A different type of post
Fair warning: unlike most of my posts, this post (and hopefully some subsequent ones) have at best a slight relationship to my work on Hive or on cryptocurrency in general, so feel free to skip it if a meandering form of philosophy isn’t your cup of tea.
Some of the posts, such as this one, will have some relationship to the information rating system I’m working on, but even those connections will often be tenuous at best.
For a long time I’ve planned to share some my own opinions and philosophy on Hive, but I always felt like I never had enough time to do it. In truth, I think it was just a matter of procrastination (something I admit I can be more than a little subject to), so I’ve decided to bite the bullet and write down some of the things I’ve been thinking about (either recently or even from the distant past).
About the community choice
I mostly post in HiveDevs, but that clearly wasn’t the correct choice for this type of post. When I went looking through the list of community descriptions, the first one that seemed to match somewhat was this one, so I hope it is OK to make this type of post here.
About the picture
Personally I have no desire to add a picture to my posts unless it conveys some information better than I can convey it in words, but it is sort of a convention on Hive to have at least one image attached to the post for aesthetic purposes, so I’ll abide by the convention, but in my sort of lazy way.
I wanted an image I could use on all posts on similar topics to this one, so I searched on pixabay for “introspection” since I think I spend a lot of time on introspection and that’s generally what leads me to the ideas I’ll be talking about in these posts.
Somewhat humorously to me, some of the other tags associated with this image were “depressed”, “stressed”, and “isolation”, whereas for me introspection usually embodies quite different feelings for me (i.e. I find introspection generally pleasant).
I guess the reason for those other tags is that in the image, we see someone who is maybe a bit different from the other people, and this leads to a feeling of loneliness. In some ways I do see myself as different from most people, but I don’t think our differences have to lead to loneliness. Indeed, if we embrace our differences, it can lead to a more interesting life where we can think about more ideas.
Beliefs vs opinions
I almost titled this post “Beliefs and Confirmation Bias”, but I feel that belief is a word with two conflated meanings: one is “opinion” which indicates an idea based on some rationale, where the other is “belief” in the religious sense, which in at least some religions implies that the idea requires no rationale or logical support (and indeed in some religious circles even trying to supply such support is looked down on as an inferior form of belief).
Opinions can be logically argued and/or supported with evidence, religious beliefs which require unthinking belief cannot.
Personally I feel this latter form of belief is very dangerous, because it doesn’t allow for a discussion that leads to agreement, and worse, the beliefs are often strongly held and essentially arbitrary, so they can easily lead to violence between people with differing beliefs of this type.
Since beliefs of this type aren’t subject to reason, I typically won’t be talking about this type of belief much. Going forward, If I use the word “belief” or “believe”, assume I mean “opinion” unless I make it clear I’m referring to a religious belief.
How I first learned about confirmation bias
Our beliefs (and our religious beliefs as well) and philosophy are mostly shaped by our life experiences. I think it is easier to understand someone’s ideas when you know what life experiences led to those ideas. So while I’ll generally be discussing ideas, I’ll sometimes share personal events that led me to examine those ideas.
One of the first things we all learn as a child that can be surprising is the concept that people sometimes lie. At first we trust everything we’re told (and for most of us, most of that information comes from our parents or caregivers), then we slowly learn that sometimes we are intentionally told false information.
But even more surprising, at least for me, was that a lot of people can tell the same lie and create a fictional reality. Why was that surprising? Because I observed that people typically lie for their own benefit, and most lies don’t benefit the majority of people, especially not enough that almost no one disputes the lie.
I still think this is generally true and it is a good way to evaluate whether something is true or false (or at least relayed honestly), but in childhood I found at least one exception: the St Nick myth. Here, the lie was told by adults for my benefit (and yes, I see it as such, even today), so it is one of those exceptional cases where almost everyone will lie to you.
In fact, I only found out the truth from a cousin who was my main playmate in my early years. He was three years older than me (I was 8), and even to this day I’m not really sure why he told me.
When he told me, at first I didn’t completely trust him in this particular case: after all, everyone had told me otherwise, and I also didn’t really want to believe him. So I asked his mom and she confirmed it for me.
I remember being disappointed, but not entirely surprised. Because, after all, if I had ever given the issue serious consideration, there were lots of really improbable things that would have to be true if the myth itself were true. When I look back, I can only be incredulous that I was able to avoid thinking about all the things that should have made it clear it was a lie.
But I think that is one of the main lessons I learned from that experience: when we don’t want to know something is a lie because we desire it to be true, it is very easy to ignore any information that contradicts the lie. The idea stuck with me, because it showed me a big weakness in my ability to think rationally. Of course, it wasn’t until much later in life that I learned we have a fancy term for this idea: confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias doesn’t always affect our reasoning: after all, for many questions we don’t have any real preference as to the answer to the question. But when it does, it is very difficult to avoid without training your mind to this weakness.
How to identify confirmation bias (in ourselves or in others)?
The most important step to avoiding confirmation bias is to identify if you (or another person) have any bias towards a question’s answer. But how do you do that?
I can’t be sure on this point, but for the most part I think bias is generated when there’s an answer that will in some way make you feel better.
This is perhaps less obvious than it sounds. After all, at first it would seem like answers to questions like “Does almost everyone like me?” should then be biased towards “yes” in a person’s mind. And often, I think that is the way such a question will be biased.
But what if you endure many hardships or have a lot of problems achieving your life goals? In that case, it is easy to conceive of a person who might actually feel better if they attribute their problems or failures to other people acting against them, in which case they might actually somewhat non-intuitively be biased to “no” on this question.
