Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[kmacdonald]

It's funny that when some people find themselves in a hole, they double down and keep on digging, oblivious to the plight they got themselves into. Just a hint GW.

[Go Wildcats]

I've read that thread's posts, I'll stay clear.

I have a group of four friends from grad school (very diverse group - race, religion, national origin, dietary habits, etc.) and we have these discussions often. One in particular is the smartest person I know and happens to be a psychiatrist. I firmly believe he's been subtly diagnosing and treating me without my knowledge. He has recommended so many books (i.e. "Everyone 's a hypocrite, but me" - trust me, i see the irony).

Originally Posted by Exile

If you really want to offend, I'd suggest posting this over in the latest climate change thread, i.e. "There Is No Planet B."

More seriously, I have a brother who is a doc and an associate prof at a large medical school, and he complains about this sort of thing all the time.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Go Wildcats

EXILE, I'm sure your a great guy to share a beer (though I prefer bourbon and rum), but you've latched on to a post and inferred incorrectly of its purpose.

Consider this a cyber olive branch and high five.

You're on! Quite possible you are correct that I inferred incorrectly. I think misunderstandings may be more common than we realize when communicating in this fashion. I'm good with bourbon & rum, but maybe not together in the same glass. Pretty sure OReilly prefers beer. Maybe L-E will arrive late so we don't have to hear how bad drinking is for us until it's too late.

[Go Wildcats]

I'd enjoy the social hour - And really need it.

Originally Posted by Exile

You're on! Quite possible you are correct that I inferred incorrectly. I think misunderstandings may be more common than we realize when communicating in this fashion. I'm good with bourbon & rum, but maybe not together in the same glass. Pretty sure OReilly prefers beer. Maybe L-E will arrive late so we don't have to hear how bad drinking is for us until it's too late.

My eldest sons thesis was on this very thought. Electronic media (email, social media, texts) don't convey enough communication. Sometimes there aren't enough emoji's. To quote a very astute mother, "You have to do the best with what god gave you".

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly
So the real answer is not to increase scientific literacy, but to disentangle politics from these data-driven issues.

Originally Posted by Exile

YES! But how? Once one side infuses politics into the mix, the other side inevitably responds in kind.

Btw, I think there IS a way to discuss our political divides without being partisan and getting the thread closed, but climate change & race cards are probably not it.

Consider the following conceptualization, sorry so long:

1) System 1 (fast) as fight-or-flight thinking, System 2 (slow) is logic/vulcan/spacetime thinking; System 2 being more prevalent if not dominant in ancient times (if/when/where there was not persistent 24/7/365 hyperstimulation)

2) System 1 thinking is dominant for some people, System 2 dominant in others (sorry Myers Briggs deniers)

3) Consider that which is subconscious for some is conscious for others, and vice-versa; consider that maybe there isn't as much to the subconscious as previously thought, or, it's yet to be discovered and Freud was off-base

4) It's not helpful to think of System 1 as fast and 2 as slow (I don't think); an engineer's intuition (Dilbert's "knack") is an example of a lightning quick System 2 process (at least frequently)

5) It may be helpful to think of System 1 as paralleling Freud's ego while System 2 akin to the Id/superego

6) Politics is simply the means by which limited public resources are allocated to essentially unlimited public demands for such resources

7) It is helpful to see all learning as ultimately being biased towards increased survival, such that there is no controversy in evolutionary biology that both System 1 and 2 thinking are biased in the same manner (Kahan's referenced paper cited a "small group" of scholars who believe this is so...while people going back to Freud at least would argue that this is clearly the case).

8) Consider reviewing Steve Novella's critical thinking course guide that explains a lot of the cognitive biases/fallacies at play here; Novella is a clinical neurologist and skeptic extraordinaire.
https://guidebookstgc.snagfilms.com/...ptive_Mind.pdf

9) Learning is ordinarily understood to occur via a mechanism of neurons...in simple (no need to split hairs) terms neurons are what produces thoughts/beliefs...specific sequential firing of groups of neurons in certain pattern, such that "nerves that fire together...wire together."

