corporate hierarchy; if he had time to internalize all the reasoning, then what would be the necessity of hiring the lower manager in the first place?
The problem comes in when everything is externalized. That is when it becomes possible, even easy, to deceive by way of sleight-of-hand. That is with inimical or malicious intent on the part of the deceiver — but it’s also easy for benign deceptions to take place.
What fascinates me about the professionals discussed by Kahneman, and with people in general, is that they seem to become more and more cocksure of their opinions as they rely more and more on this unreliable externalization — reliance on the inferential reasoning of outside persons and parties. You’d think it would be the other way around. It should be. That is how magicians deceive: Waitaminnit, did you actually see the disappearing coin in the cup?
Some people don’t know what it means to figure out something for yourself, simply because they’ve made it remarkably far in life without ever having done it.
I still have to figure out how you stuck that image in there. I tried before and it didn’t work (or at least, the preview came up blank) so I didn’t bother.
- nightfly | 08/08/2013 @ 10:24Host the image so you can get a url, then
<img src=”url”>
Include the quotes, replace “url” with the url.
- mkfreeberg | 08/08/2013 @ 10:26Hm. That’s what I thought. And the image is in my media library on Word Press. I’ll try again later.
Thanks for helping me externalize, bro.
- nightfly | 08/08/2013 @ 10:30For the people in Kahneman’s study, I’d bet that good ol’ confirmation bias and its related syndromes account for a lot of it — I’m right about the stuff I’m right about because I’m an expert; the stuff I’m wrong about is due to _______; and lo and behold, I’m right about the stuff I’m right about 100% of the time. Which means I’m truly an expert.
It sucks when you realize you’re misinterpreting the world in some fundamental way. Most everyone who has ever been a liberal, for instance, can recall with crystal clarity the moment he first thought “waitaminnit, a lot of this stuff doesn’t make sense.” So with believers becoming atheists, or atheists believers — the moment of revelation, as it were, sticks with you.
It’s far easier to go to some trusted source and listen to their calm soothing words than try to work it out for yourself. And since so many of these sources are superficially clever and/or very good at casuistry, it’s fairly easy for them to “reason” someone back into his former belief — a comforting belief, of course, and one that he really wanted to maintain anyway.
Take the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Most people who felt “the Catholic Church believes a lot of nonsense” were fairly easily “reasoned” into Lutheranism, conveniently ignoring its ample load of nonsense. Those who were fed up with said Protestant nonsense, however, didn’t take the “logical” (in the purely argumentative sense) next step and become atheists, though, or Hindus, or Unitarians — they went right back to their former Catholicism, with a helping hand from those most authoritative of all authority figures, the Jesuits.
- Severian | 08/08/2013 @ 11:03nightfly: I find an obvious difference between getting trusted advice and learning from an adult, vs. parroting what you’ve heard or (to go back to where we started) attributing everything to an external source, including the reasoning process that is properly one’s own.
Of course they’re different, but they are encompassed by mkfreeberg’s definition of externalization.
mkfreeberg: Appeal to authority, word of a trusted friend, accepting commands in a chain of command, parroting what is read in books or in newspapers. Such externalizations of reasoning are often necessary.
Cats and dogs are different, but both are in the class of mammals.
mkfreeberg: The problem comes in when everything is externalized. That is when it becomes possible, even easy, to deceive by way of sleight-of-hand.
There’s always a chance of error when relying on the opinion of others. A valid appeal to authority is a way to minimize this possibility.
- Zachriel | 08/08/2013 @ 14:10It certainly is! We could never get back any kind of silly nonsense from a valid appeal to authority. Just obey all the instructions we get from our betters, and we can be sure we’re making the best decisions possible…
- mkfreeberg | 08/08/2013 @ 14:20(^ Naughty language warning on the video behind that link up there ^)
- mkfreeberg | 08/08/2013 @ 14:20mkfreeberg: We could never get back any kind of silly nonsense from a valid appeal to authority.
Well, no. Even a valid appeal to authority can be wrong. It’s an inductive argument. Experts are more likely to be right about matters within their own, legitimate field of study than non-experts. When you want to know about that unusual lump, you go to the doctor, who may in turn send you to a specialist. Doctors can certainly be wrong, and often are, but are more likely to be right than the opinion of a random person. Do you disagree?
- Zachriel | 08/08/2013 @ 15:28It isn’t possible to specifically quantify one likelihood to be greater than the other. There are forces acting upon the novice opinion that might persuade toward its error; there are forces acting upon the expert opinion persuading toward its error; A Venn diagram of the forces persuading the novice, and expert, opinions toward error, would show exclusivity within both along with some overlap.
It might be helpful to compile a list of bullet points for an invalid appeal to authority. We would start with an overview of three very broad areas of what might make an expert opinion wrong:
• The expert is operating from an incentive to offer a wrong (or, less-tested, or more-controversial, than he’s letting on) opinion;
• The expert is beholden to another person, or organization or establishment, that is so motivated;
• The expert, being human, is making a simple mistake.
I would say generally the experts are less likely than novices to fall prey to that third bullet point. However on the rare occasions on which they make simple mistakes, they are also far less likely than novices to revisit the issue and self-correct.
They are also far more likely to fall prey to the second bullet point. Especially when they’re accredited as experts, and their accreditation may be put into jeopardy should they offer an answer that strays outside of the orthodoxy — even if such an unorthodox answer has a greater possibility of being the right one.
Novices have forces acting upon their opinions, which might persuade those opinions toward being the wrong ones, to which the experts are not likewise exposed. For example, a novice may seek out the counsel of experts when there might not be a good reason to, due to the “Wizard of Oz Effect.”
- mkfreeberg | 08/08/2013 @ 15:46mkfreeberg: It isn’t possible to specifically quantify one likelihood to be greater than the other.
Medical science has many quantitative measures. For instance, if you test positive for tuberculosis, there is a high probability of having tuberculosis, and you might want to take the prescribed antibiotics. Are you really saying that if you have a bad cough, a medical doctor isn’t more likely to provide good medical advice than a non-medical doctor?
- Zachriel | 08/08/2013 @ 17:17Fascinating how you immediately go after an example involving Tuberculosis, an ailment for which there is little to no evidence of any kind of untoward agenda at work within the institution.