All this is to say that determining someone’s bias towards a question can sometimes be more difficult than it appears on the surface. But it at least seems it should be easier for the person themselves, as they should generally have better insight into their own feelings (yes, of course it isn’t always true, as we sometimes willfully blind ourselves to our own feelings as well, but it is less common I think).
And determining your own bias is generally the most important thing you can do: while it can be helpful to identify other people’s biases, it is not easy to then change their minds based on that knowledge. You can mostly only use that knowledge to discount their opinions somewhat. But when you know your own biases, you have the power in your hands to reject your biases and more honestly examine arguments and evidence.
Does bias identified = bias gone?
I’m guessing at least half of my readers were about to raise the above objection after my last paragraph, and they can now all pat themselves on the back.
But I only said you had the power, not that you will fully reject your bias just because you’ve identified it. A full rejection is quite difficult, so even knowing we’re biased on a subject doesn’t always mean we can then act as completely impartial arbiters weighing arguments and evidence on a biased topic. It just helps.
Countering bias with bias
So besides knowing we’re biased on a topic and trying to therefore pay more attention to evidence that contradicts our bias, what else can we do?
One of the most useful techniques I’ve found is to find another rational person who is either unbiased on the topic or even biased in the opposite direction and debate the issues and evidence with them.
This can be a very effective method for countering your own bias somewhat, if you in general respect the other person’s opinions (that’s why I slipped in “rational person” into the technique’s description). Using this method, you can see how an argument or evidence is analyzed by somewhat who isn’t suffering from your bias.
Of course, if your bias or their bias is too extreme, it becomes less likely this method will be effective at countering your bias.
But even when I’m been relatively sure on a topic and therefore not likely to change my opinion, I’ve still often found this method useful in another respect: when I debate a topic with someone, it often allows me to refine my own internal ideas and identify weaknesses in the arguments I use to support them.
So it can be a great way to weed out cognitive dissonance in your own mind and enable you to become more persuasive on the topic (assuming you have that desire).
Generalizing the method to counter-weight optimism
After getting to know someone really well, I often find myself classifying them as either an optimist, a pessimist, or a realist. Of course, this is a big over-classification, since people can be optimistic about some things and pessimistic about others, but in a surprising number of cases, they tend to fall into one of these three categories on a large number of topics.
I think each of these categories can have benefits for a person. An optimist will often be willing to try something that a pessimist won’t, so they have more opportunities for success. But contrariwise, the extra risks an optimist takes can backfire, so pessimist generally reduces the chance for loss.
Probably a realist who tries to look at things without bias has the most chance of success without too much chance for loss, but it is still easy to imagine scenarios where you have to be an optimist to be successful, or you have to be a pessimist to survive. So as a species, having a mix of such people is probably beneficial.
As an analog to the idea of finding someone who can counter balance your bias on a specific issue, I believe it is also possible to find someone who can counter balance more generalized biases you may have.
For example, for most of my life I think I’ve been an optimist (although in my latter years I think I’ve become more of a realist). When I started planning my first business, my view of myself as a mild optimist had me a little concerned that I would be too biased at times and potentially take risks that were too big. So I chose as a business partner someone I considered mildly pessimistic to look over my shoulder and raise a warning if I was moving too fast and not spending enough time examining risks.
Should you ever "go against the tide"?
For the most part, I think this method worked out well for me and I recommend it. But I can’t say it is a silver bullet in all cases: in at least one case, I’m pretty sure one of my early ideas would have worked out, but I lacked the confidence at the time to disagree with the opinion of almost everyone else I knew, even when my logical analysis of the situation told me it was a really good idea.
So I guess the last point I want to make in this post is if you’ve really thought something through well and you’ve really given a full consideration to opposing ideas, sometimes you may want to “go against the tide” and trust your reasoning.
But we’re social animals and that’s not always easy either. And if you do, be sure you double and triple-check your reasoning: it is going to be a rare time indeed that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
Feedback welcome
Feel free to let me know what you think of my ideas, positive or critical. While I'm sharing opinions I have, many of them aren't super strongly held, and it is unlikely I will get upset debating them :-)
Also feel free and to share any techniques you employ in your own life to identify or counter your biases.
Finally, I’m generally curious if you consider yourself an optimist, a pessimist, or a realist, whether you’re happy with that characteristic of yourself, and if so why?
I do this with an imaginary person, since it's not very practical to find a person for every held thought and opinion heh.
I think one thing that has developed over many years for me is considering Both Sides of the Story - no matter what.
Even if it seems dumb or obvious.
E.g., I used to be staunchly anti-religious. Religious = Stupid. Simple as.
Nowadays, I'm much softer on that. I believe religion is not only necessary in the grand scheme, but a projection of something biologically innate. It's pretty damn liberating to the ol' brain to listen to both sides, and decrease one's dependence on any side at all.
Actually I also do the same, although strictly speaking it is not generally a truly "imaginary" person, but often someone I know who has expressed differing opinions of the questions I'm considering. But of course at the end of the day, it's much less effective because my "model" of the other person doesn't allow me to escape from my biases to the same extent and even my model of them can be subject to bias.
This type of internal dialogue is actually a very useful technique though, especially for the purpose of creating persuasive arguments, and somewhat coincidentally, is actually a topic I was planning to discuss in a future post.
On the topic of religion itself, I'll reserve my thoughts on that to another post, as it is a big topic and a few quick observations without a full explanation might leave me open to unwarranted criticism :-)
looking forward to it!
Another old post you might find interesting - I am not link dropping for votes ;D This is something that might be useful for you to try.
https://peakd.com/psychology/@tarazkp/psychological-pyromaniac
At least in some form. Perhaps it is part of the evolutionary process to do with our imagination. Every imaginary creation is greater than what we know to be true, but that also gives us opportunity to work toward its development, making it true.