10) When one considers that politics (the best allocation of resources to protect the self/clan) is ordinarily what influences the manner in which nerves are wired together, it must be appreciated that such thought patterns are the path of least resistance to processing new information. Put metaphorically a different way, the brain is like a pachinko board where the size and distribution of pegs are determined by learned behavior as it relates to survival.....such that if/when you drop a chip from above, the chip will ordinarily go down the path that reaches the same conclusion that has been drawn countless times before. This is what you see in Kahan's paper referenced here.

11) To re-configure the nerve wiring...new learning...neuroplastic changes...requires some motivation to do so. A prominent problem is that under stress people ordinarily react in characteristic ways (see Myers Briggs, etc)....in common System 1/2 literature it is stated that people revert to System 1 thinking. At any rate, it's also been noted (think a Nobel was given for this) that stress/cortisol is a wonderful agent in learning, such that when you are stressed, you remember better. At the same time, it is observed (wrote this in another post recently) that if/when someone is disgusted, people revert to what is considered 'conservative' thinking (currently in the US). All of this speak to how the wiring gets wired and reinforced, vs re-wired.

12) Most of the above is not new; much of the above theory was postulated 100+ years ago (what Kahan et all called "Identity-protection Cognition Thesis" is very roughly what Freud, etc, would call 'ego defense'). I don't like to promulgate nutty conspiracy theories, but people who like to talk about the dumbing/watering down of education in the US (decreasing math requirements, humanities requirements) attribute the lack of public awareness of cognitive biases, neurocognitive processes, etc...as the result of a concerted effort to keep the American population dumbed down and easier to manipulate.

13) People may "bring politics into everything" (as I do on certain issues) if/when they feel that the ~previously non-political topic needs to have the political angle brought up for the good of the community. An intrinsic human trait (reference responsibility OCD).

[kmacdonald]

Can't we just beat each other with our favorite anchor?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Can't we just beat each other with our favorite anchor?

Probably less painful.

[Go Wildcats]

This is a lot to unpack. I’m not certain, but I think I like it.

Originally Posted by Singularity

Consider the following conceptualization, sorry so long:

1) System 1 (fast) as fight-or-flight thinking, System 2 (slow) is logic/vulcan/spacetime thinking; System 2 being more prevalent if not dominant in ancient times (if/when/where there was not persistent 24/7/365 hyperstimulation)
.......

13) People may "bring politics into everything" (as I do on certain issues) if/when they feel that the ~previously non-political topic needs to have the political angle brought up for the good of the community. An intrinsic human trait (reference responsibility OCD).

[Mike OReilly]

Did someone say beer

Seriously … glad we’ve all kissed and made up. Lets continue to prove that we can have civil discussions about rather difficult topics — ones that can easily push buttons in all of us.

Singularity, that’s a long list of somewhat disparate thoughts. Any one of which we could pick up. Care to focus and expound on one or two?

The system 1/2 thinking is described in the paper (paraphrasing here b/c I don’t have it in front of me) as heuristic vs deliberate & reflective, some might say formally logical. System 1 is what most of us do most of the time to solve life’s challenges. It is a method of reaching answers or conclusions using limited data and analysis, but rather relying on established patterns that have led to success. It is fast, but less precise.

System 2 thinking require effort and time, and does not necessarily come as naturally, or as easy, to anyone. But with education and training, we can learn to use system 2 thinking more often. This was one of the axis differentials used in the study to differentiat the various participants.

What was interesting (to me) was how even those who were adept at System 2 type thinking, easily reverted to System 1 thinking when faced with a conclusion not supported by their in-group perspective.

In other words, (and to put it too simply), tribalism trumped brains.

The paper suggests that the way forward on these contentious issues is to try and remove them from the accreditation check list of tribe membership. But as Exile has already pointed out, it’s hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Once something has become a core marker in tribal identity, it is hard to remove it.

But there have been examples of subjects becoming disentangled, or perhaps less-entangled, with group identity. The ascendancy of women’s equality, racial rights, acceptance of gays in society, even the shift away from anti-nuclear. All of these are in various states, but I believe all were more tightly woven into certain tribal identities in the past. Today all have loosened in their connections.

