Comments

  • Whatever, you're only saying that 'cause you're a big dummy.
  • Well, that thesis is only partially true, given that it's very smart people who have become aware that this is even a problem in the first place. Intelligence has given us an awareness that individual bias is a problem, and tools that allow us to collectively mitigate the effects of individual biases,
  • Reason is not an inherent behavior. Biases are.

    You can learn to be vigilant and recognize your own biases, but it's always worth double checking.

    It's not really about intelligence, although that helps. What is important is the willingness to accept that you might be wrong.

    Being wrong is the first step towards being correct.
  • Some folk'll never learn. Then again, some folk'll
  • Hasn't this been around for a while? Smart people just as likely to fall into logical errors but they basically have more powerful logic resistant crumple zones?
  • The more you know, the more you know you don't know. Therefore, the smarter you are, the dumber you are.
    Fark user imageView Full Size
  • mufhugger: The more you know, the more you know you don't know. Therefore, the smarter you are, the dumber you are.
    [Fark user image 220x165] [View Full Size image _x_]


    Fark user imageView Full Size
  • Americans believe wealth ,education and power are signs of intelligence.
    If there is one thing Trump and Trumpers have taught us is that none are any reasonable measure of intelligence.
  • TFA takes obvious conclusions from evolutionary theory and then slaps the writer's biases on top of them.

    Big smart brains evolved because they were advantageous sure, but it wasn't solely social manipulation. I'd argue social manipulation is a result of the smarter brain. A result that once in place fed back on itself and further influenced the brain's development.

    All that being true, intelligence is about what you do with it, and it doesn't operate in a vacuum. Intelligence, self awareness, empathy, raw instinct, emotional state, and morality all work in a matrix to determine human behavior. All of them work in concert to create your biases, and it takes all of them working in concert to account and control for your biases.

    For example raw intelligence is useless or can be horrifying without a moral framework to guide it, but you can't even contemplate a moral framework without intelligence, nor can you even begin to define a moral framework without self awareness and empathy.
  • KiltedBastich: Well, that thesis is only partially true, given that it's very smart people who have become aware that this is even a problem in the first place. Intelligence has given us an awareness that individual bias is a problem, and tools that allow us to collectively mitigate the effects of individual biases,



    Exactly. That's why we have..

    Fark user imageView Full Size
  • PirateKing: Reason is not an inherent behavior. Biases are.

    You can learn to be vigilant and recognize your own biases, but it's always worth double checking.

    It's not really about intelligence, although that helps. What is important is the willingness to accept that you might be wrong.

    Being wrong is the first step towards being correct.



    I'm willing to take that first step and agree that you are wrong.

    I feel smarter already.
  • sinner4ever: Americans believe wealth ,education and power are signs of intelligence.
    If there is one thing Trump and Trumpers have taught us is that none are any reasonable measure of intelligence.


    There can be a correlation and outliers still exist. Check your bias?
  • Fano: Hasn't this been around for a while? Smart people just as likely to fall into logical errors but they basically have more powerful logic resistant crumple zones?


    I believe it's open manholes they're more likely to fall into.  IIRC it has to do with them always pondering mathy things while they walk around.
  • Rock Krenn: KiltedBastich: Well, that thesis is only partially true, given that it's very smart people who have become aware that this is even a problem in the first place. Intelligence has given us an awareness that individual bias is a problem, and tools that allow us to collectively mitigate the effects of individual biases,


    Exactly. That's why we have..

    [Fark user image 474x357]


    It's a good thing that science is immune to human biases!
  • Tom Marvolo Bombadil: It's a good thing that science is immune to human biases!


    Good job missing the point. The scientific method exists expressly as a mean to mitigate those biases. That it's not possible to do so completely is also taken into account, which is why self-correction and improvement are also foundational concepts for the scientific method.
  • KiltedBastich: The scientific method exists expressly as a mean to mitigate those biases.


    And all this time I thought it was primarily for reproducibility and extensible abstractions!  What a world!
  • Tom Marvolo Bombadil: KiltedBastich: The scientific method exists expressly as a mean to mitigate those biases.

    And all this time I thought it was primarily for reproducibility and extensible abstractions!  What a world!