I wrote an article a long, long time ago called "The architect and the Egg" (Can't find it!?). Essentially the premise is, the architect dreams the possibly impossible, the engineer does what they can to make it a reality. The engineer might not complete it 100%, but in order to get close, they might need to create new materials, or processes. And with those and inspired by what was built, the next iteration of the architect can advance even further. Without the Engineer, the architect is impotent. Without the architect, the engineer copy pastes more efficiently.
Perhaps this is what belief in magic does for us, it is our personal architect who designs an imaginary world, to give the space for us to build differently than what we currently are.
Edit: found it referenced in another post:
https://peakd.com/philosophy/@tarazkp/the-architect-or-the-egg
That's a good perspective. I just woke up so I'll have to read a full architect later on, but I do think there's a bit more to it.
I wrote an overly wordy through process, but I guess I was saying in short that religious belief is likely a kind of natural side-effect of a series of inherent needs to get through the world with an uncomfortably complex brain that experiences mental issues no other animal does. Yet we still require the basics, tribalism and such, which manifests itself into religions and cults. Even the atheists such as myself, lost without religious groups to fall into, typically find themselves in less controlled equivalents of worship (2SLGBTQIA+ communities, political sides, etc).
I reckon its unavoidable, and with an increasingly atheistic world, I'm curious, perhaps concerned, what form it will manifest itself into down the line. But yeah I don't wanna make this discussion drift off too far, though it is all a result of confirmation bias =D
I agree with you in it, but I think "religious behavior" might be a manifestation of the wiring, even if it isn't necessarily needed to be. Perhaps in the past or in the future, it will manifest in a different way than what resembles religion. But, our wiring is definitely geared toward grouping, which is why the "new religions" like you mentioned (there are many now) are the response to the shift away from the traditional religions.
First of all, how nice to see this kind of post from you, been quite a while I'd say, can't even remember the last time I may have read one.
The thing I've struggled with on Hive with issues and debates, has often been that the people you're arguing/debating with have most of the time not seemed rational, at least about things in regards to downvotes. I have often tried to look at a broader picture and often also attempted to ask more neutral people about each example, but that part hasn't been easy neither partly due to my influence making me often believe that the way some respond may be biased by their own interests in how it may affect our "relationship".
The pool in terms of debating things with rational people and getting opinions from those saying things directly without assuming it may impact their future performance in terms of curation hasn't been big (or me being unsure if they're speaking freely), luckily we also have quite a lot of leeway of being able to use downvotes "as you please" even though I don't agree with many of them and have my own parameters of when I think it's necessary to be used.
Ugh, kinda regret using the downvots as an example now but was the first thing that came to mind where I think bias's have quite a big effect on how everyone sees them.
I think in the past I was definitely an optimist about most things, over the years, though, especially in my early 30s I think I've been moving towards realist/pessimist a bit more, the latter especially about certain things and I think everything happening around the world has been attributing to it.
In regards to beliefs, I'm not really sure what I consider myself, I really dislike the whole belief system and especially people trying to "save" others gives me the creeps and really annoys me how some spend their time. While I may not agree with the majority there it's also impossible to say if there isn't something else, so I guess I wouldn't call myself an atheist either. The whole odds of you and me existing, at this point in time in the history of earth and the universe which against many odds is habitable while we're circling around a gas giant that circles around a black hole, it's all kind of too insane to think it has happened by chance. That and the science showing that if we somehow don't kill ourselves for a little longer the technology to re-create everything we know in a simulation space isn't far off seems to point that this is most likely not the base reality we all think it is. So while I don't believe in most of the religions, maybe we are the gods out there in another layer where we live forever, there's no war, money or problems but we're just bored enough to re-live random simulations and try and make them as entertaining and crazy as possible which according to recent events the past few years seems more likely to be the case. :P
Anyway, great post, hope you've been able to work more on your information project, looking forward to it and more posts like these!
This in itself is a form of cognitive bias - it's only because your human brain is too pathetic to understand the larger numbers. If you had a superhuman brain 4x the volume like my own, the 'insanity' of it all might actually seem pretty reasonable, perhaps even inevitable given the initial conditions of the early universe. After all, there's only so many combinations of atoms you can get.
Fun fact, Given a large enough universe, those combinations run out and start to repeat themselves. It's entirely possible there's another you out there right now reading a similar comment on Jive.clog. Not a parallel universe, but this very one, simply by mathematical randomness! If you think about it, any number that isn't infinite is, by definition, pretty small, so statistically it wouldn't even be that surprising. For a superior mobbs brain, at least.
I just think the odds that we've grown inwards rather than outwards in the base layer is higher than the chance of chaos/randomness to lead to this being the base layer.
In a broader context, I think your discussion of bias associated with downvoting does point to another frequent cause of bias: monetary concerns. People often become biased on a topic if it affects their personal financial status.
I'm a pessimist who insists on being optimistic. I see all the dark shadows, always have, and decide that life cannot be lived under a dark shadow, so I put that aside and get up each day determined to see a shining sun.
We are in this life. It's what we have. Do the most with it. Rarely complain. Put one foot in front of the other and believe the best will happen (otherwise, we stop walking).
As for confirmation bias. I acknowledge it, and fight it. My method is a little like yours but different. I don't like to argue or debate, not with someone else. I seek out information that conflicts with what I think I know.
I read the opinions of people who are disagreeable (not just disagree with me, but generally disagreeable). I force myself to listen and try to see the reason in their argument(s). I annoy family often because when they give me 'news', I ask them where they got the information and then look up material on my own.
