Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Figuring out the Bernoulli effect gave us sails that can go to weather.

Really? And you state this in a discussion on intellectual humility!?!

Let's say that Daniel Bernoulli published some key ideas in 1738. And Lenny Euler took those ideas further in 1752.

And let's put aside, for the moment, the question of how fore-and-aft sails generate lift and whether any physical process associated with Bernoulli's principle is involved.

I suggest we put that aside, because it's clear that lateen-rigged boats, including dhows with their variation on the lateen rig, were going to windward perhaps 200 years before Bernoulli.

Boats with what looked very much like fore-and-aft rigs, using sloop and cutter forms, were going to windward in canals and harbours in the Nederlands in the 16th century.

The documentation of sailing in the Great Archipelago/Maritime Continent and the waters from there east is not as solid as in Europe, but I strongly suspect the ancestors of Polynesians, Micronesians, Melanesians, Indonesians and others were sailing to windward well before the birth of Bernoulli or Euler. And certainly well before the sailors, sailmakers, and boat builders concerned heard of Bernoulli's equation.

All of which suggests that practice (or praxis, should you prefer) preceded theory. In this case, but at least around 200 years and perhaps as much as a millenium.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

Really? And you state this in a discussion on intellectual humility!?!...

You missed the entire point of my comment.

[Eigenvector]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Darn, I wanted to see all the climate change research papers that would be posted.

Is climate change real? Yes1

1 Eigenvector, PhD- January 2019, Cruisersforum.com




Couldn't Resist...........

[cyan]

In a thread about intellectual humility, there is a member named Eigenvector.

(nerds unite!)

[Eigenvector]

Originally Posted by cyan

In a thread about intellectual humility, there is a member named Eigenvector.

(nerds unite!)

I will counter with: In a thread about intellectual humility there is a member that knows what an eigenvector is?

[boatman61]

Linear algebra..
I was crap with basic.. But Google is my Friend.

[gamayun]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Linear algebra..
I was crap with basic.. But Google is my Friend.

Dang, ya beat me to it, Boatie.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Linear algebra..

I was crap with basic.. But Google is my Friend.

You clever use of google cannot silence the original dog whistle to us nerds. (We didn’t rate with girls like the modern ones do)
My Eigen fun was mostly with images and matrix transforms.
Curious about Mr Eigenvector’s background now.
Gonna be interesting anchorage banter one day...

[john61ct]

An interesting counterpoint

https://aeon.co/essays/the-blind-spo...ved-experience

[Exile]

Originally Posted by gamayun

The link below is to an article in the Washington Post on the Dunning-Kruger effect, which helps explains the current phenomenon a bit -- that people with the least knowledge of a subject will self-report as being more competent than others. So yes, "it is political" as Dr. Dunning points out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/scien...=.710b71336de7

But wouldn't this unfortunate human trait only be "political" if the persons doing the self-reporting were aware of their own incompetence? Seems like the D-K Effect is more about those who have internalized an inflated view of themselves and aren't just acting the part. IOW, is it willful or delusional? Or does it matter?

Originally Posted by john61ct

The internet has enabled learning the truth much more easily, but that takes work.

Turns out most people are very lazy (Shock, who knew?) and would rather feel securely embedded in and accepted by their chosen "identity paradigm / zeitgeist tribe" than participate in a consensual reality based on evidence.

Therefore taking advantage of the ability to embed yourself in a Bubble where you're never challenged by ideas contrary to the dogma of that tribe.

The idea of "what is Real" now becomes secondary to loyalty to that tribe, and twisted as a weapon to steer politics to serve the leaders of your faction.

All too true, and also nothing new. Another one of the all too human traits that form the two edges of OReilly's sword.

Originally Posted by Eigenvector

However, just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's correct.

But whether it's correct or not, the internet can always be relied on to justify & support one's own tribalistic & biased opinions or world view.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

But I don’t see a slow shift towards adoption of these increasingly available and powerful information tools. I see exactly the opposite trend. It seems that ignorance is growing, not shrinking. And worse, in too many areas it seems to be intentional, rather than accidental ignorance.

