Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This came to me in my normal "social media" feed called email — everyone remember email? It’s this tool where you can stay connected with actual friends.

People, especially the youngin’s, should give it a try. There’s no hidden costs that are paid in the currency of your personal information. And you don't get targeted and manipulated in unknown, and increasingly unknowable ways.

https://blog.chaddickerson.com/2019/...cing-facebook/

As an aside from the marketing/tracking issues, I thought this comment was particularly apt:

"My brain got unwittingly wrapped up in their dramas, their political arguments, their triumphs and tragedies. I saw children fighting with their parents in the comments, political battles, people working out places to meet up — activities usually reserved for the private sphere. When I really thought about it, observing all of this seemed like a really odd way to spend significant time and energy."

It always seemed to me that there's enough of this sort of drama in many people's actual lives, so why volunteer for more from people you aren't as close to? Also, why do people want to publicize such things? Oh well, I guess there's some things I'll just never quite understand.

I also think -- especially perhaps for the youngin's who have spent formative years interacting in this manner -- that it puts undue emphasis on people & personalities as opposed to the ideas & opinions those people happen to be espousing. Why? Dunno, but maybe because it's simply easier, and there's little consequence from the safety of one's smartphone. And then there's the superficial "likes" and other forms of approval that reinforce a sense of tribalism. Little wonder that many seemed to have lost the ability or desire for healthy debate.

I know there are many, more productive ways people also use these platforms, but it seems like an unhealthy way for humans to interact, and may even be contributing to some of the societal polarization we're experiencing these days. But then I'm not and have never been a Facebook user so could certainly be wrong . . . .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

People, especially the youngin’s, should give [email] a try. There’s no hidden costs that are paid in the currency of your personal information. And you don't get targeted and manipulated in unknown, and increasingly unknowable ways.

If you're using one of the big email platforms (eg gmail), your info is still grist for their mills.


What email misses out (and Facebook does well) is the sort of effortlessness of adding people, reconnecting with forgotten people, and even meeting new ones. It's brainless for your old auntie to get on and instantly get all the family news.


(I speak as an observer, not a member. My life is too short to belong to FB, Twitter, Instagram, etc. Barely enough time for CF )

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you're using one of the big email platforms (eg gmail), your info is still grist for their mills.

Yes, a point that can not be made too strongly. Don’t use these “free” services. A good rule to follow is the old: “If you’re not paying for the product, then you are the product.” Email can be had for cheap. All ISP provide email addresses.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

What email misses out (and Facebook does well) is the sort of effortlessness of adding people, reconnecting with forgotten people, and even meeting new ones. It's brainless for your old auntie to get on and instantly get all the family news.

Yes, it’s part of the seduction of these services. I don’t deny they are powerful, and often very useful. That’s why they’re successful. But we're definitely not getting anything for free when we use these tools. Knowing and understanding the trade offs are vital. Unfortunately there’s almost no way to know the full extent of what we’re giving away. We’re purposely kept in the dark — this too is part of the business model.

And I think the paper also makes some interesting points about the social costs of this kind of tool. The research indicates it has been disastrous for young women, with rates of depression, psychological disorders, and even suicide on the increase, much of it linked back to social media usage.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

And I think the paper also makes some interesting points about the social costs of this kind of tool. The research indicates it has been disastrous for young women, with rates of depression, psychological disorders, and even suicide on the increase, much of it linked back to social media usage.

Sure, but that's as much (or more) due to the stressful hyper-competitive, hyper-consuming world we currently have in the west. I doubt the wife of a small midwestern farmer experiences the same social-media-induced anxiety of a big-city career woman.


Tools are more often amplifiers than prime causes.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sure, but that's as much (or more) due to the stressful hyper-competitive, hyper-consuming world we currently have in the west. I doubt the wife of a small midwestern farmer experiences the same social-media-induced anxiety of a big-city career woman.

Tools are more often amplifiers than prime causes.

I’ve only looked at it superficially so far, but researchers are finding strong links between social media usage and female disorders. Something about how social media amplifies (as you say) the forms of social interacts women have.

Interestingly, the research shows much less impact on males. Again, the theory is that this is due to the different ways we interact. Social media is like a million watt amplifier for women.

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I’ve only looked at it superficially so far, but researchers are finding strong links between social media usage and female disorders. Something about how social media amplifies (as you say) the forms of social interacts women have.

Interestingly, the research shows much less impact on males. Again, the theory is that this is due to the different ways we interact. Social media is like a million watt amplifier for women.