Long answer. Sorry.
For a pessimist, I think that is a healthy attitude. I think some forms of pessimism can lead to depression and a lack of motivation, and that's something that should be resisted.
In many cases, I have to do this too, if only because as @mobbs mentioned earlier, there is no one in my immediate environment that holds an opposing opinion on a topic to debate. Or sometimes the best proponents for an idea may be people that are only indirectly accessible through their writings.
But this method is a bit inferior in some ways, because it is much easier to "win" an argument in your own mind when your own counter-arguments aren't themselves subject to dispute.
There's absolutely no reason to apologize for a long answer, too me it just shows you're engaged on the topic. I do typically take longer to reply to longer messages, because I need more time to digest them and to avoid ignoring important points that were made in the message, so please don't take that amiss.
I agree. It is less than ideal. I have to add that when it comes to a practical issue--should I buy this or that, go on vacation here or there--I ask people who are more more practical than I am. Money is an area in which I lack good judgement. However, if there is an issue where values are involved--euthanasia, birth control, immigration, government spending priorities--that's different. These issues involve worldview and lifetime experience. A discussion about any of these is bound to be emotionally charged. For example, someone I respect, someone who would never knowingly kill a spider, wasn't concerned about immigrants crossing the Rio Grande and being torn up by concertina wire. How do I debate such an issue? It is infused with deeply ingrained values, on both sides. I don't enjoy the inevitable tussle such a discussion would entail.
I try not to read motivation into anyone's actions. If you didn't respond at all, I might think you had nothing to say about my opinion. I do appreciate the reassurance, and response though, and I will be more likely to comment in the future because of that.
Nice community, Reflections. Never thought of posting here but might give it a second look now.
I understand where you're coming from here, but at the end of the day, I think it is imperative that we debate such issues and try to be as respectful as we can while doing so (and yes, that is also difficult when people's lives are being discussed). But if we don't, people are going to keep getting torn up.
That said, I don't think it is worth it to debate everyone. At some point I occasionally come to the conclusion that I can't persuade a particular person for one reason or another (e.g. their opinions are too deeply entrenched or I don't find them particularly rational). But for most people I think it is usually worth an attempt at least.
You are probably right. I have an issue with conflict--I don't like it, so that interferes with my willingness to debate hotly contested subjects.
I should add, if there is a real challenge, something that must be done, fought for, I can do that. I have done that. I'm a good ally in a tight spot. But arguing, it I just don't enjoy it.
I have been given to confirmation bias in a variety of ways, ranging from things I wanted to be true (love), to things I desperately hoped weren't true, but expected to be true anyway (also love, unrequited). Honestly, I'm more prone to the latter form of confirmation bias, expecting things to be going wrong as things like that always do.
I hope sharing your thoughts on bias, coming from someone as widely known to be solidly rational as you are, helps folks to wrassle their own biases into submission.
Thanks!
From this line, I take it that you view yourself either as more of a pessimist or at least that a pessimistic attitude is the more "realistic" one :-)
Thanks, I hope so as well, but for the most part, I'm very unsure just how much impact simply sharing these ideas will have as people are generally slow to make changes in the way they think about things.
But I have more hope for the information rating tools we're starting to build to address these kinds of problems, and I think it is important to start to lay out the reasons why I think these tools can be beneficial, divorced from a discussion of the tools themselves. In other words, I want to start by examining the problems, and then start looking at possible solutions (including simple ones such as I propose in this post that people can use today).
Sorry, I neglected to formally characterize myself. On cursory reflection, while I base my expectations of personal results on evidence, which suggests pessimism inform my expectations, I am a hopeless romantic, and preach a coming paradise born of decentralization of the means of production concatenated with the illimitable resources that we will gain access to as space travel develops and 3D printing disperses across the population.
The first 3D printed spaceship, Terran 1, was launched in March 2023 by Relativity Space. In the few short months since then several other manufacturers have adopted 3D printing to make spacecraft. While these highly specialized printers today cost ~$1M, it is difficult to reasonably expect that price won't drop rapidly and the ability to print with the exotic aluminum alloys spacecraft require won't soon be available to ordinary folks.
Regardless of what happens to me, I am very bullish on decentralization and the inconceivable prosperity our posterity will create with illimitable resources to develop in absolute freedom that will soon be possible.
Like I said, I'm a hopeless romantic.
Yep, I'm convinced, you are a hopeless romantic :-) Let's hope you're right.
First of all, probably this is the first post, I felt your emotions in so many years and this openness to embrace differences give a sense that you are pretty open-hearted and quite logical ( or realist as you say).
I would say, I am a mix of optimist and realist mostly (like you), and happy that way. I have faced many challenges in my life, survived many failures (because of others) but built them again and again - the optimism helped there. But as I am getting older, I feel better being realist (May be we achieve more wisdom from our experience !!). And honestly, I am slowly feeling, its best not to be biased nor confront :)
A mix of optimism and realism is a good choice I think. Helps you to take some chances, but still play things a bit safe.
The first thing as a child which we learn is lie and it's true. I have heard from my little sister, she was saying ,my father don't lie! I think she knows the difference between lie and truth.
We carry both ,the optimism & pessimism but optimism always gets the way to live because pessimistic person scratch behind.
I would like to say that optimism is the best way to live, and maybe it be the happiest way to live, but I think the utility of optimism depends on the environment you live in. In safer environments, optimism is probably optimal. In extremely dangerous environments, realism or even some pessimism is probably safer, at the very least.
Thoughts may be yours or mine or someone else's, I understand that arguments and feelings are not for everyone. That thing is different that internet is an open platform where anyone can share any feeling but the question is whether this feeling is for everyone or not. Your message can easily get lost in such a large crowd if the message does not reach the right person.
