Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Humility goes both ways. A super smart person must exhibit humility so as not to PO the “dumber” people they wish to educate. Wisdom and experience not shared is like the proverbial tree falling in the forest but heard by no one.

Super ignorant people may not be humble enough for a brainiac’s tastes but so what? Pointing that out to them will accomplish nothing.

There is a wise saying on Peggy Hall’s signature that many of us would do well to heed.

The human brain is wired with a lot of instinctual programming. Super intelligent people should think more about what intelligence really means. We hear a lot these days about someone making decisions based on incomplete or ignorance of “facts”. But humans have evolved to the top of the pecking order precisely because they tend to make good (albeit self serving) decisions most of the time and nearly always without all the facts available.

That some super smart people seem to have forgotten this is interesting.

Ahh!!! You mean peepul who know a lot about a little.. and little about a lot..
That's peepul they call Experts innit..

[transmitterdan]

Ergxactly....

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Singularity

We are friends (I see no one as an enemy, but I do see people stepping on people, and I don't care where they were on Sunday morning).

My beef is the relative inanity of calling on intellectual humility and error checking in a forum largely devoid of intellectualism and error checking to the point of shunning it. This is a tyranny of the majority environment.

Guassian intellectualism is a neologism; Reimann would have been a better choice but no one knows him. The only modern math I'm "saw the commercial" familiar with that precisely measures changes over time is Loretnz transformation, or length contraction.

I cited Hegel as, to my knowledge, he's the first guy to explain how all the following plays out in terms of human conflict and war. Math is reality with numbers. Numbers don't change. Reality may be expressed too, with terms (words), but the "meaning" of words are integrated (mapped cognitively) in ways that most people overlook, such that over time people say words coming out of their mouth that are the complete opposite of what they mean (thanks to the inanity of philosophy). This is plainly evident by looking at the 3rd or 5th definition of words. E.g. "insanus" means not healthy. Not many people talk nowadays about their insanity, but they will want to talk about all their medications. Hegel explains this, but people earn their "intellectual" credentials in other realms.

The earliest proof that I'm aware of that is consistent with Hegel's logic of sublation (determinate negativism for those handicapped by philosophy):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

The earliest proof that I'm aware of that is purely consistent with Hegel's sublation meets master-servant relationship in cognition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

The first good book explaining how people cognitively bias after-the-fact, regardless of their behavior that gets them into mess:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails


An age-old tale:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...smart-leaders/

Student of Hegel here. At Regensburg and Ludwigs-Max in the early 80's.


The concepts you are citing here would be pretty alien to Hegel himself. These are all things read into Hegel by later, some of it much later, Marxist thought. Much of it, maybe most of it, maybe ALL of it, by people who haven't even actually read Hegel.


Hegel is subtle, dense, and complicated. I've actually read it all, and in German, and passed terrifying oral exams on it (with straight 1's ). It's not hard to read all kinds of things, into Hegel's work, and Hegel has been used as a banner for all kinds of mumbo jumbo, not the least by Marx, who imitated Hegel's style and system. For example, the idea of Aufhebung -- sublation -- is actually an artifact of usage of the German language -- you might even say, a pun. As Aufhebung can mean cancellation or destruction, but also preservation. But the word itself, and the superficial paradox implied by it, doesn't warp reality; pace, Derrida. We English (or Russian or French) speakers have nothing like this; so our reality is different? No dialetic for us? This is silliness.