Mike, my first reaction to what i bolded there is "not surprising for little girls are taught to be compliant, and that pain is a legitimate excuse for not doing stuff." The closest I ever got to critical thinking was 9th grade geometry and "proofs". But, while that may be true of my upbringing, and that of many of my age cohorts, I would not think it applies so much to the modern woman. So, I'm wondering about the nature of the links they are finding, and what are the disorders? Maybe I can trust you to give us the best links?

Ann

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

[/B]

Mike, my first reaction to what i bolded there is "not surprising for little girls are taught to be compliant, and that pain is a legitimate excuse for not doing stuff." The closest I ever got to critical thinking was 9th grade geometry and "proofs". But, while that may be true of my upbringing, and that of many of my age cohorts, I would not think it applies so much to the modern woman. So, I'm wondering about the nature of the links they are finding, and what are the disorders? Maybe I can trust you to give us the best links?

This issue isn’t on the critical thinking axis. The issues seem to revolve around the way females act socially. As I say, I’ve not delved too deeply into the research, but what I’ve read looks at the way women tend to use more subtle social tools in their group power dynamics (shaming, ridicule and general social postering) vs males which tend to be more physical and aggressive.

The research I’ve read suggests while social media doesn’t much affect the way men operate, it has an amplifing effect on women’s social interactions.

https://particle.scitech.org.au/peop...al-health-can/

Here’ but one of many sources. If you search “social media” AND “women’s health” you’ll find mountains.

[Lake-Effect]

Oooh, Ann was gentle, dude. I was expecting that the women of the forum would bust you harder for that. May yet do so...

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The research I’ve read suggests while social media doesn’t much affect the way men operate, it has an amplifing effect on women’s social interactions.

Stop digging. It's not helping.

Social media has had a profound effect on just about all young people. Just look at dating. (...so glad I'm paired for life)

If I can make one generalization about men and social media, it's made many into even bigger jerks. "Men's rights"? the alt-right?

[Kerry1]

Originally Posted by GordMay

We’ve seen some very high-profile examples, lately, of how overconfident leadership can lead to ruinous outcomes.

Julia Rohrer (et al) wants to create a radical new culture for social scientists. A personality psychologist at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Rohrer is trying to get her peers to publicly, willingly admit it when they are wrong.

To do this, she, along with some colleagues, started up something called the Loss of Confidence Project. It’s designed to be an academic safe space for researchers to declare for all to see that they no longer believe in the accuracy of one of their previous findings. The effort recently yielded a paper that includes six admissions of no confidence. And it’s accepting submissions until January 31.

Loss-of-Confidence Project ➥ https://lossofconfidence.com/

Putting the Self in Self-Correction
“Scientific self-correction is often construed as an outcome of the activities of the community as a whole. In contrast, cases in which researchers publicly point out errors in their own studies are rare and deemed unusual. Here, we argue that such individual self-corrections would be beneficial for the scientific community. In an online project, we invited researchers to submit statements describing how they have lost confidence in a finding they had previously published...”
More ➥ https://psyarxiv.com/exmb2

