Cognitive Bias Can Explain Post-Truth(thereader.mitpress.mit.edu)
thereader.mitpress.mit.edu
Cognitive Bias Can Explain Post-Truth
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/how-cognitive-bias-can-explain-post-truth/
23 comments
Most of what you say is true. What's more, we all kind of know it - about ourselves, and about others. But the difference is, people thought that rationalism was possible and desirable, and now they think it isn't. (Isn't possible, at least, which renders moot the question of whether it would be desirable.)
We used to think that there were objectively right conclusions, and, if people were careful, they could be rational enough at least some of the time to reach those conclusions. And now we don't. We now think that all truth claims are only about power, and not at all about actual truth. There's no point in even trying to reach the truth, because it isn't there to reach. It doesn't exist.
And that's a radical difference from the previous mind-set, whether or not the rationality of individuals changed.
We used to think that there were objectively right conclusions, and, if people were careful, they could be rational enough at least some of the time to reach those conclusions. And now we don't. We now think that all truth claims are only about power, and not at all about actual truth. There's no point in even trying to reach the truth, because it isn't there to reach. It doesn't exist.
And that's a radical difference from the previous mind-set, whether or not the rationality of individuals changed.
Take a look at Jonathan Haidt's work such as The Righteous Mind.
He is not coming to the conclusion that there is no point. He is suggesting that people need to be aware of their strongly-held preconceived ideas, and work hard to understand the other side's worldview, before being able to make more objective conclusions or have constructive discussions.
It's really about taking time to absorb some of the alternate information streams to understand what a different perspective they are coming from.
The problem is that most information sources are highly polarized at this point.
He is not coming to the conclusion that there is no point. He is suggesting that people need to be aware of their strongly-held preconceived ideas, and work hard to understand the other side's worldview, before being able to make more objective conclusions or have constructive discussions.
It's really about taking time to absorb some of the alternate information streams to understand what a different perspective they are coming from.
The problem is that most information sources are highly polarized at this point.
I don't think the issue is whether or not people are more or less rational now than in previous era. The issue, from my view, is that people are just as irrational as they've always been, but the consensus facts of reality are suddenly up for debate.
There's a new marketplace of facts supplementing the marketplace of ideas and the combined effect is catastrophic.
When I refer to post-truth or transpostmodernism or whatever, I'm not talking about people who have arrived at different conclusions based on the same facts -- I'm talking about people who have based their conclusions on opposing, contradictory facts.
There's a new marketplace of facts supplementing the marketplace of ideas and the combined effect is catastrophic.
When I refer to post-truth or transpostmodernism or whatever, I'm not talking about people who have arrived at different conclusions based on the same facts -- I'm talking about people who have based their conclusions on opposing, contradictory facts.
> the combined effect is catastrophic.
Where is the catastrophe? What I see is people arguing online. You can point to real world events but I’ll ask next what makes them out of the ordinary and of greater size or import than other years, and it’ll be hard to say they are. But the din online suggests they are. What should we expect when communication tech becomes cheaper and more widespread?
I don’t see any catastrophe though. More speech is a good thing, power to the people and all that.
Where is the catastrophe? What I see is people arguing online. You can point to real world events but I’ll ask next what makes them out of the ordinary and of greater size or import than other years, and it’ll be hard to say they are. But the din online suggests they are. What should we expect when communication tech becomes cheaper and more widespread?
I don’t see any catastrophe though. More speech is a good thing, power to the people and all that.
> In fact, I look at the "post-truth" label as just another non-rational attack against the other side.
This is an odd perspective to see on ycombinator. The negation of knowledge as a fundamental concept is nihilism. I find it very hard to accept that "alternative facts" are true. A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false.
If you work in technology do you believe in booleans or do you think they are also open to individual interpretation?
This is an odd perspective to see on ycombinator. The negation of knowledge as a fundamental concept is nihilism. I find it very hard to accept that "alternative facts" are true. A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false.
If you work in technology do you believe in booleans or do you think they are also open to individual interpretation?
I don't understand how you took the idea that OP doesn't believe in truth from their post. Their point was that the "post-truth" framing implies that there was some golden age of rationality where we cared about truth and now we don't; but humans aren't exactly rational on their best days, so in some sense we've always been "post-truth".