How did it happen? And does this show a way forward on other, current issues which have become hopelessly intertwined with liberal or conservative tribal membership? I think so.

[Pelagic]

There is possibly a 3rd way to continue this and any other contentious subject on CF and that is to convince the Moderators and Administration to allow a lighter touch on just ONE continuos Thread
Perhaps we call it:
"Anchors & Rum"

No foul language, but any topic goes and like the Death Cage, winning arguments are based on sharp responses leading to group acceptance.

Then someone moves on to another topic within that same thread.

Like the Joke Thread, it would be popular and a much needed Vent for some .

Weavis..... whadayathink?

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

There is possibly a 3rd way to continue this and any other contentious subject on CF and that is to convince the Moderators and Administration to allow a lighter touch on just ONE continuos Thread
Perhaps we call it:
"Anchors & Rum"

No foul language, but any topic goes and like the Death Cage, winning arguments are based on sharp responses leading to group acceptance.

Then someone moves on to another topic within that same thread.

Like the Joke Thread, it would be popular and a much needed Vent for some .

Weavis..... whadayathink?

I try not to think. I've been married.

This thread has been allowed to continue, despite not being boating related simply because of the mannerly conduct of the participants. We, the admin team are guided by the same rules that all members of CF are.

I, by virtue of being the visible face of the mods on this thread, do NOT make individual decisions regarding conduct or commentary, I just get to give the mods position regarding what is acceptable or not according to the rules, and in consultation with the Admin team.

Here are a few pointers to keep a non-boating thread going.

Keep it civil.

Do NOT engage in politically divisive discussion, ie, liberal vs conservative vs Trump, vs ideology that will result in a fight.

Do not treat people with opposing viewpoints as idiots because they do not agree with you.

Do not do throw away comments in a hit and run manner. We have been tempted to remove a few on this thread due to the sarcastic and contentious content........... you know who you are.

Do NOT do dissing moderator comments.... the post will be removed and eventually the thread too. Write the mod concerned about your view and let the admin team work it out.

The second the admin see a continuation of hurt feelings and barbed comments, especially on a non-boating thread, we question the validity of letting it run. We don't need it and we don't want it on a cruising forum.

We are NOT a group of friends in general, we are from all walks of life and experiences and come together on a discussion platform to exchange views. For this reason, we the admin and mods are happy to let things continue as long as it is done in a non-political and polite exchange of thoughts.

We seem to have difficulty with Climate change, anchors, guns and a few other topics. WE WILL CLOSE CONTENTIOUS THREADs if it threatens the peaceful intent of CF.

The Admin prefers to treat each thread on its individual merits. If we had one thread running as suggested, and it gets closed, then there is nowhere to go.

When an admin or mod gives a gentle reminder, I am surprised that CF members feel the need "to rectify" a comment that has been made that does not fit in with the individual's view or is factually incorrect......... That will get a thread closed simply because direction has been ignored. The warning is for all and an indication that the particular commentary HAS TO CEASE, regardless if false or true........ in the end, Intellectual humility has to prevail simply because the topic should never have been raised, and clarification is irrelevant at that point. This is not a forum to debate abortion or other contentious subjects EVER.

Thanks for reading.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

Now THAT might just explain a major difference b'twn liberals & conservatives right there. The conservative empathizes but accepts reality; the liberal sympathizes but wishes for a different reality, whether it's realistically attainable or not.
And then there are those who, despite superficial allegiance, are really in neither camp. These are the ones who claim superior moral insight in knowing what's best for others, but in reality are only advocating for themselves.

Except at the extreme lunatic fringes (L or R), we are all (among other things) trying to find a delicate balance between our (often competing) desires for personal liberty, and the common good.
When forced to choose between these ideals , the conservative will tend to favour personal liberty; whereas the liberal will tend to favour the common good.
Neither is entirely abandoning the one ideal; but merely sacrificing some of the one, in favour of preserving the (more important) other.

The relative importance we ascribe to one or the other, shared ideals, describes our position (left or right) on the philosophical scale.
The “reality” of a position (anywhere on the scale) isn’t really real, it’s just a value judgement, or opinion.