Posting photos with posts is like eating bread without butter. Your feelings are a bit strong regarding prejudice and believe in saying the idea directly.
My English is not that good, so I might not have understood the meaning of your post completely in the way you have tried to explain.
To be honest, I'm not really sure if I have correctly interpreted several things you said as well, and I think it is probably due to weaknesses in your English skills. But as someone who is trying to learn a foreign language now (Mandarin, in my case), I do very much appreciate the amount of effort and fortitude it requires to write in a language that is not your native language, and for the most part it is a task I'm still too shy to even try much. So I can only say "加油"!
I am not sure how to assess myself in terms of being an optimist, realist or pessimist. Do you assess yourself through your own observations of yourself over time, or asking other people, or some more reliable psychological tests, or anything else?
How to assess yourself or others in this regard is a good question. I haven't given much thought as to how to do it best, mostly I just "do it" :-)
When I think about it, I've probably used a few methods.
First, as an "absolute method", I try to assess my immediate or "gut feeling" versus my rational assessment about future outcomes.
The second method, which is more of a relative measure of my optimism/pessimism compared to other people, is to observe how different people assess future outcomes of the same events. Obviously rational thought plays a role here as well, perturbing the results, but when the observations are performed over a large number of events, the mistaken rationales will start to average out to the point where you can see relative bias in one direction or another emerge.
And finally I've used two of the methods you suggested: observing myself over time and asking others to assess me. Truthfully though, I tend to trust my own assessment on the topic versus most other people's opinions, since they don't typically have access to the internal thoughts that lead to my expectations. So unless someone has been able to observe me for a long time or I've shared with them my thoughts that lead to my expectations, it can be difficult for them to accurately assess whether I'm a pessimist or an optimist (basically the same problem I mentioned in the relative measurement method: rationales perturb the result).
I've never taken a psychological test to try to measure something like this. I guess it might be worth a try, but I think I can probably "guess" the thrust of the questions, so I think such tests would likely not be very helpful for me. At least, this has been my experience in the past with the few other psychological tests I've taken: I feel I can guide them towards whatever answer I feel like at the moment.
Hi there! It's a pleasure for me reading this text of you, since I am a philosophy lover and because I appreciate your work on Hive.
I agree with you that it's important to challenge our own opinions. Nobody is the owner of the truth, and we can all learn from each other. Sharing our thoughts and ideas with others can help us to see things from different perspectives and to grow as individuals.
I'd add the following idea: the power of the community lies in its diversity. When we come together with people from different backgrounds and experiences, we can create a space where everyone's voice is heard and valued. This is why I'm always happy to share my thoughts on Hive, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to learn from others.
As for your last question, I would say that I'm a realist. I try to be optimistic, but I also know that there are challenges in the world. I think it's important to be aware of both the good and the bad, so that we can make informed decisions about how to move forward.
Final note, I'm in a community (humanitas) open to this class of topics, and I encourage you to share your writings there as well. Feel free to do it.
!PIZZA
!KING
I completely agree with this. Growing up in America, I was taught that diversity of cultures was one of its great strengths (although in practice I didn't experience that diversity much until college since I grew up in a small town almost entirely composed of whites and blacks with few cultural differences).
For most of my life, this was an opinion that I felt was shared by most Americans, or at least given lip service. But lately I've heard this idea challenged by a few prominent thought leaders in America, arguing that diversity leads to disunity and even potential destruction of America's core values, which is an argument I think is very misleading. I find it troubling that more Americans nowadays seem willing to embrace this kind of thinking.
In theory, of course, diversity of cultures and opinion can be bad. Primarily this happens if there is some very basic disagreement about strongly held opinions where the groups involved are not willing to engage in discussion and where the groups involved are not willing to tolerate disagreement.
But I actually think this type of situation is worse when there's only two groups involved. From my own observations, it seems like the larger the number of diverse groups that are in contact with each other on a daily basis, the more likely it is that everyone will learn to tolerate and appreciate other cultures. When I think about it, I suspect this is at least partially just a survival trait when you exist in a society where your culture doesn't completely dominate.
The diversity is richness in all senses. I once traveled to Brazil and I really enjoyed their lifestyle. This is common in every Latin American community, as you say, although there are some who do not agree with this.
For this reason, I would highlight the importance of tolerance and respect. Without these qualities, it is impossible to have a sincere dialogue that can lead us anywhere. In these cases, I prefer to step aside.
Outstanding job King @blocktrades, jesusalejos(1/15) is grateful for the care and attention you put into crafting this post. Your efforts are truly valued.
Creating quality content is truly admirable. @jesusalejos wants to show their appreciation by sending you 0.025 HKGENTHREE.
BTW! You will find powerful and charismatic NFTs in the AVATAR PACKS that you can use in all our games.
$PIZZA slices delivered:
@jesusalejos(1/10) tipped @blocktrades
a blocktrades post that i understood more than 10% of it :)
liked the St Nick myth as an example. makes a lot of sense.
Yes, a lot of my posts are primarily written for other Hive devs (a relatively small group of people) and even for that audience I'm sure they are challenging to read. My posts on other topics will hopefully be more accessible to a wider audience.
for me it is interesting to read the technical stuff to see how much would i actually understand :)
People are better at identifying biases in other people than themselves, because when we look at others we see their behavior, but when we look at ourselves we have what seems to be a better tool - introspection. We can explore our own minds, examine our own motivations, and thus determine if our motivations are appropriate. However, in reality introspection is actually a very poor method for highlighting bias, our own biases are a major blind spot for introspection.