No one is asking that you think that "alternative facts" are true; OP is just saying that there wasn't significantly more truth in the media/discussions in the commons 30 years ago (or whenever the fabled golden age of truth was supposed to have occurred).
No one is asking that you think that "alternative facts" are true; OP is just saying that there wasn't significantly more truth in the media/discussions in the commons 30 years ago (or whenever the fabled golden age of truth was supposed to have occurred).
> Their point was that the "post-truth" framing implies that there was some golden age of rationality where we cared about truth and now we don't; but humans aren't exactly rational on their best days, so in some sense we've always been "post-truth".
Did you read the article?
> Here, “post” is meant to indicate not so much the idea that we are “past” truth in a temporal sense (as in “postwar”) but in the sense that truth has been eclipsed by less important matters like ideology
It does not imply a golden age of rationality at all.
Did you read the article?
> Here, “post” is meant to indicate not so much the idea that we are “past” truth in a temporal sense (as in “postwar”) but in the sense that truth has been eclipsed by less important matters like ideology
It does not imply a golden age of rationality at all.
Real-world issues are not boolean variables.
This commentary is interesting in that it's absolutely correct, but adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.
I do work in technology and I'm not trying to be nihilistic or Socratic (in the sense that nothing is knowable). As for your boolean example I don't deny that you can prove things using formal logic. But I do believe those formal proofs are only really applicable to the mathematical and the abstract. Subjects where human emotion and human perception don't come into play.
In societal subjects the same facts can be used to justify different conclusions. As an example, look at all the wildly different economic policies that are recommended by different economists who are all looking at the same data published by The Fed.
I know that "Alternative Facts" has a lot of vernacular baggage around it due to the crowd size fiasco with Donald Trump's inauguration. Putting that aside, an alternative fact can really just be a datapoint from a different perspective. And that's often how I see every argument. I don't use "Alternative Facts" as a synonym for lying.
In societal subjects the same facts can be used to justify different conclusions. As an example, look at all the wildly different economic policies that are recommended by different economists who are all looking at the same data published by The Fed.
I know that "Alternative Facts" has a lot of vernacular baggage around it due to the crowd size fiasco with Donald Trump's inauguration. Putting that aside, an alternative fact can really just be a datapoint from a different perspective. And that's often how I see every argument. I don't use "Alternative Facts" as a synonym for lying.
You claim:
> Human beings didn't evolve to be rational creatures - we're not Vulcans. We're born with good-enough rules for making sense of the environment around us and maintaining harmony with the people around us. It's a mistake to believe otherwise.
You also state:
> But I do believe those formal proofs are only really applicable to the mathematical and the abstract.
Do you not see the contradiction in these two terms? The creation of formal proofs implies rationality. The comprehension of formal proofs implies rationality. If people are only born with good-enough rules for making sense of the environment and keeping harmony who wrote the formal proofs?
> Human beings didn't evolve to be rational creatures - we're not Vulcans. We're born with good-enough rules for making sense of the environment around us and maintaining harmony with the people around us. It's a mistake to believe otherwise.
You also state:
> But I do believe those formal proofs are only really applicable to the mathematical and the abstract.
Do you not see the contradiction in these two terms? The creation of formal proofs implies rationality. The comprehension of formal proofs implies rationality. If people are only born with good-enough rules for making sense of the environment and keeping harmony who wrote the formal proofs?
What if humans rationality circuits are always subordinated to group/mating/whatever circuits? Then it's possible to be rational in math, and irrational in most other issues.
Are we working on the same definition of rational? I am using what I consider to be the standard definition which would pop up from a google search:
"based on or in accordance with reason or logic" / "able to think sensibly or logically" / "endowed with the capacity to reason".
You made the claim that you do not believe people are rational. Following from this you would also have to believe that individual's actions are without reason. Consequently, any perceived reason or logic, either by the actor or an observer, would actually be a post-hoc explanation for action. From a behavioural persective cause and effect would no longer exist, nothing could be predicted and nothing could be planned.
This is entirely at odds with what we know about post-truth. Individual behaviour can be modelled and population behaviour can be predicted to a degree.