The apparent paradox in Aufhebung is exceedingly banal -- aufheben means, literally, "lift" -- "heben", "up" -- "auf". In all the European languages, we build up vocabulary out of metaphors, and often multiple ones, out of words which have simple physical meanings. So we say "to lift sanctions" -- just like German "die Todesstrafe aufzuheben" -- to abolish the death penalty. Lift it; get rid of it. We use the simple physical idea of "lifting" to mean all kinds of different things -- abolish, like German aufheben, or "lift the mood" -- i.e., raise it, to steal -- lift the car, and various other things, which have little to do with each other. The same banal thing in German -- "die Briefe in Erinnerung aufzuheben" -- to preserve the letters for the memory -- so lift them up again, but this time, into a safe place of preservation, as it were. These are the banal mechanics of language, but half of Marxism is slickly built upon this cool apparent paradox, for duping the proletariat, the potential revolutionary masses, into thinking that there are deep thoughts involved somewhere, rather than simple bloody-mindedness. Paradoxes have a terrific intellectual wow-factor, so the possibilities of misuse, of something like Hegel's dialetic, are almost endless.



I think that not only Hegel, but also mathematics, the supreme language of physical reality, are badly served by this conversation.

[GordMay]

“The Death of Expertise”
Why do so many people think they know best? And are they putting dolts in charge of government?

“... Ed Butler speaks to Professor Tom Nichols of the US Naval War College, himself an expert on national security, who wrote a book on the subject why everyone from surgeons to electricians to academics find themselves under attack from novices and ignoramuses who think their opinions should have equal weight...
... We also hear from Michael Lewis, whose new book, The Fifth Risk ...
... Plus, might the root of the problem be the Dunning-Kruger Effect - a psychological trait whereby the inept are unaware of their own ineptness? We ask Professor David Dunning from the University of Michigan...

The Death of Expertise ➥ https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cswgwd

PS: I wish I'd had access to Dockhead, 50 years ago when I tried to self-study Hegel.

[transmitterdan]

Be wary when the self appointed intellectual elite with tenured positions complain that the taxpayers are “stupid” because they put “idiots” into office. These are often the same prognosticators decrying the “vast income inequality” but see no irony in their own expertise inequality compared to the unwashed masses. I forget who first said, “common sense isn’t very common these days” but it seems truer than ever.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by GordMay

“The Death of Expertise”
Why do so many people think they know best? And are they putting dolts in charge of government? ...

Good listen. Got a hold the book now at my library. I love the summary line. It’s in reference specifically to anti-vaccines, but I think applies in general:

“It may just be that people will have to touch the hot stove of stupidity enough times before they understand why it’s a bad idea."

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

“The Death of Expertise”
Why do so many people think they know best? And are they putting dolts in charge of government?

I don't think what we're necessarily seeing is people thinking they know more than the experts. Rather, I think it's people frustrated with experts who have convinced themselves they know what's best for other people. It may be less about conflict between experts & laymen, and more about people wanting the freedom to make their own decisions, for better or worse. I think for many these days, they look at the results of deferring to experts and conclude that these are in fact the dolts they no longer want in charge of govt.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Ahh!!! You mean peepul who know a lot about a little.. and little about a lot..
That's peepul they call Experts innit..

How 'bout a new thread topic: "Intellectual Smugness & the Importance of Knowing Someone Else Is Wrong"

[transmitterdan]

The anti-vaccine fringe is an interesting case. By and large this group's "leaders" are celebrities who presumably are otherwise reasonably intelligent. And I suspect therein lies a partial answer to why certain people tend to believe in the "vaccines cause autism myth". Celebrities tend to have a sense of entitlement and in my limited experience so do anti-vaccine parents. They have an overblown fear of harm their children might suffer and care not a whit about the risk they clearly understand their unvaccinated children pose to society. Their children are just so much more important than everyone else's.

Until they are forced to see Polio crippling children or deformed babies caused by Rubella their whacky ideas will persist I guess.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Exile

How 'bout a new thread topic: "Intellectual Smugness & the Importance of Knowing Someone Else Is Wrong"

Sounds like a plan for more 'much ado about nothing'
(smug smirk)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The anti-vaccine fringe is an interesting case. By and large this group's "leaders" are celebrities who presumably are otherwise reasonably intelligent. And I suspect therein lies a partial answer to why certain people tend to believe in the "vaccines cause autism myth". Celebrities tend to have a sense of entitlement and in my limited experience so do anti-vaccine parents. They have an overblown fear of harm their children might suffer and care not a whit about the risk they clearly understand their unvaccinated children pose to society. Their children are just so much more important than everyone else's.