Why not something like, say, Asperger’s?
Or…”don’t use electronic devices on an airplane flight.” Did you watch the video?
How come the examples you choose, seem to systematically avoid the institutional problems being discussed.
- mkfreeberg | 08/08/2013 @ 17:22mkfreeberg: Fascinating how you immediately go after an example involving Tuberculosis, an ailment for which there is little to no evidence of any kind of untoward agenda at work within the institution.
Notably, you didn’t respond to the point. Are you really saying that a medical doctor isn’t more likely to provide useful medical advice than a non-medical doctor?
mkfreeberg: How come the examples you choose, seem to systematically avoid the institutional problems being discussed.
We’re more than happy to discuss institutional problems, but they’re irrelevant as long as you pretend there is no such thing as expert opinion. Otherwise, there’s nothing to fix.
- Zachriel | 08/08/2013 @ 17:29Are you familiar with Azimov’s The Relativity of Wrong?
- Zachriel | 08/08/2013 @ 17:35http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
The Aristotle quote on your masthead is misattributed.
- Zachriel | 08/08/2013 @ 17:37http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Aristotle#Misattributed
Last three posts seem to have an awful lot more to do with “winning” arguments than with finding out the true state of things. You seem to be conceding that experts can be wrong, but disagreeing about the three broad categorizations I’ve created concerning why & how. Are you saying one or more of my bullet points do not, or may not, apply?
- mkfreeberg | 08/09/2013 @ 03:33mkfreeberg: Last three posts seem to have an awful lot more to do with “winning” arguments than with finding out the true state of things.
We have no desire to win anything. The problem is your inability to respond to points we’ve raised. (The Aristotle comment was off-topic, but something you might want to know.)
mkfreeberg: You seem to be conceding that experts can be wrong,
Of course experts can be wrong. We’ve said that repeatedly. Indeed, it’s implicit in “more likely to be right”.
mkfreeberg: but disagreeing about the three broad categorizations I’ve created concerning why & how.
Not at all. It shows you don’t read carefully. If you remember, this is what constitutes a valid appeal to authority:
Your comments about incentives or duress are encompassed in “undue bias”. Experts can make simple mistakes, just like anyone. Nevertheless, you have left the points we raised unanswered.
* Are you really saying that a medical doctor isn’t more likely to provide useful medical advice than a non-medical doctor?
* We’re more than happy to discuss institutional problems, but they’re irrelevant as long as you pretend there is no such thing as expert opinion. Otherwise, there’s nothing to fix. Do you understand why this is so?
* We’ll return to The Relativity of Wrong.
- Zachriel | 08/09/2013 @ 04:21Not sure how you get the idea I didn’t read carefully, when this is a point that is only emerging now: The simple mistakes the experts may make, you are contending are encompassed in the “undue bias” bullet point. Can you explain some more about how this can work? I took “evidence of undue bias” to mean something externally visible to the layman who is considering the expert’s advice. Also, experts can make many other mistakes that have nothing to do with bias.
You should consider adding my three bullets that would invalidate an appeal to authority, or else create questions for its conclusions, to your five (six, actually) bullet points required to make it valid.
I address your Relativity of Wrong by questioning how it is germane to the subject. I’m not saying what Asimov’s essayist/student was saying; not even implying it. Neither is David Freedman. Did you read the interview I linked? It seems like you didn’t.
- mkfreeberg | 08/09/2013 @ 04:42mkfreeberg: Not sure how you get the idea I didn’t read carefully
Because you seem to keep missing the question mark.
Are you really saying that a medical doctor isn’t more likely to provide useful medical advice than a non-medical doctor?
* We’re more than happy to discuss institutional problems, but they’re irrelevant as long as you pretend there is no such thing as expert opinion. Otherwise, there’s nothing to fix. Do you understand why this is so?
mkfreeberg: when this is a point that is only emerging now: The simple mistakes the experts may make, you are contending are encompassed in the “undue bias” bullet point.
As we said, you don’t read carefully. Your comments about incentives or duress are encompassed in “undue bias”. That’s your first two bullet points above.
mkfreeberg: I took “evidence of undue bias” to mean something externally visible to the layman who is considering the expert’s advice.
Undue, unwarranted or inappropriate because excessive or disproportionate.
mkfreeberg: I address your Relativity of Wrong by questioning how it is germane to the subject.
If an expert says the diameter of the Earth is 12,600 km, and the correct value turns out to be 12,742 km, the expert was wrong, but not as wrong as saying the Earth has a diameter of 1,000 km or that the Earth is flat.
- Zachriel | 08/09/2013 @ 04:53I suggest you read the Time Magazine interview with David Freedman, to see how some of your questions are answered and some are simply not on-point with what’s being discussed.
- mkfreeberg | 08/09/2013 @ 04:57mkfreeberg: I suggest you read the Time Magazine interview with David Freedman, to see how some of your questions are answered and some are simply not on-point with what’s being discussed.
We did. Now can you answer the questions?
* Are you really saying that a medical doctor isn’t more likely to provide useful medical advice than a non-medical doctor?
* We’re more than happy to discuss institutional problems, but they’re irrelevant as long as you pretend there is no such thing as expert opinion. Otherwise, there’s nothing to fix. Do you understand why this is so?
- Zachriel | 08/09/2013 @ 05:11Where did you get the idea I said a medical doctor is not more likely to provide useful medical advice than a non-medical doctor?
Where did you get the idea that I’m pretending there’s no such thing as expert opinion?
Where did you get the idea that I’m trying to come up with a fix?
Did you read Asimov’s essay about the relativity of wrong?
- mkfreeberg | 08/09/2013 @ 05:17mkfreeberg: Where did you get the idea I said a medical doctor is not more likely to provide useful medical advice than a non-medical doctor?
That’s not actually an answer, but unless you correct us, we will take that to mean you generally think doctors are more likely right about medical issues than non-doctors.
mkfreeberg: Where did you get the idea that I’m pretending there’s no such thing as expert opinion?
Again, that’s not actually an answer. Unless you correct us, we will take that to mean you do accept expert opinion, but use judgment in determining the strength of such appeals.
mkfreeberg: Where did you get the idea that I’m trying to come up with a fix?
