If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.
4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
A physics research team has members who can (and occasionally do) in secret insert false signals into the experiment the team is running. The goal is practice resistance to false positives. A very interesting approach, first time I've heard about physicists using it.
Bias combat in action :-)
The LIGO is almost unique among physics experiments in practising ‘blind injection’. A team of three collaboration members has the ability to simulate a detection by using actuators to move the mirrors. “Only they know if, and when, a certain type of signal has been injected,”...
Two such exercises took place during earlier science runs of LIGO, one in 2007 and one in 2010. ... The original blind-injection exercises took 18 months and 6 months respectively. The first one was discarded, but in the second case, the collaboration wrote a paper and held a vote to decide whether they would make an announcement. Only then did the blind-injection team ‘open the envelope’ and reveal that the events had been staged.
An excellent piece about communication styles, in particular about a common type of interaction on the 'net which is sometimes seen on LW as well. I'll quote some chunks, but the whole thing is good.
Here’s a series of events that happens many times daily on my favorite bastion of miscommunication, the bird website. Person tweets some fact. Other people reply with other facts. Person complains, “Ugh, randos in my mentions.” Harsh words may be exchanged, and everyone exits the encounter thinking the other person was monumentally rude for no reason. ...
For clarity’s sake, I’ll name “ugh, randos” Sue and an archetypal “rando” Charlie.[4] I will also assume both are, initially anyway, operating in good faith–while there are certainly Sues and Charlies who are just unpleasant assholes, I think they are comparatively uncommon, and in any event picking apart their motivations wouldn’t be particularly interesting.
From Sue’s perspective, strangers have come out of the woodwork to demonstrate superiority by making useless, trivial corrections. Some of them may be saying obvious things that Sue, being well-versed in the material she’s referencing, already knows, and thus are insulting her intelligence, possibly due to their latent bias. This is not necessarily an unreasonable assumption, given how social dynamics tend to work in mainstream culture. People correct others to gain status and assert dominance. An artifice passed off as “communication” is often wielded as a blunt object to establish power hierarchies and move up the ladder by signaling superiority. Sue responds in anger as part of this social game so as not to lose status in the eyes of her tribe.
From Charlie’s perspective, Sue has shared a piece of information. Perhaps he already knows it, perhaps he doesn’t. What is important is that Sue has given a gift to the commons, and he would like to respond with a gift of his own. Another aspect is that, as he sees it, Sue has signaled an interest in the topic, and he would like to establish rapport as a fellow person interested in the topic. In other words, he is not trying to play competitive social games, and he may not even be aware such a game is being played. When Sue responds unfavorably, he sees this as her spurning his gift as if it had no value. This is roughly as insulting to Charlie as his supposed attempt to gain status over Sue is to her. At this point, both people think the other one is the asshole. People rightly tend to be mean to those they are sure are assholes, so continued interaction between them will probably only serve to reinforce their beliefs the other is acting in bad faith.
And a special shout-out to mathematicians :-/ Here is a quote about how talking to a mathematician feels to someone... born on the other side of IQ tracks:
Nobody was mean to me, nobody consciously laughed at me. There’s just a way that mathematicians have been socialized (I guess?!) to interact with each other that I find oppressive. If you have never had someone mansplain or whitesplain things to you, it may be hard for you to understand what I’m going to describe.
Usually, friendly conversation involves building a shared perspective. Among other things, mansplaining and whitesplaining involve one person of privilege forcing a marginalized person into a disagreeable perspective against their will, and not allowing them a way out. If you are someone averse to negative labels, it can be silencing. My experience discussing math with mathematicians is that I get dragged into a perspective that includes a hierarchy of knowledge that says some information is trivial, some ideas are “stupid”; that declares what is basic knowledge, and presents open incredulity in the face of dissent. Maybe I would’ve successfully assimilated into this way of thinking if I had learned it at a time where I was at the same level as my peers, but as it was it was just an endless barrage of passive insults I was supposed to be in on.
I agree with gjm that the remark about IQ is wrong. This is about cultures. Let's call them "nerd culture" and "social culture" (those are merely words that came immediately to my mind, I do not insist on using them).
Using the terms of Transactional Analysis, the typical communication modes in "nerd culture" are activity and withdrawal, and the typical communication modes in "social culture" are pastimes and games. This is what people are accustomed to do and to expect from other people in their social circle. It doesn't depend on IQ or gender or color of skin; I guess it depends on personality and on what people in our perceived "tribe" really are doing most of the time. -- If people around you exchange information most of the time, it is reasonable to expect that the next person also wants to exchange information with you. If people around you play status games most of the time, it is reasonable to expect that the next person also wants to play a status game with you. -- In a different culture, people are confused and project.