I see today’s Internet as the perfect tool for fostering in, and out group bias.

Maybe because the internet provides little or no accountability. People can post with anonymity and thus relative impunity. People with different viewpoints -- politically or otherwise -- are simply not "talking" with each other anymore, let alone "debating." They only read, watch & listen to whatever information source confirms their own predilections, and become literally unaware that anyone else could possibly have a different point of view. The internet allows what seems like rational thought to the speaker to go unchallenged, and then group-think can all too easily take over.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's not information entropy, it's improper use. The current problem with the abundance of unverified or decontextualized information is that many people simply look for that which provides validation of their own opinion, and then they stop. Notice how much of the arguments made around some contentious subjects are simply attacks on the source or motives of the providers of information supporting the viewpoint they oppose.

Exactly. It seems much more common these days to hear people with contrary views both say "I can't understand how they can even think that way," as opposed to "I understand what they're saying & why, but here's why they're wrong . . . ." The lack of understanding about how others think all too often leads to a yearning for simple answers that all too often take the form of demonization, stereotyping & dogma. Yet another unfortunate feature of humankind.

[john61ct]

and another, yes related

https://www.wired.com/story/used-wis...blic-discourse

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Oh, yes


Aristotle said that the essence of wisdom is knowing what you don't know. The corollary of that is that the essence of foolishness is lacking awareness of what you don't know or might be wrong about. In general, it seems to me, that the more a person knows, the more a person is aware of how much more there is to know. Only people who know very little, really think they know it all.


We have a certain number of people on here (or at least, who come and go) who consider arguing to be a kind of sport, where changing your mind or admitting you were wrong about something is equivalent to "losing".


This is really sad, and it detracts from the whole discussion process on here when people take up space and bandwidth furiously (and often, with intellectual dishonesty) defending some point of view just because it would mean "losing" to admit that someone else had a point.


Actually to float some idea on here and get it shot down by someone who understands the subject better, is not "losing" at all. On the contrary, you are the biggest winner when that happens -- you've learned something new or got liberated from some wrong idea. I am always grateful when that happens to me (which is often).


Many thanks to Gord for starting this great topic

Some excellent points made here.

I think it's important to apologise when you've made a mistake, which is why I've apologised when I've been wrong. A reasonably recent thread on multi hatches, is an example, where I apologised for misinterpreting another poster. Some would rather fall on their sword than do that.

I equate it to attempting to bolster your opinion by claiming that data supports your opinion, when there's no data. Or trying to claim that a couple of supporting anecdotes is more than simple confirmation bias and the same as data. A thread that has turned into a shining light for this, thanks to you and some others, is the hybrid thread in the multi forum, but it still appears to grate on some people. Data and evidence based discussion shines a harsh light on opinions, it seems, and not everyone is emotionally mature enough to handle that.

A note of caution, however. It would be easy to fall into the trap of judging another poster based on the contributions they've made in some threads while ignoring others. This is, again, confirmation bias at work. This happens a lot on here. There are many who, like myself, only tend to post when they feel they can add value by either adding technical commentary or experience to a thread or by trying to nudge a thread back on track when it's at a point where it can distract from the value being added or way off piste or turned into some pontificating, chest puffery. There's quite a lot of this on here and culture starts at the top....food for thought, perhaps.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

. . . But whether it's correct or not, the internet can always be relied on to justify & support one's own tribalistic & biased opinions or world view.



Maybe because the internet provides little or no accountability. People can post with anonymity and thus relative impunity. People with different viewpoints -- politically or otherwise -- are simply not "talking" with each other anymore, let alone "debating." They only read, watch & listen to whatever information source confirms their own predilections, and become literally unaware that anyone else could possibly have a different point of view. The internet allows what seems like rational thought to the speaker to go unchallenged, and then group-think can all too easily take over.

. . .

Certainly, but that's not the only result of having such instant access to such masses of information.


The Internet kind of magnifies whatever kind of mind a person already has. Basically, you find whatever it is you are looking for. If you are the kind of person who only wants to validate some kind of prejudice -- you will get abundant resources for that.