Still not an answer, but clearly institutional or individual problems of undue influence only matter if we look to those institutions or individuals for reliable answers. If someone makes an appeal to authority, you can attempt to impeach that appeal by pointing to evidence of undue bias. It may be fairly easy to show bias in a single expert, or a group of experts working for a corporation with a particular agenda, harder for an entire field, even harder when valid fields overlap with one another.
- Zachriel | 08/09/2013 @ 05:28mkfreeberg: Did you read Asimov’s essay about the relativity of wrong?
Yes, many times.
- Zachriel | 08/09/2013 @ 05:29Carried out correctly, science is a linear process. We start out knowing little, and as we proceed further we know more, and here & there and it is testable that we know more. Along the way, confidence may be low and it may be high; occasionally it will emerge that great confidence was placed in conclusions that later turn out to be wrong. But some of the confidence is testable. And as we proceed, the knowledge that is verifiable should increase, as part of this linear process. We should become sure of things that, previously, were not within the domain of certainty — even if those ideas did previously “warrant” high levels of confidence.
Asimov agrees with this linear progression of science — the whole point to his essay is based on it. And I agree with Asimov.
It seems to me like you’re the one who might be disregarding the point Asimov made, effectively, by ignoring this linear progression of science. You’ve made great effort to conflate the discussion, which is experts using their expertise to mask their own human capacity for failure from themselves (mutual fund managers, in the first example) — a sort of “science” doomed to remain in an infantile state, since it’s essentially rebooted with each new question that emerges — with medical doctors diagnosing Tuberculosis. In doing so, if you are not going so far as to say these two things are functionally the same, you are at least ignoring this maturation process in the linear progression of science, which is the point on which Asimov’s entire essay relies.
To put it more simply: Experts, working with specific science disciplines in their more nascent stages of development, thereby toiling on a daily basis with wrong-ness that ranks very high on Asimov’s spectrum, have a way of forgetting that this is what they’re doing. And if they don’t forget that this is what they’re doing, they often have a way of forgetting to explain this to the laypersons who rely on them for their opinions.
- mkfreeberg | 08/09/2013 @ 05:48mkfreeberg: It seems to me like you’re the one who might be disregarding the point Asimov made, effectively, by ignoring this linear progression of science.
It’s more of a two steps forward, one step back process. More particularly, it’s a dynamical system with many small steps, a few large steps, and the occasional revolution.
mkfreeberg: Experts, working with specific science disciplines in their more nascent stages of development, thereby toiling on a daily basis with wrong-ness that ranks very high on Asimov’s spectrum, have a way of forgetting that this is what they’re doing.
Agreed. Experts working on the fringes of knowledge, often overstate their results, or allow their results to be overstated in the media. That’s why consensus is important, as well as overlap with other, more developed fields of study.
mkfreeberg: And if they don’t forget that this is what they’re doing, they often have a way of forgetting to explain this to the laypersons who rely on them for their opinions.
Agreed again. It’s important to understand and communicate the uncertainty along with the results.
Just curious. Why then was it so hard for you to directly answer the question, Are you really saying that a medical doctor isn’t more likely to provide useful medical advice than a non-medical doctor?
- Zachriel | 08/09/2013 @ 05:56Not sure where our point of disagreement is then.
Just curious. Why then was it so hard for you to directly answer the question, Are you really saying that a medical doctor isn’t more likely to provide useful medical advice than a non-medical doctor?
Didn’t say it was hard. It’s just off-topic, and can only by made (to appear) on-topic by way of conflating two things into one, and thus obliterating a distinction that is key to the point being made, which is: soft expertise in an infantile discipline, versus hard expertise in a more mature discipline.
- mkfreeberg | 08/09/2013 @ 05:59mkfreeberg: Didn’t say it was hard. It’s just off-topic,
Of course it’s on-topic. It’s the foundation of the discussion. Indeed, your own citation made the same point, “it’s not that we want to discard expertise — that would be reckless and dangerous.” Nor is there any valid discussion of institutional biases unless you are relying on those institutions for reliable answers. So, this is where we are;
“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.” — Douglas Adams
- Zachriel | 08/09/2013 @ 06:12Again, you conflate soft expertise in infantile disciplines, with hard expertise in more mature disciplines. Statements such as “Experts are more likely right than not about subjects within their field of study” do not observe this crucial distinction.
And I have to wonder what question remains, and why it remains; “it’s not that we want to discard expertise — that would be reckless and dangerous” should settle at least that part of it.
If we aren’t going to discard it, then we should keep it; and if we are going to keep it, we should understand exactly what it is before we implement it.
- mkfreeberg | 08/09/2013 @ 06:18mkfreeberg: Again, you conflate soft expertise in infantile disciplines, with hard expertise in more mature disciplines.
Experts are more likely to be wrong on the fringes of knowledge, there is less likely to be a consensus on those fringes, and more room for biases to operate. It’s important for experts to acknowledge the limitations of their findings. Indeed, part of being an expert is knowing the limits of the field.
mkfreeberg: If we aren’t going to discard it, then we should keep it; and if we are going to keep it, we should understand
exactlywhat it is before we implement it.Agreed. (albeit, no such knowledge can be exact.)
- Zachriel | 08/09/2013 @ 06:24I’m sure many would protest your cross-out as a minor, even inconsequential, quibble.
I’d take your side in that. I think you’ve found the true point of disagreement. The responsible, humble, “my conclusions are only as certain as the data upon which they rest” viewpoint…versus the other viewpoint, which says “maybe I have uncertainties, but what the heck, uncertainties are everywhere, so let’s pretend we’re absolutely sure.” Hillary Clinton something-into-nothing, What Difference Does It Make. We know what we know! We’re sure!
It’s funny how when you talk to real scientists, even scientists who agree with the predominant, perceptibly predominant, most-outspoken viewpoint, it is nearly a constant that they do their thinking the humble way. Their statements are full of disclaimers about “this research supports such-and-such, and only such-and-such…it does not necessarily mean so-and-so.” The political advocates, on the other hand, like to do it the flashy way — they seek to win arguments against an opposition. And so certainty is an asset. If the finding has a footnote, go ahead and airbrush out the footnote…Hillary-Clinton-WhatDifferenceDoesItMake. We know it. The time for action is now, etc.