    You thought wrong. Those are means, not ends. They are important is because they give us grounds to assert the validity of findings that bypass human cognitive biases. I am assuming you've never taken a class on methodology. The logical and philosophical underpinnings of science, the "whys" that underlie the scientific method? This is stuff taught at the second year of most BA programs.
  • Tom Marvolo Bombadil: KiltedBastich: The scientific method exists expressly as a mean to mitigate those biases.

    And all this time I thought it was primarily for reproducibility and extensible abstractions!  What a world!



    Your definition of science is not one I have seen before. I've been a scientist most of my life and I have never heard it described that way. I would argue that you have identified a couple of emergent attributes of science but they are not, alone, sufficient to define science.

    In any event, science is immune to human bias, it's just a tool set. The problem is that scientists aren't. Hammers aren't biased towards smashing my thumb, it's the operator who has that bias. Science provides, as identified above, a mechanism for mitigating the bias inherent in humans.

    Also, science doesn't prevent biases from being expressed in studies, but over time science is self-correcting. People sometimes misunderstand what that means. It's not that a "biased" result is immediately identified and rejected, rather the result fails over time. It may fail to be replicated (as you identified), it may turn out to be at odds with a newly discovered mechanism of some underlying principle, it may be an erroneous observation (or fraud), or any number of other circumstances.

    Piltdown Man is a famous example. A transitional fossil of exactly that type had been hypothesized and then, surprise, it was found. Scientists were definitely biased towards acceptance and it took almost 40 years to be confident that it was a forgery. Self-correcting, but not necessarily fast.

    Anyway, sorry if this is old ground for you, but in an imperfect world science has demonstrated over and over that it is the best way to weed out our natural biases and make the best use of the big brains described in the article.
  • News Flash: Biases are driven by emotion. Just because someone is smart, doesn't mean that they aren't emotional.
  • NotARocketScientist: News Flash: Biases are driven by emotion. Just because someone is smart, doesn't mean that they aren't emotional.



    You    are    correct.   I   enjoy   kittens,    talking    about    my   feelings    with   girls/women/females (select one),   and    taking   long   walks    on   the   beach.

    Fark user imageView Full Size
  • mufhugger: The more you know, the more you know you don't know. Therefore, the smarter you are, the dumber you are.
    [Fark user image 220x165] [View Full Size image _x_]


    That goes along with the saying that someone, on a particular subject, "knows enough to be dangerous".
  • Rock Krenn: Tom Marvolo Bombadil: KiltedBastich: The scientific method exists expressly as a mean to mitigate those biases.

    And all this time I thought it was primarily for reproducibility and extensible abstractions!  What a world!

    Your definition of science is not one I have seen before.


    What I typed is hardly a definition, but maybe you're a social scientist.

    Science is a complex topic and the scope of any definition is contingent on context.  The term "science" is used to refer to everything from the overall human enterprise of research utilizing the scientific method to the basic method itself to the information and/or technology produced by human enterprise.  Which brings us to

    Rock Krenn: science is immune to human bias, it's just a tool set. The problem is that scientists aren't.


    I assume you mean the method not the human enterprise, which was the thrust of my original sarcastic comment.  Congrats, you got the joke!
  • mufhugger: The more you know, the more you know you don't know. Therefore, the smarter you are, the dumber you are.
    [Fark user image image 220x165]


    As Donald Rumsfeld put it: "The more Swiss cheese you have, the more holes you have. The more holes you have, the less cheese you have. So the more cheese you have, the less cheese you have."

    Fark user imageView Full Size
  • KiltedBastich: Tom Marvolo Bombadil: KiltedBastich: The scientific method exists expressly as a mean to mitigate those biases.

    And all this time I thought it was primarily for reproducibility and extensible abstractions!  What a world!

    You thought wrong. Those are means, not ends. They are important is because they give us grounds to assert the validity of findings that bypass human cognitive biases.


    Crazy!  So the real reason that the maxwell-boltzmann distribution is useful is because it lets us assert the validity of things that bypass human bias?  That's some wild x-files shiat there!  I always thought it was useful because its simple, abstract derivation from the basic principals of an idealized gas allow it to be applied to various physical systems.  I'm learning a lot today!
  • Load 7 of 7 newer comments
  •  

This thread is closed to new comments.