If on the contrary you are looking for truth, it is vastly easier nowadays to find all kinds of contrary opinions and drill down to the facts underneath them. It is vastly easier to quickly collect background information on a given topic.



The difference between doing research on the Internet and humping knowledge in a paper library like we used to do is that the Internet is a lot bigger than any library (by many orders of magnitude), and there are no publishers (and then librarians) filtering and refiltering and cutting down the volume of knowledge accessible to us. Access time is reduced from minutes or hours (or weeks) to seconds which makes iterative research, checking, cross-checking, gathering background information, putting together information from a large variety of different sources, possible which could never be done with paper without a large team of researchers. It requires different techniques and principles, but used properly it is incomparably more powerful.



Used poorly, the Internet reinforces prejudices and, indeed, stupidity.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Exile

But wouldn't this unfortunate human trait only be "political" if the persons doing the self-reporting were aware of their own incompetence? Seems like the D-K Effect is more about those who have internalized an inflated view of themselves and aren't just acting the part. IOW, is it willful or delusional? Or does it matter?



All too true, and also nothing new. Another one of the all too human traits that form the two edges of OReilly's sword.



But whether it's correct or not, the internet can always be relied on to justify & support one's own tribalistic & biased opinions or world view.



Maybe because the internet provides little or no accountability. People can post with anonymity and thus relative impunity. People with different viewpoints -- politically or otherwise -- are simply not "talking" with each other anymore, let alone "debating." They only read, watch & listen to whatever information source confirms their own predilections, and become literally unaware that anyone else could possibly have a different point of view. The internet allows what seems like rational thought to the speaker to go unchallenged, and then group-think can all too easily take over.



Exactly. It seems much more common these days to hear people with contrary views both say "I can't understand how they can even think that way," as opposed to "I understand what they're saying & why, but here's why they're wrong . . . ." The lack of understanding about how others think all too often leads to a yearning for simple answers that all too often take the form of demonization, stereotyping & dogma. Yet another unfortunate feature of humankind.

Some more excellent points.

Great thread!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Certainly, but that's not the only result of having such instant access to such masses of information.


The Internet kind of magnifies whatever kind of mind a person already has. Basically, you find whatever it is you are looking for. If you are the kind of person who only wants to validate some kind of prejudice -- you will get abundant resources for that.


If on the contrary you are looking for truth, it is vastly easier nowadays to find all kinds of contrary opinions and drill down to the facts underneath them. It is vastly easier to quickly collect background information on a given topic.



The difference between doing research on the Internet and humping knowledge in a paper library like we used to do is that the Internet is a lot bigger than any library (by many orders of magnitude), and there are no publishers (and then librarians) filtering and refiltering and cutting down the volume of knowledge accessible to us. Access time is reduced from minutes or hours (or weeks) to seconds which makes iterative research, checking, cross-checking, gathering background information, putting together information from a large variety of different sources, possible which could never be done with paper without a large team of researchers. It requires different techniques and principles, but used properly it is incomparably more powerful.



Used poorly, the Internet reinforces prejudices and, indeed, stupidity.

No question the internet is a vastly more powerful source of information than has ever come before. The problem I see is that age-old human instincts that lead to bias, divisiveness & confrontation remain that much more powerful, and it is probably fair to say that most people lack the time, energy or maybe the curiosity to do the needed drilling for objectivity & truth. The ones sincerely searching not only have to surmount their own natural biases & assumptions, but are further required to distinguish between fact & opinion along with any bias or subjective motivations from the source. None of these obstacles are new, of course, but I'm not sure the greater/faster access has helped or hurt.

On balance I'd agree a freely accessible internet is generally a positive move forward for humankind, but I can't help wondering if it is also playing an unanticipated but significant role in our present-day divisiveness over a multitude of issues large & small. As L-E points out, the internet makes it all too easy to quickly confirm what you want to find & then stop. Relatively few probably have the desire to search out contrary information and thereby challenge their way of thinking. Let's face it, "intellectual humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong" are not exactly some of the more common human traits!