- mkfreeberg | 08/09/2013 @ 08:40mkfreeberg: I’m sure many would protest your cross-out as a minor, even inconsequential, quibble.
The cross-out is hardly inconsequential. We never have exact knowledge of anything in the real world.
mkfreeberg: Their statements are full of disclaimers about “this research supports such-and-such, and only such-and-such…it does not necessarily mean so-and-so.” The political advocates, on the other hand, like to do it the flashy way — they seek to win arguments against an opposition.
We largely agree, though some scientists will also overstate their findings outside the confines of their published work.
- Zachriel | 08/09/2013 @ 08:50Well I agree that we never have exact knowledge of anything in the real world, because how could I not. The disagreement comes from what to do with this residual uncertainty. Seems we have one mindset that says: “Since I’m only 90% certain of this datum, or of this test/experiment, I will never ever be more than 90% certain of any conclusion I draw from it (unless said conclusion rests on something else).” So that the footnote of that bit of evidence is inherited by whatever conclusion drawn from it, which also at the end of it must have the same “not quite sure about this” footnote.
The other side appears to be saying: We’re mostly sure about this, so let’s just take it as a given and proceed onward — baby steps. Vote on it if we must. The science is settled.
Of course, it is only by keeping in mind *exactly* what the evidence means, uncertainties & all, that we can build anything useful. That is how you build roller coasters people can actually ride, or buildings in which people can actually walk. Or “John Galt Line” locomotives in which Dagny Taggart & friends can actually travel.
Without knowledge of uncertainties carried forward into conclusions, all conclusions become mere primary-color facsimiles of what they really are; transparencies, shades-of-gray, glosses & shimmers are lost from the paintings of reality. Such a weak brand of science cannot be studied for implementation in useful engineering pursuits.
- mkfreeberg | 08/10/2013 @ 13:35mkfreeberg: Well I agree that we never have exact knowledge of anything in the real world, because how could I not.
That returns us to “If we aren’t going to discard it, then we should keep it; and if we are going to keep it, we should understand what it is before we implement it.” In other words, appeals to authority have to be evaluated.
mkfreeberg: “Since I’m only 90% certain of this datum, or of this test/experiment, I will never ever be more than 90% certain of any conclusion I draw from it (unless said conclusion rests on something else).”
That’s not quite accurate. Multiple measurements or tests can have lower uncertainty than any single measurement or test. However, if our overall results are only 90% certain, then we agree that we need to keep it in mind when drawing conclusions or determining a course of action.
mkfreeberg: We’re mostly sure about this, so let’s just take it as a given and proceed onward — baby steps. Vote on it if we must. The science is settled.
If you’re referring to the climate debate, the uncertainties are very low according to experts in the field: Humans are having a significant effect on the climate.
- Zachriel | 08/11/2013 @ 05:12If you’re referring to the climate debate, the uncertainties are very low according to experts in the field: Humans are having a significant effect on the climate.
I am referring to anything and everything that is decided tn a group environment.
Once it is “decided,” anyone who dares contradict, or raise further question about it, is greeted with a dismissive chortle. Even after the group has adjourned. You just demonstrated how this weird, reverse-existentialist, “We won’t deal with the uncertainty here, because uncertainty is everywhere” frame-of-mind operates. Individuals can’t think that way, because it doesn’t make sufficient sense.
- mkfreeberg | 08/11/2013 @ 07:02mkfreeberg: I am referring to anything and everything that is decided tn a group environment.
The entire scientific enterprise is a group environment, and is inherently skeptical.
mkfreeberg: “We won’t deal with the uncertainty here, because uncertainty is everywhere”
Scientists deal with uncertainly all the time. It’s part of the job.
- Zachriel | 08/11/2013 @ 07:10Yeah in the softer sciences, the ones that are still working on developing the abililty to actually predict anything — they put in a fair amount of effort to dismiss the uncertainty that is there.
- mkfreeberg | 08/11/2013 @ 07:15mkfreeberg: Yeah in the softer sciences, the ones that are still working on developing the abililty to actually predict anything — they put in a fair amount of effort to dismiss the uncertainty that is there.
Science is imperfect, no doubt; but you said your comment “We’re mostly sure about this, so let’s just take it as a given and proceed onward” applied to anything decided in a group environment, which would be virtually all of science, including strongly established science.
- Zachriel | 08/11/2013 @ 07:31For example, leading physicists go to the President and tell him a meteor will strike the Earth in ten years. The President asks “Are you sure?” They say “We have 98% certainty, but we’ll continue to make observations and refine our estimates.” It’s appropriate at that point for the President to ask for possible countermeasures, and to then seek action from Congress. The scientific findings are a group decision among scientific peers. They rely the information to policy makers who then make a group decision about a course of action. None of this means anyone is dismissing the uncertainty. Action is sometimes necessary with less than perfect information.
- Zachriel | 08/11/2013 @ 07:41It is what it is.
If there is one understanding we cannot rely on the group environment to produce for us, it is the understanding of certainty. “Jury’s not out on this; it’s ‘settled’; we voted on it; we’ve moved on.”
They just don’t know what they’re talking about there. They deal with uncertainty by dismissing it. That’s what committees do.
- mkfreeberg | 08/11/2013 @ 07:43Scientists telling the President what he or she must do makes for good entertainment in a movie. But that isn’t what science is.
- mkfreeberg | 08/11/2013 @ 07:47mkfreeberg: They just don’t know what they’re talking about there. They deal with uncertainty by dismissing it. That’s what committees do.
Not necessarily. Not sure why you think it’s universal.
mkfreeberg: Scientists telling the President what he or she must do makes for good entertainment in a movie. But that isn’t what science is.
In the scenario we described, the scientists didn’t tell the President what to do. They provided information.
- Zachriel | 08/11/2013 @ 07:50It may not be universal, but it’s close, because scientists who participate in group deliberations necessarily must do two jobs: Do science, and be committee people.
When there is disagreement in a committee, the standard practice is to get rid of it. In the general assembly, or in a subcommittee, a “two goes in one comes out” stage is set and the conflict is thus eliminated. That’s how it’s done.