Irrational actions do not imply irrationality. An irrational action is usually a consequence of rational thinking based on incorrect information.
"based on or in accordance with reason or logic" / "able to think sensibly or logically" / "endowed with the capacity to reason".
You made the claim that you do not believe people are rational. Following from this you would also have to believe that individual's actions are without reason. Consequently, any perceived reason or logic, either by the actor or an observer, would actually be a post-hoc explanation for action. From a behavioural persective cause and effect would no longer exist, nothing could be predicted and nothing could be planned.
This is entirely at odds with what we know about post-truth. Individual behaviour can be modelled and population behaviour can be predicted to a degree.
Irrational actions do not imply irrationality. An irrational action is usually a consequence of rational thinking based on incorrect information.
Apparently you confused me with another commenter.
I don't think humans are irrational, and wholeheartedly agree that we are able to think logically. However, skipping all the stuff which wasn't intended for me I'd like to jump to the last sentence of your commentary to note that it hangs on a hypothesis that our actions are result of just thought processes completely detached from say metabolism, and pre-programmed reactions. I don't think its true. There's a lot of empirical evidence to claim that various things like sleep deprivation, peer pressure, level of glucose, hormons, age do affect human decision-making even if thought-information[1] remains the same. Humans btw show great ability to re-rationalize made decisions afterwards, essentially fooling themselves to believe they came to them purely by thinking.
Math is unlikely to be affected by this, but politics, relationships, and a lot of other decisions - easy.
[1] Technically, hormons, and instincts are information inputs as well, but they are usually processed outside of concious thinking.
EDIT: added the last para.
I don't think humans are irrational, and wholeheartedly agree that we are able to think logically. However, skipping all the stuff which wasn't intended for me I'd like to jump to the last sentence of your commentary to note that it hangs on a hypothesis that our actions are result of just thought processes completely detached from say metabolism, and pre-programmed reactions. I don't think its true. There's a lot of empirical evidence to claim that various things like sleep deprivation, peer pressure, level of glucose, hormons, age do affect human decision-making even if thought-information[1] remains the same. Humans btw show great ability to re-rationalize made decisions afterwards, essentially fooling themselves to believe they came to them purely by thinking.
Math is unlikely to be affected by this, but politics, relationships, and a lot of other decisions - easy.
[1] Technically, hormons, and instincts are information inputs as well, but they are usually processed outside of concious thinking.
EDIT: added the last para.
And filter bubbles. I mean, if you live in an information echo chamber, which we all do now, of course you’ll keep getting feedback that what you hear is true. People seem very unaware of their filter bubbles and how to see out of them.
I think addressing this is the right idea at the wrong scale. The problem is information and media literacy more broadly. Think about who benefits from the general societal rejection of expertise and what that means for information and media literacy.
Is expertise being rejected per se? My problem with experts is that their advice often seems to take into consideration only a very circumscribed set of concerns, and that their tacit assumptions -- normative assumptions, particularly -- are rarely questioned sufficiently, if at all.
Let me share a quip, one that pertains to one specific type of expert: namely, lawyers. "Legal training sharpens the mind by narrowing it."
Experts give advice, which by all means should be considered. Read that last clause carefully. I argue that we have a kind of cult of expertise where careful consideration of expert advice within the context of larger concerns -- the full picture -- is too often given short shrift.
Let me share a quip, one that pertains to one specific type of expert: namely, lawyers. "Legal training sharpens the mind by narrowing it."
Experts give advice, which by all means should be considered. Read that last clause carefully. I argue that we have a kind of cult of expertise where careful consideration of expert advice within the context of larger concerns -- the full picture -- is too often given short shrift.
I believe I understand what you're saying but I don't buy it. Good experts state their assumptions and acknowledge their biases. The assumption seems to be that they don't or that they aren't, but I see it often. Furthermore, part of the job of the media is to mediate these experts, find consensus among those experts, and explain issues and tradeoffs to the public. This is also under attack by the same people for the same reasons. These reasons are not to make people believe lies, they are to make people believe there is no such thing as "true" and "false". In other words, these reasons are to make people believe that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge". This tactic works for muddying the cause of climate change, but doesn't work for "Biden won the election".
For democracy to survive, we need to teach information and media literacy broadly and early.