Here’s mine, as expressed by S. Colbert:
“I know there are some polls out there saying this man (Pres. George W. Bush) has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
Stephen Colbert, Address at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner (29 April 2006)

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by GordMay

...Here’s mine, as expressed by S. Colbert:
“I know there are some polls out there saying this man (Pres. George W. Bush) has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
Stephen Colbert, Address at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner (29 April 2006)

OK, I know I shouldn’t, but this just made me laugh. So thanks for the morning chuckle . I hope everyone takes it as humour. And in an effort to achieve balance (the journalist in me), here’s a few for my conservative friends:

Q: What do you get when you offer a Liberal a penny for his thoughts
A: Change.

A Liberal found a magic genie's lamp and rubbed it. The genie said, "I will grant you one wish." He said, "I wish I were smarter”. So the genie made him a Republican.

Q: What do you call a basement full of Liberals?
A: A whine cellar.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Except at the extreme lunatic fringes (L or R), we are all (among other things) trying to find a delicate balance between our (often competing) desires for personal liberty, and the common good.
When forced to choose between these ideals , the conservative will tend to favour personal liberty; whereas the liberal will tend to favour the common good.
Neither is entirely abandoning the one ideal; but merely sacrificing some of the one, in favour of preserving the (more important) other.

The relative importance we ascribe to one or the other, shared ideals, describes our position (left or right) on the philosophical scale.
The “reality” of a position (anywhere on the scale) isn’t really real, it’s just a value judgement, or opinion.

Here’s mine, as expressed by S. Colbert:
“I know there are some polls out there saying this man (Pres. George W. Bush) has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
Stephen Colbert, Address at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner (29 April 2006)

Humor is essential but sorely lacking these days it seems. It's healthy to poke fun at ourselves & others. The remainder of your post is about as articulate, objective, and concise a description of some of the basic distinctions between the two political philosophies as I've read in awhile. Thank you for posting them.

Among other things, your comments recognize that there are no absolutes, and policies which favor one are often at the expense of another. Whether by necessity or inertia, it might be fair to say that any form of govt necessarily results in a steady erosion of individual rights over time, and it comes down to the culture, traditions & activism of the people to maintain a healthy balance in the face of the ever-increasing complexities of modern society. This is why I believe the lunatic fringe and extremist elements on both sides should not be ignored but ultimately rejected, and easy answers to complex issues always viewed with healthy skepticism. The problem is extremists often shout the loudest, and their simplistically seductive solutions attract a lot of money to get their messages heard. Even more troubling imo, is that these loud voices often attract extremists from the opposite side, thereby drowning out more moderate & reasonable voices left in the room. But it's not all the shouting that's the real danger, but the intolerance for each other's opinions which poses the greatest threat. Imho that is . . . .

Btw, when the U.S. Constitution was originally debated, there was a strong faction that vehemently objected to the Bill of Rights being codified. The thinking was that such rights are innate to a free people recently liberated from tyrannical govt, and so codifying them was both unnecessary and ran the risk of minimizing their import. In hindsight, thank goodness the other side of that particular debate won out, and the people of the US now have these fundamental rights memorialized (in the first 10 amendments). And even more critically, an independent judiciary which remains willing to enforce them.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Except at the extreme lunatic fringes (L or R), we are all (among other things) trying to find a delicate balance between our (often competing) desires for personal liberty, and the common good.
When forced to choose between these ideals , the conservative will tend to favour personal liberty; whereas the liberal will tend to favour the common good.
Neither is entirely abandoning the one ideal; but merely sacrificing some of the one, in favour of preserving the (more important) other.

The relative importance we ascribe to one or the other, shared ideals, describes our position (left or right) on the philosophical scale.
The “reality” of a position (anywhere on the scale) isn’t really real, it’s just a value judgement, or opinion.

Here’s mine, as expressed by S. Colbert:
“I know there are some polls out there saying this man (Pres. George W. Bush) has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
Stephen Colbert, Address at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner (29 April 2006)

Actually I think Polls are a load of rubbish and can be steered/shaped by the way you ask the question.. and what the person wants you to think.
The Brexit exit voting poll showed Remainers winning by a large margin.. but folks voting Leave have a sense of humour.