And so we have things like, the DSM-V rolling back a great deal of what was “certain,” distributed in a “bible” no less, in DSM-IV. The dealing-with-uncertainty was not done. It was a can, that was kicked down the road. That’s the rule, not the exception.
- mkfreeberg | 08/11/2013 @ 08:02mkfreeberg: It may not be universal, but it’s close, because scientists who participate in group deliberations necessarily must do two jobs: Do science, and be committee people.
Group ≠ committee.
For instance, when a scientists wants to disseminate their findings, they submit to an editor who decides if it meets the requirements of the journal, who then sends it to reviewers. If published, the author is hoping to spark a general discussion of the results, as well as further research to extend the results. That’s the scientific group we were referring to.
But even with scientific committees, they often have to allocate scarce technical resources, so this is done by reviewing the state of current research, and then making decisions based on the best available science. It’s hard to imagine another way to do this.
Some committees are called upon by policy-makers to make scientific determinations and ensuing recommendations. Is this the type of committee to which you are referring? For instance, the National Academy of Sciences was instituted by Abraham Lincoln to advise the government on scientific matters.
mkfreeberg: And so we have things like, the DSM-V rolling back a great deal of what was “certain,” distributed in a “bible” no less, in DSM-IV.
It’s not a bible. If the science changes, then scientists change their minds. What did you think they did?
As for uncertainty in psychiatry, do you not think psychiatrists are aware of their uncertainty? Do you think the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders serves no purpose? Or do you think that psychiatrists need no guidance on the current state of psychiatric understanding?
- Zachriel | 08/11/2013 @ 09:00Group ≠ committee.
They are not meaningfully different within this context. There is thinking as an individual, there is thinking as part of a group — that is the crucial difference. Thinking on a committee; that’s group-think, as anyone who’s served on a committee can attest.
It’s not a bible. If the science changes, then scientists change their minds. What did you think they did?
Actually, it is. It’s called a “bible” and it is treated as a bible. Children are diagnosed with or without “learning disorders” — actually, from all I’ve seen & heard about it, with and not without — according to the procedures in the bible. If the findings are attacked or questioned, the defense is that the doctor doing the diagnosing was following the bible. If the findings are sound and gel with the patient’s history, but don’t follow the scripted litmus tests in the bible, then they are automatically suspect. it’s a bible in all the ways that matter. So when the bible does a hairpin-180-degree-turn, as this one just did, it’s a big deal.
Quoting from Asimov’s essay, in the part where he comes to his central point:
On Asimov’s spectrum of “The Relativity of Wrong,” The DSM-IV-to-V about-face would rate about as highly as anything could be rated. The change in trajectory is like that of a racquetball bouncing off the far wall. This is why I was talking about sciences being in infantile states. Just like bovine creatures; during the post-natal stage of development, they’re just learning to walk, and they’re forced to change direction rapidly, lurch around, hobble about to keep from toppling over. In maturity, for such a blob-shaped creature a cow has a look of some elegance to it, even developing a swagger. That’s how science is, and that’s what Asimov is trying to describe — as more is learned, the necessary changes it must make tend to become more delicate, surgical, minute. When we see a particular science discipline change its direction racquetball-off-wall style, this is a sign that is only just beginning to find its bearings, and is still in the “figuring out what questions to ask” stage.
Group-think tends to exacerbate the uncertainty, and the falsehood, when a science is in that stage.
As for uncertainty in psychiatry, do you not think psychiatrists are aware of their uncertainty?
Dunno. They might as well not know the first thing about it. They’re not doing a very good job of self-correcting it within the peerage, prior to the great embarrassments. Are they?
Do you think the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders serves no purpose? Or do you think that psychiatrists need no guidance on the current state of psychiatric understanding? Or do you think that psychiatrists need no guidance on the current state of psychiatric understanding?
Your reductio ad absurdum rejoinders are so charming. Wouldn’t it be a more direct approach to say, yeah Freeberg, you might have something there? Or else, state directly why that might not be so…
- mkfreeberg | 08/11/2013 @ 16:16mkfreeberg: They are not meaningfully different within this context. There is thinking as an individual, there is thinking as part of a group — that is the crucial difference.
It seems you often have an idea, which might have some merit in a limited sense, but then stretch it beyond all reason.
Nearly all science occurs in groups. So when you said, “Once it is ‘decided,’ anyone who dares contradict, or raise further question about it, is greeted with a dismissive chortle,” that apparently applies to virtually all science, including even the most mundane activities, such as colleagues working in a lab, cross-disciplinary studies, peer review, or citing previous research.
mkfreeberg: It’s called a “bible” and it is treated as a bible.
If it were a bible, it wouldn’t be subject to constant revision. In any case, there is substantial criticism within the psychiatric community about the latest DSM.
mkfreeberg: On Asimov’s spectrum of “The Relativity of Wrong,” The DSM-IV-to-V about-face would rate about as highly as anything could be rated.
The majority of the DSM is the same as before. People tend to highlight the changes.
Zachriel: Do you think the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders serves no purpose? Or do you think that psychiatrists need no guidance on the current state of psychiatric understanding? Or do you think that psychiatrists need no guidance on the current state of psychiatric understanding?
mkfreeberg: Your reductio ad absurdum rejoinders are so charming.
They were questions we had hoped you would answer.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2013 @ 05:01If it were a bible, it wouldn’t be subject to constant revision.
It isn’t. It’s subject to occasional revision, by “prophets” and/or very high ranking officials within the sect/order/denomination, as a consequence of infrequent, game-changing events…just like a real bible. Old Testament, New Testament.
Between those occasional episodes of addition/amendment, the bible stands as it is, unaltered and unalterable. Ordinary mortals may not revise it, they may only follow its instructions. Just like a bible.
And that’s why it is called that.
They were questions we had hoped you would answer.
If only you supplied some clarification on how this is relevant.
But this is all a bunny trail. The point is, I’m on your side when you insist that it’s a matter of consequence whether we say “we should understand
- mkfreeberg | 08/12/2013 @ 07:05exactlywhat it is before we implement it,” or “we should understand exactly what it is before we implement it.” I think you nailed the true epicenter of disagreement. There are those who find it necessary to keep uncertainties in mind, every time they ponder the meaning of what is known and what might be known; and there are the weird reverse-existentialists who seem to be going through life under a doctrine of “Aw heck, let’s label that an absolute certainty, since although it is encumbered with some residual uncertainty, so is everything else…and that doubt stuff is a pain in the neck.”mkfreeberg: It’s subject to occasional revision, by “prophets” and/or very high ranking officials within the sect/order/denomination, as a consequence of infrequent, game-changing events…just like a real bible. Old Testament, New Testament.