A person coming from "nerd culture" to "social culture" may be oblivious to the status games around them. From an observer's perspective, this person display a serious lack of social skills.
A person coming from "social culture" to "nerd culture" may interpret everything as a part of some devious status game. From an observer's perspective, this person displays symptoms of paranoia.
The "nerd culture" person in a "social culture" will likely sooner or later get burned, which provides them evidence that their approach is wrong. Of course they may also process the evidence the wrong way, and decide e.g. that non-nerds are stupid or insane, and that it is better to avoid them.
Unfortunately, for a "social culture" person in a "nerd culture" it is too easy to interpret the evidence in a way that reinforces their beliefs. Every failure in communication may be interpreted as "someone did a successful status attack on me". The more they focus on trying to decipher the imaginary status games, the more they get out of sync with their information-oriented colleagues, which only provides more "evidence" that there is some kind of conspiracy against them. And even if you try to explain them this, your explanation will be processed as "yet another status move". A person sufficiently stuck in the status-game interpretation of everything may lack the dynamic to process any feedback as something else then (or at least something more than merely) a status move.
Thus ends my whitesplaining mansplaining cissplaining status attack against all who challenge the existing order.
EDIT:
Reading the replies I realized there are never enough disclaimers when writing about a controversial topic. For the record, I don't believe that nerds never play status games. (Neither do I believe that non-nerds are completely detached from reality.) Most people are not purely "nerd culture" or purely "social culture". But the two cultures are differently calibrated.
For example, correcting someone has a subtext of a status move. But in the "nerd culture" people focus more on what is correct and what is incorrect, while in the "social culture" people focus more on how agreement or disagreement would affect status and alliances.
If some person says "2+2=3" and other person replies "that's wrong", in the "nerd culture" the most likely conclusion is that someone has spotted a mistake and automatically responded. Yes, there is always the possibility that the person wanted to attack the other person, and really enjoyed the opportunity. Maybe, maybe not.
In the "social culture" the most likely conclusion is the status attack, because people in the "social culture" can tolerate a lot of bullshit from their friends or people they don't want to offend, so it makes sense to look for an extra reason why in this specific case someone has decided to not tolerate the mistake.
As a personal anecdote, I have noticed that in real life, some people consider me extremely arrogant and some people consider me extremely humble. The former have repeatedly seen me correcting someone else's mistake; and the latter have repeatedly seen someone else correcting my mistake, and me admitting the mistake. The idea that both attitudes could exist in the same person (and that the person could consider them to be two aspects of the same thing) is mind-blowing to someone coming from the "social culture", because there these two roles are strictly separated; they are the opposite of each other.
When you hear someone speaking about how the reality is socially constructed, in a sense they are not lying. They are describing the "social culture" they live in; where everyone keeps as many maps as necessary to fit peacefully in every social group they want to belong to. For a LessWronger, the territory is the thing that can disagree with our map when we do an experiment. But for someone living in a "social culture", the disagreement with maps typically comes from enemies and assholes! Friends don't make their friends update their maps; they always keep an extra map for each friend. So if you insist that there is a territory that might disagree with their map, of course they perceive it as a hostility.
Yes, even the nerds can be hostile sometimes. But a person from the "social culture" will be offended all the time, even by a behavior that in the "nerd culture" is considered perfectly friendly. -- As an analogy, imagine a person coming from a foreign culture that also speaks English, but in their culture, ending a sentence with a dot is a sign of disrespect towards the recipient. (Everyone in their culture knows this rule, and it is kinda taboo to talk about it openly.) If you don't know this rule, you will keep offending this person in every single letter you send them, regardless of how friendly you will try to be.
For a LessWronger, the territory is the thing that can disagree with our map when we do an experiment. But for someone living in a "social culture", the disagreement with maps typically comes from enemies and assholes! Friends don't make their friends update their maps; they always keep an extra map for each friend.
I figured this was an absurd caricature, but then this thing floated by on tumblr:
So when arguing against objectivity, they said, don’t make the post-modern mistake of saying there is no truth, but rather that there are infinite truths, diverse truths. The answer to the white, patriarchal, heteronormative, massively racist and ableist objectivity is DIVERSITY of subjectivities. And this, my friends, is called feminist epistemology: the idea that rather than searching for a unified truth to fuck all other truths we can understand and come to know the world through diverse views, each of which offers their own valid subjective view, each valid, each truthful. How? by interrupting the discourses of objectivity/normativity with discourses of diversity.