The best way to identify your own biases is to step outside of your own head, and to try and imagine someone else doing exactly what you are doing. Would they appear biased to you? The answer may be more accurate than the normal approach.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Journal+of+Experimental+Social+Psychology&title=Valuing+thoughts,+ignoring+behavior:+The+introspection+illusion+as+a+source+of+the+bias+blind+spot&author=E.+Pronin&author=M.+B.+Kugler&volume=43&issue=4&publication_year=2007&pages=565-578&
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7546453/
Introspection does have the weaknesses you describe, but I think it is possible to develop more skill at honest introspection with practice. And introspection has one big advantage, in that its readily available at all times.
But if a person relies solely on introspection, I have to agree that they will inevitably go down some completely wrong lines of reasoning along the way, no matter how brilliant they are. During my college days, I remember reading an argument by Aristotle in which he made a completely wrong leap of reasoning that was only obvious to someone with modern scientific knowledge. And I remember some early "guesses" about science that I had that were completely wrong for similar reasons. Having external critics brings extreme benefits to logical thinking.
This is actually very similar to a technique I like to use when trying to persuade someone. People are often biased in favor of the ideas or actions of politicians they support, so when I want them to critically examine the behavior or ideas of that politician, I suggest they try to imagine how they would view the action if it was committed/suggested by a politician they dislike.
Congratulations @blocktrades! Your post has been a top performer on the Hive blockchain and you have been rewarded with this rare badge
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts:
I may be the exception to the rule, but my bullshit detector is pretty outstanding compared to the average person. (Or maybe I'm just the eternal skeptic.) I never believed in Santa even from an early age. My mother told me one year when I was extremely young, "you better do (x) or Santa won't get you any presents." I replied, "Mom, Santa isn't real. Even if he was, my mamaw will buy me presents."
I'd disagree here. (Of course it's also possible that I could be contributing to your point.) This could also be a methodology of solidifying an uncompromising bias. There are many instances of this on the internet with people that give "debates." (Many of which against people who aren't great advocates for their own beliefs.) They sharpen the argument, but this doesn't necessarily make clear what is objectively unbiased. I've come to terms with the fact that it is impossible in this world to operate without any bias. I have mine, and you have yours.
The objectivity of unbiased reality is always going to be distorted by our empirically driven biases. Unless you've hopped down the rabbit hole of solipsism, this distortion is only tamed slightly when we use intersubjective averaging of a collective perception. But then you have another problem if you believe a majority aren't trustworthy. I personally find that it's useful to iterate through the permutations of possibilities in a very coarse sense and ask first: "does it really matter if my belief is biased? How does it affect the trajectory of my life and the life of others?"
I also like to draw upon the game of poker where my constant mantra is, "does the story make sense?" Mix that with a dash of Occam's razor and two dashes of Hanlon's razor, boom, you have my personal bias cocktail. (Obviously life experience is always important when considering what it is you "believe" in this world.)
Emphatically yes, but delivery is important. Hostage negotiators say that the most important thing to do in disagreeing situations is to let the other person know they are being heard. You don't have to agree or lead the person on (it's actually discouraged), only genuinely show that you have given consideration to their perspective without being blatantly disrespectful.
If your goal is truly to limit bias it should be important that we get more people on the same page, as this is what we base what we consider "objective reality" upon. You never can persuade opposition with, "you're wrong, dumb fucker."
That's my two cents at least. I like philosophy. Post some more my friend.
The "given" was a pretty near unchangeable opinion. So, the chance for further solidification isn't something to be concerned about. My only point here was that even in such cases, there's still some utility to debating with people on the other side just to hone your arguments (not to further determine the objective truth). But if we do want to still assume a chance for a change of opinion, debating will increase the likelihood compared to just not discussing the issue at all, especially if you try to find the best presenters of the opposing side's ideas.
I rejected that rabbit hole very early in life :-)
If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that bias that leads to wrong conclusions may not be something to worry much about if it doesn't have a negative impact on our life. If so, I guess that could be considered something of a truism on a utilitarian basis, but if our passion is just for truth independent of utility, it obviously still matters. And I'm not sure if we can always correctly measure the impact of mistaken beliefs based on biases either.
I think that's not a bad formula for evaluating human behavior and it share some similarity to my own. I wasn't familiar with the term Hanlon's razor, but as a concept I'm a strong believer in it and frequently use it when trying to understand human behavior.
Yes, completely agree with this. It can be hard at times, but if you really want to change someone's mind, I think its critical.
I'm very utilitarian about it because I'm not sure that I'll ever be capable of achieving an accurate depiction of objective reality through my limited human capability. Also, after a few months of thinking about it, I'm not sure that my picture of reality has to be accurate. I'm resting my laurels on utilitarianism.
(I'm not even sure I believe in free-will any more but this is an on-going internal struggle. That's another debate altogether. I'm working on a theoretical model for cognition based on the parallels between biology and computation. Hopefully I'll draft something solid and get it academically published. If so, I'll share it here. I'm a non-traditional student studying computer science and neuroscience.)
There's another good one to go along with Hanlon's razor! I forget what it is called but (paraphrasing) I think it goes like this: "Malice must be the intention of those who couldn't possibly be THAT incompetent." Human behavior is tough, its the emergence of a complex system of hardware and experience. One thing I have noticed though is that reasoning is always justified for someone, even if it's after the fact. Many bad people in history have justified horrendous actions through the means of necessity and imaginary evil.