That’s funny. DSM 1952, 1968, 1980, 1987, 1994, 2000, 2013. Just like the Old and New Testaments. Now that you mention it, there were six editions of Origin of Species.
mkfreeberg: Between those occasional episodes of addition/amendment, the bible stands as it is, unaltered and unalterable.
Actually, no one is required to use the DSM, which is subject to many criticisms by professionals in the field.
mkfreeberg: If only you supplied some clarification on how this is relevant.
Um, you introduced the DSM. In any case, our readers can see you refuse to answer the questions. Do you think the DSM serves no purpose? Or do you think that psychiatrists need no guidance on the current state of psychiatric understanding?
- Zachriel | 08/12/2013 @ 07:20Actually, no one is required to use the DSM, which is subject to many criticisms by professionals in the field.
Well that’s half true, it is subject to many criticisms. But if you want to claim to be following “The Science,” you have to use the bible. You have to diagnose the disabilities the way you’re told to diagnose them, and you have to stop diagnosing them when the new bible is published and no longer allows you to diagnose them. It is top-down thinking, rules disseminated from “church elders” to the more lowly clergy, without open dialogue outside of the cloistered courts, without appeal, without opportunity for any rebuttal. It is the exact opposite of real science, since the weightiest decisions are made at the lofty heights most distant from where the rubber meets the road.
In any case, our readers can see you refuse to answer the questions.
Yeah, I think I’m okay with that. You’ve refused to answer lots of questions about who or what you are…so it’s all good.
- mkfreeberg | 08/12/2013 @ 07:37Actually, no one is required to use the DSM
No, only working psychiatrists who want to be paid for their efforts, since the billing codes for every hospital and insurance system in America are tied to it. I see your understanding of medical practice is as profound as your Biblical scholarship (google “the Council of Trent” for some fun reading on Bible revisions). And here I thought that whole cut-n-paste thing was just OCD.
- Severian | 08/12/2013 @ 07:48mkfreeberg: Well that’s half true, it is subject to many criticisms. But if you want to claim to be following “The Science,” you have to use the bible.
But you’re wrong. The DSM is just a guideline, and many clinicians do not use the DSM. In any case, this demonstrates the overreach of your original claim. You choose one of the most contentious areas of science to represents science as a whole.
mkfreeberg: Yeah, I think I’m okay with that.
Refusing to answer relevant questions about a topic you introduced shows you can’t defend your position.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2013 @ 07:49Severian: No, only working psychiatrists who want to be paid for their efforts, since the billing codes for every hospital and insurance system in America are tied to it.
DSM is not HIPAA-compliant. While there is a great deal of overlap, billing is per ICD.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2013 @ 07:57The DSM is just a guideline…
Exactly the same way, let’s say, that a prior Supreme Court decision is a “guideline” for a lower court. You’re technically correct that the psychologist can choose not to follow it. But it’s a bible in the sense that it defines what the science is, and what it isn’t, and if you’re not following it then you lose the benefits of community membership, and so does your work. And as Severian pointed out, it affects the finances and the billing, therefore it affects how people can make their living off the practice…which in the case of professionals, by definition of the word, is the entire point.
Refusing to answer relevant questions about a topic you introduced shows you can’t defend your position.
That must mean, since we have no clue who you are, you can’t defend anything at all; or asset anything either. It is the same kind of reasoning.
Unless your arguments are so weak that you must claim an exclusive privilege to determine what’s relevant and what is not, in order to make those arguments look convincing? It’s looked that way for awhile, and now it appears y’all are confirming this.
- mkfreeberg | 08/12/2013 @ 08:05Here’s a group of scientists.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2013 @ 08:05http://home.web.cern.ch/
Thanks for the link.
- mkfreeberg | 08/12/2013 @ 08:06mkfreeberg: Exactly the same way, let’s say, that a prior Supreme Court decision is a “guideline” for a lower court.
Supreme Court rulings are binding on lower courts.
mkfreeberg: But it’s a bible in the sense that it defines what the science is, and what it isn’t, and if you’re not following it then you lose the benefits of community membership, and so does your work.
Well, no. Many clinicians do not use the DSM. However, that doesn’t mean you can just make stuff up. You still have to point to scientific practice.
mkfreeberg: That must mean, since we have no clue who you are, you can’t defend anything at all; or asset anything either. It is the same kind of reasoning.
As we have not claimed any special authority, our arguments rise or fall on their own merits.
It’s funny, though, that you refuse to answer very simple questions about a topic you raised. It took months just to get you to admit that doctors are more likely to be right about medical matters than non-doctors. Months! Funny.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2013 @ 08:10Many clinicians do not use the DSM. However, that doesn’t mean you can just make stuff up. You still have to point to scientific practice.
Jeez, and a five second google search shows….
Functionally the same, see? Whether or not you use the DSM in your clinical practice, if you want to get paid, you use DSM codes. You will also note that
To put it in terms you might understand: The experts at Practice Central (“a service of the APA Practice Organization (APAPO)”) have a consensus that the ICD codes presume a body of knowledge — the same body of knowledge encoded in the DSM, as the DSM and ICD are functionally the same, by design. See here:
Treat patients however you like, but you wanna get paid, you use the codes. Which embody the state of practice as codified by not just experts, but international experts at the WHO.
The science is settled. Why won’t you trust the consensus?
- Severian | 08/12/2013 @ 08:34It took months just to get you to admit that doctors are more likely to be right about medical matters than non-doctors. Months! Funny.
Yeah. Ya got me there.
Severian: if you want to get paid, you use DSM codes.
That is incorrect. If you want to get paid, you use ICD codes.
That’s right. Some of the industry uses DSM, some do not. Thank you for making the point clear for everyone.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2013 @ 10:00That is incorrect. If you want to get paid, you use ICD codes.
Aha. And now we’re back to pretending that similar things are different, and different things are the same.