For democracy to survive, we need to teach information and media literacy broadly and early.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. Here's what I'm talking about.
My hypothetical expert, talking about non-pharmaceutical interventions to mitigate the spread of the pandemic, for example, would say something like the following.
"Leaving aside all other concerns and taking into account available research, our conjecture is that social distancing and mask wearing should significantly impact the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus."
Intelligent people, and for the sake of argument I'll include politicians, would then hear the following.
"There is no conclusive scientific proof regarding NPI's. However, given the uncertainty of the situation and the educated guesses of scientists, based on what they have conclusive evidence for, regarding disease spread and the nature of this coronavirus, we have to consider the use of NPI's. The use of NPI's then needs to be informed by other considerations: namely, economic impact, and broader social impact, both of which will depend on the extent of NPI's."
What I saw, instead, was "science" and "scientists" being conflated by one side, and the conjecture of scientists, based on incomplete information -- but incomplete information being evaluated by experienced practitioners -- being dismissed as entirely worthless by the other. Both sides did this by prioritizing either "lives" over "jobs" and vice-versa; in other words, by capitalizing on the legitimate fears of the populace.
The media, too, rather than examining and explaining the pronouncement of experts, and elucidating the moral issues, picked sides. And to top it off, the two sides each got their backs up over extreme, inflexible positions: either, "masks everywhere" and "damn your pocketbook," or "masks don't work" and "anyway, it's just the flu."
If you ask me, neither side has any claim to superiority.
So, let me reiterate my point. Experts make pronouncements with various levels of confidence and without commenting outside of their area of expertise; but their area of expertise is often just a small part of the larger problem. Trade-offs have to be considered. But we are not doing that. Our politicians (and media) pick sides, regarding the trade-offs, and then avoid acknowledging the legitimacy of the concerns they're willing to trade off.
Expertise is not being applied correctly. That's my point.
My hypothetical expert, talking about non-pharmaceutical interventions to mitigate the spread of the pandemic, for example, would say something like the following.
"Leaving aside all other concerns and taking into account available research, our conjecture is that social distancing and mask wearing should significantly impact the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus."
Intelligent people, and for the sake of argument I'll include politicians, would then hear the following.
"There is no conclusive scientific proof regarding NPI's. However, given the uncertainty of the situation and the educated guesses of scientists, based on what they have conclusive evidence for, regarding disease spread and the nature of this coronavirus, we have to consider the use of NPI's. The use of NPI's then needs to be informed by other considerations: namely, economic impact, and broader social impact, both of which will depend on the extent of NPI's."
What I saw, instead, was "science" and "scientists" being conflated by one side, and the conjecture of scientists, based on incomplete information -- but incomplete information being evaluated by experienced practitioners -- being dismissed as entirely worthless by the other. Both sides did this by prioritizing either "lives" over "jobs" and vice-versa; in other words, by capitalizing on the legitimate fears of the populace.
The media, too, rather than examining and explaining the pronouncement of experts, and elucidating the moral issues, picked sides. And to top it off, the two sides each got their backs up over extreme, inflexible positions: either, "masks everywhere" and "damn your pocketbook," or "masks don't work" and "anyway, it's just the flu."
If you ask me, neither side has any claim to superiority.
So, let me reiterate my point. Experts make pronouncements with various levels of confidence and without commenting outside of their area of expertise; but their area of expertise is often just a small part of the larger problem. Trade-offs have to be considered. But we are not doing that. Our politicians (and media) pick sides, regarding the trade-offs, and then avoid acknowledging the legitimacy of the concerns they're willing to trade off.
Expertise is not being applied correctly. That's my point.
Check out https://www.improvethenews.org/ if you are interested in cognitive bias and news distribution. It is also from MIT.
Sure, but is there any supposed cognitive failure that "cognitive bias" cannot explain? An omni-explanation explains nothing.
I don't even consider myself to be a rational person. Everything I think and do is through the perspective of my worldview, personality, and my peers. Human beings didn't evolve to be rational creatures - we're not Vulcans. We're born with good-enough rules for making sense of the environment around us and maintaining harmony with the people around us. It's a mistake to believe otherwise. In fact, I look at the "post-truth" label as just another non-rational attack against the other side.