Wow, what an insightful and thought-provoking post! I found the discussion on beliefs, opinions, and confirmation bias truly intriguing. It's fascinating how our biases can influence our reasoning. I especially appreciated the idea of seeking opposing viewpoints to counter our biases and refine our arguments. Thanks for sharing this thought-provoking content! 🌟🤔 #ThoughtfulInsights #BeliefsAndBiases #EngagingDiscussion
Fascinating, but downright scary at times...
It seems you've conflated myth with lying when you call the St. Nick story a lie.
It's a trend, a bias I see often these days. Religion falls into this category also. It is now the trendy thing to do, calling these things at worst a lie and at best childish ignorance.
Rather, is it ignorance of human nature / psychology to label these things so? You did state you acknowledged it's utility, but yet seemingly distance yourself from it. Why?
I'd go as far to say the St. Nick story has at least one possible function, in that it is lesson whereby children eventually discover that the world is not always as it seems and that one has to confront disappointment.
Humans have always been telling stories. Why? Because stories give us a sense of meaning and purpose, giving us a structure to our world and life that we can operation from, right or wrong. Without such guidance we are powerless and inert.
When we set these "limitations" in place, we have a set of "knowns" to choose from and work with. Conversely, when faced with limitless possibilities, where do we begin and end? The end result is inaction, as one is still sorting through the endless options in a quest to discover the correct one to act upon.
Herein I think lies the issue today, people seem to be unwilling to make a choice that may end up being a mistake. It would seem that people are becoming risk adverse, to the possibility that they might at some later point discover they are wrong. There is rigid culture taking hold where people have to identify with a story and live and die by that lest they be socially crucified.
Gone, or rare, seems to be personal humility to admit a correction in outlook and the public acceptance of being able to arrive at different conclusions and seeing that as an acceptable path of development. The world has become more fanatical.
I guess at the heart of it, your article is then about which stories we choose to align ourselves with (bias), and that you seek a path of temperance, the middle way to navigate through the possibilities.
Your thoughts?
It wasn't really a conflation, it was a deliberate attempt at obfuscation :-) I doubt there are any young readers of my posts, but just in case I decided to be a little vague in the beginning.
I'm not sure it is good at teaching the world is not as it seems, because the whole story seems a bit beyond the norm of the way the world seems since it is all quite magical in nature. And even early in life, I think we have plenty of lessons that teach us to confront disappointment, so not sure kids need any more of those. So I still think the most interesting lessons to learn, and ones we won't learn many other places, are 1) a lot of people can and will lie to you under the right set of circumstances and 2) more importantly, your desire to believe can make you believe ridiculous things.
Except for small pockets of time and in very specific places, these two issues are always problems I think. I'm not sure things are much worse than normal overall, but if you live in the western world, I'm guessing you're seeing more of this type of polarization and unwillingness to engage in productive discussion, and if so, I don't disagree about that.
I'd go so far as to say the unwillingness to admit/correct a mistake is one the major biases we suffer from and it appears to me that it is in part responsible for the increasing polarization we see in the US. I actually thought of bringing this point up in my original post, but my brain was getting a little tired after three hours and I forgot to mention it.
I feel that the longer and stronger someone promotes a particular opinion to others, the more difficult it becomes for them to admit the possibility that the opinion is wrong, because to do some makes them feel bad (and of course, they also fear it may make them look bad to other people). So bias increases as a defensive mechanism, to avoid having to admit to being wrong.
The questions raised in Your post are important and some effort has been made throughout human history to arrive at meaningful answers. Krishnamurti was a great midwife to reflect on bias - as it is a standard aspect of the human condition. Confirmation bias is a form of self preservation - one creates one's own predictive programming. The example of a woman asking her boyfriend/better half before going out for dinner: "Do I look good?" Even if that would not be entirely truthful, who would not respond with "You are looking great, Honey!"
Regarding introspection - it is only possible in the absence of fear. Fear about what truthful introspection will bring to the surface.
Thank You for Your insights.
When it comes to recognizing confirmation bias in yourself, I found it that you simply cant, when presented with information initially.
So I consciously forced myself into the only solution I could find. Whenever I make a claim on anything, I internally attempt to counter it to the best of my ability. This has worked well for me because even in cases when it doesnt entirely force me to abandon my initial argument, it softens it, it lets me present a more balanced view of things. Doing this can be really tough, a struggle, wrestling against your inner need to present your rejection of arguments lacking all and any reason, especially in cases when met with someone so aggressively pushing faulty, sometimes evil narratives, not wanting to give an inch.
This ofc, puts you at odds with basically everyone on the political spectrum or elsewhere in life, since by doing this you reject to pick a problem solution presented to you in a false dichotomy of preset basket of beliefs, you are encouraged to pick from, and is not a wanted position to be in.
You basically choose to stand alone.
I have a saying here (I have a lot of sayings haha):
"If I can guess your stance on 10 specific, disconnected issues, from just knowing your stance on 1, you're most likely an idiot and not worth talking to". 😂
I could have probably put it more nicely. lol
I've observed this often myself in various political parties, religious groups, etc. Not only are the issues disconnected, they are often even logically inconsistent. But the vast majority of people fall into this category to some extent because "group think" seems to be part of human nature, so you probably still should talk to them.
It has been very pleasant to read these lines dear @blocktrades, it is fabulous to come across reflections like this. In fact, personally I am always looking for philosophy about Hive, it happens that as I studied philosophy for some time I have not stopped learning and studying about Hive, with the purpose of being able to outline reflections on philosophy and Hive. So I will be attentive to future publications like this one.
I take this opportunity to extend the invitation to you to express ideas of this kind in the community where I am co-founder "Humanitas" A community that was thought to do philosophy and to be able to express reflections and thoughts like these.
