Showing 488 to 491

Confirmation bias

An arch-bias, supporting many other biases.

We all hear about confirmation bias, and maybe we even have a habit of keeping it in mind. That doesn't mean it's solved, nor that we should focus on other less-known biases as if they were bigger fish to fry. Paraphrasing Raymond Nickerson 1998: If there were a contest for the single largest problem in human reasoning, confirmation bias would have to be a candidate. No one is free from it.

Countermeasures

Related

What links here

Created (2 years ago)

Portal: Rationality

Rationality techniquesđź”—

Vocabulary that could be helpful

  • The expression To lose the root for the tree
  • Burdensome details
  • Your strength as a rationalist is your ability to be more confused by fiction than by reality
  • I notice that I am confused (Hallowed phrases)

Notes on battle plans

My wetwaređź”—

Human heuristics, biases and fallaciesđź”—

For failures of groups, see Human cooperation.

Mistakes you tend to keep making even if you understand them

Mistakes you tend to stop making after you understand them (at least in each example situation pointed out)

Unsorted cogsci

Psychology

Other

Reasoningđź”—

General principles of minds (that would apply to alien and artificial minds as much as our own; for what's more to do with our mind-implementation on a homo sapiens brain, see rather My wetware)

Decision/game theory

Probability theoryđź”—

Value/moral theory

  • Metaethics
  • EY's Fun Theory

Anthropic reasoning

The universe

My gameboardđź”—

Interpersonalđź”—

Human cooperationđź”—

What links here

Created (2 years ago)

Science as curiosity-stopper

[…] But now suppose instead that I don’t go on television. I do not wish to share the power, nor the truth behind it. I want to keep my sorcery secret. And yet I also want to cast my spells whenever and wherever I please. I want to cast my brilliant flare of light so that I can read a book on the train—without anyone becoming curious. Is there a spell that stops curiosity?

Yes indeed! Whenever anyone asks “How did you do that?” I just say “Science!”

Ever since the author pointed this out (and to some extent, ever since I read Lockhart's Lament sometime prior to 2012-12-22), I like to look at things people regard as ordinary, and wonder about them. I still haven't understood how metal wires in a light-bulb make light, but it's a puzzle I'm working on, and the more I understand, the more I appreciate light-bulbs: Joy In the Merely Real.

There was an internet meme making the rounds around 2012: "magnets, how do they work?" I chatted with some people who found it hilarious. I couldn't understand the humor, but then, humor is pointing out something unexpected.

I'm over here just saying "well, I haven't learned yet about magnets"… and while that's interesting, laughing about it would be like laughing at a chair being brown. I already know I don't understand magnets.

Laugh isn't a reaction I could ever have. Engagement, yes, but laugh? At what?

The fact someone else in the world knows the answer to the mystery doesn't make it any less of a magical mystery for you.

This seems related to how when people are given "teacher's passwords" that explain some scientific fact, they may undervalue its surprisingness due to hindsight bias. "I could have predicted that": hindsight devalues science.

If you know how little of your knowledge you could regenerate, perhaps you will feel more shocked (How to feel shocked enough?) and wonder "How can it be? My world-model does not expect this to happen!"

What links here

Created (2 years ago)

Discredited famous studies

To find more statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/category/zombies/page/10

The Brian Wansink caseđź”—

arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/the-peer-reviewed-saga-of-mindless-eating-mindless-research-is-bad-too/

(Been called Pizzagate, not to be confused with the Trumpist conspiracy theory also known as Pizzagate)

Brian Wansink and his apprentices did large scale data dredging, aka p-hacking. Most papers now withdrawn. For fun, read the blog post by Wansink that triggered the scrutiny.

Why did peer review not catch this?

“Because peer review doesn’t do this,” Heathers told Ars. The point of peer review has always been for fellow scientists to judge whether a paper is of reasonable quality; reviewers aren't expected to perform an independent analysis of the data.

“Historically, we have not asked peer reviewers to check the statistics,” Brown says. “Perhaps if they were [expected to], they’d be asking for the data set more often.” In fact, without open data—something that’s historically been hit-or-miss—it would be impossible for peer reviewers to validate any numbers.

Peer review is often taken to be a seal of approval on research, but it’s actually more like a small or large quality boost, depending on the reviewers and scientific journal in question. “In general, it still has a good influence on the quality of the literature,” van der Zee said to Ars. But “it’s a wildly human process, and it is extremely capricious,” Heathers points out.

There’s also the question of what’s actually feasible for people. Peer review is unpaid work, Kirschner emphasizes, usually done by researchers on top of their existing heavy workloads, often outside of work hours.

>”Where are the attempts to disprove the conclusion? Science is about the attempting to DISPROVE a result.”

Yep, when I was becoming aware this is one of the first conversations I had in the hallowed academic halls.

me: “Shouldn’t we by trying to disprove our hypothesis, rather than prove it? The null hypothesis should be what we predict will happen.”

prof: blinks and changes subject

The Andrew Wakefield case

The Diederik Stapel caseđź”—

Tilburg University suspended him in 2011. As of 2015, 58 retractions. He has sockpuppeted on Retraction Watch.

Falsified:

  • Selfishness in carnivores
  • …

The Sally Clark case

The Rat Park study

The China Study

Himmicanesđź”—

The "himmicanes and hurricanes paper" attempted to show that you can save lives by giving hurricanes male names rather than female names, because a male name is more intimidating so people take more safety measures, while they don't take female hurricanes seriously.

It has been refuted by cite:smithHurricaneNamesBunch2016 ; there were quite a few problems with the original paper.

"Beautiful people have more daughters"

What links here

Created (2 years ago)
Showing 488 to 491