Until they are forced to see Polio crippling children or deformed babies caused by Rubella their whacky ideas will persist I guess.

Or an alarming but predictable increase in measles . . .

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...sles-outbreak/

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The anti-vaccine fringe is an interesting case. By and large this group's "leaders" are celebrities who presumably are otherwise reasonably intelligent. And I suspect therein lies a partial answer to why certain people tend to believe in the "vaccines cause autism myth". Celebrities tend to have a sense of entitlement and in my limited experience so do anti-vaccine parents. They have an overblown fear of harm their children might suffer and care not a whit about the risk they clearly understand their unvaccinated children pose to society. Their children are just so much more important than everyone else's.

Until they are forced to see Polio crippling children or deformed babies caused by Rubella their whacky ideas will persist I guess.

Interesting … a similar analysis can apply to anthropogenic climate change or anti-nuclear power, although in this case I suppose the “celebrities” are mostly political and business leaders.

[bobnlesley]

Originally Posted by atoll

the earth really is flat,members from all around the world can agree on this.......

Not that old chestnut. That's long been disproved on the basis that if it was flat it'd be uncomfortable for the elephants as it constantly slipped/slid across their backs.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Interesting … a similar analysis can apply to anthropogenic climate change or anti-nuclear power, although in this case I suppose the “celebrities” are mostly political and business leaders.

Plenty of entertainment celebs are quite vocal on those two issues as well, and those types of celebs arguably have more sway these days it seems. Not sure if the complexities & depth of AGW & nuclear power are really comparable though. Even if we assume the same level of scientific certainty between what the relevant experts are saying about vaccines & AGW, the remedy for the latter is infinitely more complex and involves economic, social & political issues way beyond the actual & perceived medical pros & cons of vaccinating your kid. And there are, of course, plenty of well-intentioned experts who disagree on whether the obvious benefits of nuclear power outweigh the unresolved issues surrounding radioactive waste. Quite a bit of reasonable, expert-level disagreement remains, even within the environmental community.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

Plenty of entertainment celebs are quite vocal on those two issues as well, and those types of celebs arguably have more sway these days it seems. Not sure if the complexities & depth of AGW & nuclear power are really comparable though. Even if we assume the same level of scientific certainty between what the relevant experts are saying about vaccines & AGW, the remedy for the latter is infinitely more complex and involves economic, social & political issues way beyond the actual & perceived medical pros & cons of vaccinating your kid. And there are, of course, plenty of well-intentioned experts who disagree on whether the obvious benefits of nuclear power outweigh the unresolved issues surrounding radioactive waste. Quite a bit of reasonable, expert-level disagreement remains, even within the environmental community.

Well… as with most questions in life, these a multifaceted issues. If you’re looking at it purely from a scientific standpoint, I think they are all quite comparable. It’s when you get into social or political realms around how to respond that the complexity mounts.

Take nuclear power for example. No reasonable analysis of the risks vs benefits could come down on the anti side. By any measure you care to apply, nuclear power has proven itself to be far safer, with vastly less damage to life and to the environment. No matter what you think of the waste problem, it is a minisucle risk compared the very real damage of dino energy.

AGW and vaccines have other interesting parallels. Taken from our perspective (rich, secure developed nations) the immediate risk from AGW is quite small. So too with not vaccinating your own.

The issue Professor Tom Nichols is getting at is the apparent shift away from arguing about what we do about these problems (the social and political complexity) into simply attacking and ignoring the basic facts as revealed by the best science. This is the the "Death of Expertise” as he puts it.

I’m not sure it’s actually a new phenomena though. I can’t help but think there is a parallel to how revolutions often treat its intellectuals. In virtually all cases the “expert” class is attacked, demonized and sometimes killed off. I suspect it has something to do with power.