Thank you for making the point clear for everyone.
Just out of curiousity — or for the benefit of your “readers” — just what do you think my point actually was? Since it’s now so clear, you should be able to frame it in your own words, without a cut-and-paste.
- Severian | 08/12/2013 @ 10:11Severian: Just out of curiousity — or for the benefit of your “readers” — just what do you think my point actually was?
Severian: Treat patients however you like, but you wanna get paid, you use the codes.
Mkfreeberg implied that you had to use DSM, but you quoted a source that directly contradicted that stance. Some clinicians use DSM, and others don’t.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2013 @ 10:24More generally, mkfreeberg has claimed that uncertainty is nearly universally dismissed by groups. In fact, skepticism is common in groups, and it is the individual that will often not see the problems with their position.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2013 @ 10:37Mkfreeberg implied that you had to use DSM, but you quoted a source that directly contradicted that stance.
Yep, I sure did. And again: I did that for a reason. I was trying to make a point, a point you yourself thanked me for making clear.
So: What was that point?
- Severian | 08/12/2013 @ 11:05More generally, mkfreeberg has claimed that uncertainty is nearly universally dismissed by groups. In fact, skepticism is common in groups, and it is the individual that will often not see the problems with their position.
Uh huh. Good. And in that specific instance where I quoted the source about the DSM, the point I was making — the point that you claim is now clear — was……?
- Severian | 08/12/2013 @ 11:06Severian: And in that specific instance where I quoted the source about the DSM, the point I was making — the point that you claim is now clear — was……?
The point that was made clear was that DSM is used by some clinicians, but not by others. For instance, the NIMH is moving away from DSM. As for your point, you said, “Treat patients however you like, but you wanna get paid, you use the codes.”
You also quoted this.
In other words, diagnosis is the responsibility of the clinician, but reporting and billing are through a standardized system. This seems entirely appropriate and hardly the conformity that mkfreeberg suggested above.
Furthermore, this is one of the most tendentious areas of science, but he made a very broad claim about anyone working in groups, that it was nearly universal that uncertainties were ignored.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2013 @ 11:13…he made a very broad claim about anyone working in groups, that it was nearly universal that uncertainties were ignored.
And indeed, the uncertainties with regard to the DSM have been ignored by the establishment publishing the “bible.” While the DSM-IV was in effect, it was the be-all-end-all, final word. Now that the DSM-V is out, it is the final word.
Real science, of course, doesn’t work that way.
It’s a great example of group-think. You diminish your credibility by poking about trying to find these insignificant little snarking-points. ICD vs. DSM? Work respected as part of the science vs. getting paid? How come I have to read your words with great precision, whereas you can freely conflate mine with other things I did not say? Is that what’s required to make your ideas look palatable?
- mkfreeberg | 08/12/2013 @ 11:17mkfreeberg: Now that the DSM-V is out, it is the final word.
Hardly. For instance, the NIMH has already moved away from the DSM.
mkfreeberg: Work respected as part of the science vs. getting paid? </i.
mkfreeberg: How come I have to read your words with great precision, whereas you can freely conflate mine with other things I did not say?
Isn’t this your claim, “They deal with uncertainty by dismissing it. That’s what committees do,” with committee functionally equivalent to any group, such as colleagues working in a lab, cross-disciplinary studies, peer review, or even citing previous research.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2013 @ 11:28The point that was made clear was that DSM is used by some clinicians, but not by others. For instance, the NIMH is moving away from DSM. As for your point, you said, “Treat patients however you like, but you wanna get paid, you use the codes.”
That was my point, was it? Let’s go to the tape:
Oooooh…. missed it by thaaat much.
Paging Dr. Jackson…..
- Severian | 08/12/2013 @ 11:41Severian: The experts at Practice Central (“a service of the APA Practice Organization (APAPO)”) have a consensus that the ICD codes presume a body of knowledge — the same body of knowledge encoded in the DSM, as the DSM and ICD are functionally the same, by design
That body of knowledge is not identical to the DSM.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2013 @ 12:09That body of knowledge is not identical to the DSM.
Maybe, maybe not… but what, at this point, does it matter? You can’t even isolate the point of a comment, even after you yourself called it clear. If you can’t parse a fairly simple blog comment in under three tries, what reason do we have to trust your interpretation of something so complex as the DSM? You’re either really, really bad at reading comprehension, or really, really, really desperately trying to change the subject.
Dear “readers”: We hope you’ve enjoyed the Zachriel auto-beclowning themselves. And remember: opinions on the internet are worth exactly what you pay for ’em.
- Severian | 08/12/2013 @ 12:19Severian: Maybe, maybe not…
We’ve already pointed out that the NIMH is moving away from the DSM.
Severian: You can’t even isolate the point of a comment, even after you yourself called it clear.
We said “Some of the industry uses DSM, some do not. Thank you for making the point {about some of the industry using DSM, some not} clear for everyone.”
In any case, the discussion concerns mkfreeberg’s claim that groups almost universally ignore uncertainties. For evidence, he pointed to the DSM. In reply, we have pointed to many types of scientific organizations. Mkfreeberg made a claim that may have some limited merit, but then tries to apply it far too broadly. If he were to say that *some* scientific organizations engage in group-think, then we wouldn’t disagree. When he says it’s *nearly universal* for any gathering, colleagues working in a lab, cross-disciplinary studies, peer review, or citing previous research, inevitably ignore uncertainties, then we don’t agree. There are many cases where a colleague or reviewer exhibits skepticism. Skepticism is the default scientific position.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2013 @ 12:39Just did a search on the entire thread for the term “universal,” and all it found were places were you were paraphrasing me. And one instance where I said “it may not be universal, but it’s close.” Are you referring to that?
I figured it was a given that science was being practiced almost universally by humans. Humans, working in groups, are susceptible to this for the reasons I’ve given. Are you disagreeing with that, or are you disagreeing that science is done close-to-universally by humans?
- mkfreeberg | 08/12/2013 @ 12:44We said “Some of the industry uses DSM, some do not. Thank you for making the point {about some of the industry using DSM, some not} clear for everyone.”
Oh, is that what I was doing? Funny, the rest of the comment — that you’ve so carefully redacted — would indicate quite the opposite.