"Science, we are told, is tentative. And given the history of science, there is every reason for science to be tentative. No scientific theory withstands revision for long, and many are eventually superseded by theories that flatly contradict their predecessors. Scientific revolutions are common, painful, and real. New theories regularly overturn old ones, and no scientific theory is ever the final word. But if science is tentative, scientists are not. As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn rightly noted, it takes a revolution to change scientific theories precisely because scientists do not hold their theories tentatively. Thus, in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn quotes with approval Max Planck, who wrote: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." No scientist with a career invested in a scientific theory is going to relinquish it easily. And a good thing that is! The only way to make headway with a theory is to be fully invested in it. Scientific theories are frameworks for solving problems. Scientists risk their careers and livelihoods working on theories they hope will solve interesting problems. Consequently, scientists need to be persuaded that their theories provide not only fundamental and profound insights, but also avenues of research sufficiently fruitful to span an entire scientific career (typically forty or so years). By itself a scientist's lack of tentativeness poses no danger to science. It only becomes a danger when it turns to dogmatism. Typically, a scientist's lack of tentativeness toward a scientific theory simply means that the scientist is convinced the theory is substantially correct. Scientists are fully entitled to such convictions. On the other hand, scientists who hold their theories dogmatically go on to assert that their theories cannot be incorrect. How can a scientist keep from descending into dogmatism? The only way I know is to look oneself squarely in the mirror and continually affirm: I may be wrong . . . I may be massively wrong . . . I may be hopelessly and irretrievably wrong--and mean it! It's not enough just to mouth these words. We need to take them seriously and admit that they can apply even to our most cherished scientific beliefs. A simple induction from past scientific failures should be enough to convince us that the only thing about which we cannot be wrong is the possibility that we might be wrong. This radical skepticism cuts much deeper than Cartesian skepticism, which always admitted some privileged domains of knowledge that were immune to doubt (for Descartes mathematics and theology constituted such domains). At the same time, this radical skepticism is consonant with an abiding faith in human inquiry and its ability to render the world intelligible. Indeed, the conviction with which scientists hold their scientific theories, so long as it is free of dogmatism, is just another word for faith. This faith sees the scientific enterprise as fundamentally worthwhile even if any of its particular claims and theories are subject to ruin. In place of faith in the scientific enterprise, dogmatism substitutes unreasoning certainty in particular claims and theories of science. Now the problem with dogmatism is that it is always a form of self-deception. If Socrates taught us anything, it's that we always know a lot less than we think we know. Dogmatism deceives us into thinking we have attained ultimate mastery and that divergence of opinion is futile. Self-deception is the original sin. Richard Feynman put it this way: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." What's more, Feynman was particularly concerned about applying this principle to the public understanding of science: "You should not fool the laymen when you're talking as a scientist.... I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is [more than] not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong."

William A. Dembski

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oooh, Ann was gentle, dude. I was expecting that the women of the forum would bust you harder for that. May yet do so...

Stop digging. It's not helping.

Social media has had a profound effect on just about all young people. Just look at dating. (...so glad I'm paired for life)

If I can make one generalization about men and social media, it's made many into even bigger jerks. "Men's rights"? the alt-right?

I’m sorry , I didn’t know I was saying anything controversial. Honestly…

It’s mainstream psychology. Women and men tend to interact differently in society and in social circumstances. It’s really not new or news. What is kinda new is the research linking the the measurable dramatic rise in young women’s mental health vs young men. The researchers are finding links to social media use, with the theory that it amplifies female power interactions in ways which it doesn’t so much for males.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This came to me in my normal "social media" feed called email — everyone remember email? It’s this tool where you can stay connected with actual friends.



People, especially the youngin’s, should give it a try. There’s no hidden costs that are paid in the currency of your personal information. And you don't get targeted and manipulated in unknown, and increasingly unknowable ways.



https://blog.chaddickerson.com/2019/...cing-facebook/

unless you use free email services from yahoo, gmail, apple, microsoft. . .

[Nicholson58]

Originally Posted by atoll

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

I want to invest in green cheese mining on the moon

[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.

Ann

[heron237]

Okay let's all read the same two or three articles and elevate this conversation, anyone can find any all-encompassing quote or statement, so instead of relying on that simple, intellectually lazy trope, lets see what kind of intellectual cajones you people have. I will be happy to join the conversation with anyone who has an attention span greater than a gnat to carefully read what I have here.



This is the future of the Democratic Party. A very succinct and to my mind entirely prescient read, if you don't know her this is a good introduction.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-n...rick-perlstein


Please read this, it touches on some big issues especially about a new political paradigm to deal with a world-wide crisis.



https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/...-of-the-earth/


Finally read this astronomer's reasoning behind him positing that a nearby interstellar object visiting our solar system could well be from another civilization:


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


Now don't go on about how by offering these links I'm breaking my own observation, no snappy crap, this serious ****! I'm offering the links without comment keep your comments on topic, please or as they used say kind reader.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by heron237

This is the future of the Democratic Party. A very succinct and to my mind entirely prescient read, if you don't know her this is a good introduction.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-n...rick-perlstein.

Starting here - I promise to read this and the other links later, but I have read quite a bit about the young lady already. And I'm terrified that too many people are putting too much on her shoulders right out of the gate. You need a roomful of her to make stuff happen, and she deserves some time to learn, grow, make mistakes, and sharpen her claws.

More importantly - I have been convinced for several years that the US is crippled by its rigid two-party system. It's just not enough for the full expression of policy alternatives and political sentiment. How can one party contain a Romney and a Trump and remain ideologically consistent? Or a Sanders and a HRC? In other countries, there are more parties which provide more homes for political ideas, and people are more inclined to vote for policy over party. In particular, the US political spectrum lacks a home for moderate, pragmatic, centrist policy.