Nietzsche said that there are no facts, there are only interpretations, but in this sense, the question is: How to know if my interpretation is accurate? and how to know that it is not being biased by personal prejudices?
I believe that this is one of the biggest challenges that people have in our path of self-knowledge. That is why meeting people with radically opposite points of view can make us see points of view that we would not have contemplated in any other situation. I remember a medieval philosophy class when we were studying Christian philosophy and the professor takes a radically atheistic stance. Just to contrast arguments on both sides of the scale.
Now, with respect to optimism, pessimism or realism, I currently consider myself a realist, although I have a tendency towards pessimism. But, it just so happens that I have a somewhat dichotomous perception of pessimism.
I think that pessimism is true optimism.
I mean, a pessimist is dissatisfied or disagrees with something, therefore he should at least want that situation to change for the better, unlike an optimist who may think that everything is fine and does not attach too much importance to it but accepts the situation as it is. He does not pretend to improve it. The pessimist wants things to improve or at least that is what I think. This has given me a desire to express these ideas a little more. Maybe I will write a little about it.
I've only skim read one book by Nietzsche that I found in a book store, but I don't remember which one it was. Honestly I found it almost incomprehensible, so I haven't read any more of his writings. Do you have any you recommend?
Getting into Nietzsche can be a bit confusing because of his way of expressing ideas. I think to start reading about this German philosopher can be with the following works.
1: On truth and falsehood in an extramoral sense.
2: The decline of the idols.
3: Thus Spake Zarathustra (his masterpiece)
Nietzsche is a rather pointed author, there is a Bulgarian film that talks a bit about his life, I highly recommend it. It's called "The day Nietzsche cried".
Optimistic;
Realistic;
Pessimist;
Yes, a lot of people can drift back and forth between pessimism and optimism, depending on the topic domain and just their general state of mind (often related to external events happening to them, as you suggest).
Greetings...
I was raised in religious belief and often found myself appalled at actions people took claiming those same beliefs when they didn't line up with the biblical teachings of Christ.
I've come to realize that a relational relationship with faith is much different than religious belief.
Faith all the power you cannot see. Religion all the power you can see. The seen power uses faith to manipulate and control.
BTW, The Thoughtful Daily Post Community is also perfect for these posts of yours. You don't have to post daily just they be thoughtful and yours is.
I couldnt agree more with your post. thank you for sharing your insights. Personally, im more of a realist because i want to see things the way they present themselves to be and not the way i want it to be presented. However, lately i've been leaning towards being optimistic because that is where opportunities are, with a hint of caution ofc. If i were to rank these three, from best to worst, it would be: realistic, optimistic, pessimistic.
Congratulations @blocktrades! Your post has been a top performer on the Hive blockchain and you have been rewarded with this rare badge
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts:
Great topic and post - I enjoyed reading your words and clarity on a topic that doesn't involve databases 😁
I've written an unpublished book that touches on these topics and done a lot of work exploring them, but without writing an entire essay here...
I have been optimistic in the past and then hit hard by being very incorrect about things that mattered to me. I've also had shorter periods of pessimism when I didn't know how to respond or overcome challenges. Generally though I have an angle now which is an expanded realism.
Essentially, we are always free to influence and guide our own destiny and we do that to a large extent through our own internal state of being - which includes thoughts, beliefs, emotions and the knowledge held. The reason I say 'expanded' is because the way we perceive reality/self and therefore the way we shape our lives comes down largely to the definitions we are holding. If we are willing to very carefully examine our definitions and change them to be more accurate or more expansive, we can really open new doors - perhaps that no-one has ever opened before. The definition we hold of 'reality' itself is key.
Someone who chooses to be a realist could use a very different definition for the idea of reality (and therefore also of 'realist') to someone else and so they can be quite different in their outlooks and internal process. E.g. Some people might define that 'reality' is 'the tangible and measurable phenomena that we agree on'.. However, there are wildly different understandings of what reality actually is that deviate greatly from this commonly held 'reality'. ;)
The short version is that I know that we all have our own subjective realities and that this is actually a source of great power that most people aren't fully tapping in to.
Instead of viewing that there is an objective reality that I can't really deviate much from and therefore limiting my options in life to what the consensus has agreed is possible - I start from completely the opposite position - that there are infinite parallel/possible realities and my ability to experience most of them requires me to shift my own beliefs/thoughts/emotions sufficiently to do so. Generally, this means deviating a lot from what consensus reality claims to be true. This doesn't mean I just believe whatever I want, without reason or checking or experimenting - it means that I don't discount any possibility at all and I allow the possibility that my own innate creative capacity could be far greater than most people assume, allowing for what seems impossible to become possible.
I don't just do this because it sounds like it is fun - I do it because I've studied the topic for decades and have had a lot of success with it over the years. In fact, I have no doubt that it is an essential part of expanding creative capacity and even speeding up my own evolutionary process.
Realism delivers the necessary accuracy and precision for powerful creation, without wandering into the challenges posed by pessimism and optimism - but we need to have experimented sufficiently with an open mind and heart to have expanded our own reality before realism is optimal. 'Expanded Realism' goes beyond the benefits we think optimism/pessimism can deliver by both allowing for exciting new opportunities while also delivering a deeper understanding about things that allow us to be more effective at keeping ourselves safe, without closing off possibilities and building the emotional and psychological armour around ourselves that keeps so many people limited and essentially in a state of fear.
Yes, I think that is one of the potential pitfalls of too much optimism. Pessimists even have a saying for it: "Don't get your hopes up and you'll never be disappointed".
I feel ultimately, that pessimism and optimism are seen as separate to realism specifically because they are detached from reality and are thus always to some extent incorrect. It's no way to sale a ship :)