So far your reading comprehension skills are 0-for-4. And this from an entity who said “that doesn’t mean you can just make stuff up.”
Excellent advice, my cephalopod chums. You should go with that.
- Severian | 08/12/2013 @ 13:24mkfreeberg: one instance where I said “it may not be universal, but it’s close.” Are you referring to that?
Yes, in reference to “They deal with uncertainty by dismissing it. That’s what committees do.”
mkfreeberg: I figured it was a given that science was being practiced almost universally by humans. Humans, working in groups, are susceptible to this for the reasons I’ve given.
Yes, humans are susceptible to group-think. It’s not inevitable though, as you seemed to suggest.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2013 @ 13:27Severian: Oh, is that what I was doing?
That’s what you did.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2013 @ 13:29It’s not inevitable though, as you seemed to suggest.
I’ll take that as “Darn it, it’s true that thing you noticed, but we wish you’d stop noticing it.”
I really don’t know how to accurately describe what disagreement remains between us on this particular sub-subtopic. These areas of expertise discussed here are defined in groups/committees whatever ya calls ’em; they are done by humans; humans have bad habits that come out when they work in groups; you would like to pretend those bad habits don’t exist, and for everyone else opining, to similarly pretend. Alright, glad we got that settled. Next point?
- mkfreeberg | 08/12/2013 @ 15:10mkfreeberg: I really don’t know how to accurately describe what disagreement remains between us on this particular sub-subtopic.
You had said “They deal with uncertainty by dismissing it. That’s what committees do,” but it’s not the near universal you had suggested. You seem to have retreated from that view somewhat, so not sure if we are still in disagreement.
Humans are social animals that are susceptible to group-think, but continue to make scientific progress nonetheless. Humans can also be skeptical, stubborn, and creative. They are much more successful in groups as a rule, so apparently, the propensity to group-think is less important over the long run than other aspects of their character.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2013 @ 15:31So it seems we agree on matters of fact for the most part, but in forming conclusions, you’d prefer to ignore some of the facts. Okay, glad we got that cleared up.
- mkfreeberg | 08/12/2013 @ 16:44mkfreeberg: So it seems we agree on matters of fact for the most part, but in forming conclusions, you’d prefer to ignore some of the facts.
Please reread our comment and tell us what facts we are ignoring.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2013 @ 17:22“…but it’s not the near universal you had suggested.” From what I can tell, y’all pretty much pulled that out of your butts.
I broke it down for you into: 1) these areas of expertise are defined in groups/committees; 2) they are done by humans; 3) humans have bad habits that come out when they work in groups, and 4) you would like to pretend those bad habits don’t exist, and for everyone else opining, to similarly pretend. Where do y’all disagree? This would be the framework of fact on which it seems y’all agree with me, but you disagree on what is to be concluded from it.
And from all I can make out, it seems you disagree because you choose to tone down some of these facts. Are you disagreeing that humans are the ones noodling these things out in committees/groups? Or are you disagreeing that the human foible exists? Which? Must be one or the other. But since I don’t know what it is you’re insisting everyone else should gloss over, I’m afraid I can’t answer your question. Not sure how it matters. Humans tend to make decisions poorly in groups, and nowadays most everything is decided in groups. You don’t like it when I keep in mind these are truisms, but truisms they are.
- mkfreeberg | 08/13/2013 @ 14:09mkfreeberg: “…but it’s not the near universal you had suggested.” From what I can tell, y’all pretty much pulled that out of your butts.
You said, “They deal with uncertainty by dismissing it. That’s what committees do.” That sort of leaves little wiggle room. However, the “universal” was from the full exchange:
m: They just don’t know what they’re talking about there. They deal with uncertainty by dismissing it. That’s what committees do.
Z: Not necessarily. Not sure why you think it’s universal.
m: It may not be universal, but it’s close, because scientists who participate in group deliberations necessarily must do two jobs: Do science, and be committee people.
That doesn’t leave a whole lot of wiggle room either, but we accept that it may not be quite what you meant.
mkfreeberg: I broke it down for you into: 1) these areas of expertise are defined in groups/committees; 2) they are done by humans; 3) humans have bad habits that come out when they work in groups, and 4) you would like to pretend those bad habits don’t exist, and for everyone else opining, to similarly pretend.
Not sure why you would say we like to pretend those bad habits don’t exist, when we have stated several times that people certainly can fall into group-think.
mkfreeberg: And from all I can make out, it seems you disagree because you choose to tone down some of these facts.
Not at all. We just put them into context.
mkfreeberg: Humans tend to make decisions poorly in groups, and nowadays most everything is decided in groups.
As we pointed out, humans are social animals, and are very successful at it, so working in groups must have more benefits than pitfalls. We’ve provided many examples of social interactions that don’t necessarily lead to group-think.
- Zachriel | 08/13/2013 @ 15:26Not sure why you would say we like to pretend those bad habits don’t exist…
Because I said “It may not be universal, but it’s close,” and y’all went on record disagreeing.
That’s fine, but why? As I said, you seem to have pretty much pulled that out of your butts. “It’s not the near universal you had suggested.” You took a poll?
- mkfreeberg | 08/13/2013 @ 17:30mkfreeberg: Because I said “It may not be universal, but it’s close,” and y’all went on record disagreeing.
Your statement was that groups of people ignore uncertainty, that’s what groups of people do. We agreed that groups of people may fall into group-think, but it’s not “what they do”.
mkfreeberg: You took a poll?
We provided examples and pointed out that people are social animals, and have been very successful working in groups, hence the positives of working in groups appear to outweigh the negatives.
- Zachriel | 08/14/2013 @ 03:17That doesn’t address in any direct way what I said, about the “near universality” which seems to be what really stuck in some of y’all’s craw. And to the best I can recollect, neither do your examples.
To the contrary, it seems y’all are proving what I said, right now. The occurrence does not come close to near-universal? You’re sure? No uncertainty about that?
- mkfreeberg | 08/14/2013 @ 04:36[…] Bomburst of Vulgaria… the kids are nowhere to be seen; Telling a fact apart from an opinion, is the very first step; Ponderments on Medieval Pet Names; I hope they blow it for their party and for their agenda, more […]
- Steynian 486rd | Free Canuckistan! | 08/14/2013 @ 10:15