Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

The million watt amplifier remark did seem over the top, but, after reading the article and relating it to family members who spend time on FB, and have for years, I kind of agree. It partly explains why my at-the-time daughter in law told me her friend "had to have breast enlargement surgery." I've been off grasshoppering and not paying attention to developments in psychology for a long time, and have felt surprised at the difficulties young people are having at feeling connected. This is a long way from "intellectual humility and the importance of knowing you might be wrong", though, and might even deserve an off topic thread of its own. Though i'd hazard a guess that if you get your girl children out helping with all aspects of cruising, it will be super for their self esteem! and maybe, also for their intellectual humility. It's easier to admit to mistakes when you feel okay about yourself, and your financial security is not threatened.

Sorry again Ann, the “million watt amplifier” comment was a bit over the top . It was meant as a metaphor, but perhaps 'thousand watt' may be more accurate. The point being that social media tools are having measurable negative impacts on young people in general, but the research is showing it is many times more dangerous to young women. The theory being explored is that it has to do with the way females interact socially, especially around things like shame and bullying.

I think the research also supports your prescription: get these kids away from screens about out into the real world.

[heron237]

Originally Posted by moctrams

This is off topic. Keep politics out of this forum.

au contraire fellow sailor, what could be more important to us and our progeny than the very viability of our waters!

[heron237]

I believe I read somewhere that the places that opt out of using devices in school are close to Google and Amazon HQs.

[transmitterdan]

So I had already read

https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-n...bject-oumuamua

and had a few days to think it through. And the only conclusion I can reach is Mr. Loeb has lost his marbles. We studied the heck out of that rock as it hurtled out of the planetary disc. We (meaning US space folk) pointed several big antennas at it and it has exactly zero RF output. It is clearly a rock. No one sent it to us and Mr. Avi is just getting some publicity saying well maybe it could be from some other intelligent life.

This is exactly they kind of nonsense that gives crackpots a stick to beat down good science. Oumuamua is nothing more than a big rock based on all evidence gathered to date. There is zero evidence of anything else.

[boatman61]

I'm not Intellectual..
I've no Humility..
I'm Right..
Up Yours..

[Exile]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I'm not Intellectual..
I've no Humility..
I'm Right..
Up Yours..

Kinda has a nice rhythm to it, no?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Exile

Kinda has a nice rhythm to it, no?

Old time Rock n Roll..

[heron237]

Unfortunately you you missed the point of the article entirely. He was talking about how science at various points has certain sets of reference that inform the science. I thought it was brilliant-- he is not saying it is an intelligent design or not, he running through the consensus science that say it's so or not. A nuanced reflection don't you think?

[GordMay]

How to fight the Dunning-Kruger effect, explained by psychologist David Dunning
➥ https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...xplained-trump

You might recognize Dunning’s name as half of a psychological phenomenon that feels highly relevant to the current political zeitgeist: the Dunning-Kruger effect. That’s where people of low ability — let’s say, those who fail to answer logic puzzles correctly — tend to unduly overestimate their abilities.
The explanation for the effect is that when we’re not good at a task, we don’t know enough to accurately assess our ability. So inexperience casts the illusion of expertise.
But not knowing the scope of your own ignorance is part of the human condition. The problem with it is we see it in other people, and we don’t see it in ourselves.
The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don’t know you’re a member of the Dunning-Kruger club. People miss that.

Much more ...

Read the Interview ➥ https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...xplained-trump

See also “what the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t” ➥ https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010...t-is-and-isnt/

[Mike OReilly]

Interesting read Gord. Love Dunning’s work. And I look forward to reading about his current research which he teases in the interview about how (American) Democrats and Republicans differ in terms of what they think certain facts are.

They really differ in terms of “is the economy doing well?” “What’s the record of the Obama administration?” “Did the stock market go up or did it go down? “Is teenage pregnancy at an all-time high?” Or, “What’s the financial shape of Social Security?”

As Dunning says in the interview, "These are factual questions. What’s impressed me in the past few years is how much people not only author their opinions but author their factual beliefs about the world.”

[transmitterdan]

They really differ in terms of “is the economy doing well?” “What’s the record of the Obama administration?” “Did the stock market go up or did it go down? “Is teenage pregnancy at an all-time high?” Or, “What’s the financial shape of Social Security?”

But are these really "factual" questions? I submit they are not. They are designed to elicit opinions because the respondent is required to fill in some additional parameters in order to formulate a response.

Is the economy doing well?

It depends on your personal circumstance for most people. If someone just lost their job and can't find another one the economy sucks.

A factual question is: Did the US GDP go up over the last 12 months? Yes.

Did the stock market go up or did it go down?

Which segment of the market? Over what time interval are we asking?

A factual question: Did the S&P 500 go up since January 1, 2017 to today? Yes.

I think you can see the problem with these so-called "factual" questions.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

But are these really "factual" questions? I submit they are not. They are designed to elicit opinions because the respondent is required to fill in some additional parameters in order to formulate a response.

Is the economy doing well?

It depends on your personal circumstance for most people. If someone just lost their job and can't find another one the economy sucks.

A factual question is: Did the US GDP go up over the last 12 months? Yes.

Did the stock market go up or did it go down?

Which segment of the market? Over what time interval are we asking?

A factual question: Did the S&P 500 go up since January 1, 2017 to today? Yes.

I think you can see the problem with these so-called "factual" questions.

Yes, I agree. This is why I said I look forward to reading the actual research. That’s why I called his comments here teaser statements. Knowing the quality of the research Dunning does, you can be sure he’s thought through your critiques, and a whole lot more.

[GordMay]

“Unknown Unknowns: The Problem of Hypocognition”

“In 1806, entrepreneur Frederic Tudor sailed to the island of Martinique with a precious cargo. He had harvested ice from frozen Massachusetts rivers and expected to make a tidy profit selling it to tropical customers. There was only one problem: the islanders had never seen ice. They had never experienced a cold drink, never tasted a pint of ice cream. Refrigeration was not a celebrated innovation, but an unknown concept. In their eyes, there was no value in Tudor’s cargo. His sizable investment melted away unappreciated and unsold in the Caribbean heat.

Tudor’s ice tale contains an important point about human affairs. Often, human fate rests not on what people know but what they fail to know. Often, life’s outcomes are determined by hypocognition..."

More ➥ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...hypocognition/

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

But are these really "factual" questions? I submit they are not. They are designed to elicit opinions because the respondent is required to fill in some additional parameters in order to formulate a response.

Is the economy doing well?

Absolutely.

To me an economy structured so that its "doing well" or not

has no impact on whether or not two people working full time make enough to live in dignity

only benefits those in the top X of society, makes very little real difference on anyone's in practice standard of living

increasingly only needs a small fraction of the population to be usefully employed in order to still be deemed perfectly healthy by the owners of the means of production

and is accelerating the demise of our environment and society the "better" it does,

is fundamentally broken, designed wrong and needs fixing.

[GordMay]

A humorous graph describing the D-K Effect.