Objective facts: white, patriarchal, heteronormative, massively racist and ableist?
Sigh.
Logic itself has a very gendered and white supremacist history.
These people are clearly unable to distinguish between "the territory" and "the person who talks about the territory".
I had to breathe calmly for a few moments. Okay, I'm not touching this shit on the object level again.
On a meta level, I wonder how much of the missing rationality skills these people never had vs how much they had but lost later when they became politically mindkilled.
I remember reading SEP on Feminist Epistemology where I got the impression that it models the world in somewhat different way. Of course, this is probably one of those cases where epistemology is tailored to suit political ideas (and they themselves most likely wouldn't disagree) but much less vice versa.
When I (or, I suppose, most LWers) think about how knowledge about the world is obtained the central example is an empirical testing of hypotheses, i.e. situation when I have more than one map of a territory and I have to choose one of them. An archetypal example of this is a scientist testing hypotheses in a laboratory.
On the other hand, feminist epistemology seems to be largely based on Feminist Standpoint Theory which basically models the world as being full of different people who are adversarial to each other and try to promote different maps. It seems to me that it has an assumption that you cannot easily compare accuracies of maps, either because they are hard to check or because they depict different (or even incommensurable) things. The central question in this framework seems to be "Whose map should I choose?", i.e. choice is not between maps, but between mapmakers. Well, there are situations where I would do something that fits this description very well, e.g. if I was trying to decide whether to buy a product which I was not able to put my hands on and all information I had was two reviews, one from the seller and one from an independent reviewer, I would be more likely to trust the latter's judgement.
It seems to me that the first archetypal example is much more generalizable than the second one, and strange claims that were cited in a Pfft's comment is what one gets when one stretches the second example to extreme lengths.
There also exists Feminist Empiricism which seems to be based on idea that since one cannot interpret empirical evidence without a framework, something must be added to an inquiry, and since biases that favour a desirable interpretations is something, it is valid to add them (since this is not a Bayesian inference, this is different from the problem of choice of priors). Since the whole process is deemed to be adversarial (scientists in this model look like prosecutors or defense attorneys), different people inject different biases and then argue that others should stop injecting theirs.
(disclaimer: I have read SEP article some time ago and wrote about these ideas from my memory, it wouldn't be a big surprise if I misrepresented them in some way. In addition to that, there are other obvious sources of potential misrepresentations)
If some person says "2+2=3" and other person replies "that's wrong", in the "nerd culture" the most likely conclusion is that someone has spotted a mistake and automatically responded. Yes, there is always the possibility that the person wanted to attack the other person, and really enjoyed the opportunity. Maybe, maybe not.
This is not quite right. The reply of "that's wrong" is also a status attack since nerd culture values intelligence/correctness and thus someone so dumb as to believe that "2+2=3" deserves low status. Nerd culture, and really any effective goal-oriented culture, works by alining status incentives with helping accomplish the goal. If the goal is finding the truth, or anything where having an accurate map of reality is helpful, the person making correct statements should (and does) get a status boost. If you made an incorrect statement and this gets pointed out, you will lose status for admitting it, but not as much as if you stubbornly cling to your original statement even as everyone around you can see that you are wrong.
On the other hand in the "social culture" if one is called out on an incorrect statement, one can still avoid any status loss (and score a big status gain) if one can use one's existing status and connections to get one's statement declared "socially correct" or "politically correct". Yes, this is in fact the origin of the latter term.
So what happens is that the person coming from the "social" culture makes an incorrect statement attempts the latter strategy when called on it. When that fails he either recognizes that failure and switches to the former strategy in the future (thus assimilating into the culture). Or he doubles down by playing more status games, e.g., making complaints about Xsplaining, and appealing to more powerful connections, e.g., complain to the dean that the corrector is Xist. This might even succeed if he can appeal to a "social" culture in which the "nerd" culture is embedded.
Comment restored due to hell-ban imposed by power-mad administrator on The_Lion. (Note to administrators: attempting will abuse your power in this manner will generate far more drama than moderating in a transparent manner.)
For original thread go here.
I guess your theory is the same as what Alice Maz writes in the linked post. But I'm not at all convinced that that's a correct analysis of what Piper Harron is writing about. In the comments to Harron's post there are some more concrete examples of what she is talking about, which do indeed sound a bit like one-upping. I only know a couple of mathematicians, but from what I hear there are indeed lots of the social games even in math---it's not a pure preserve where only facts matter.
(And in general, I feel Maz' post seems a bit too saccharine, in so far as it seems to say that one-up-manship and status and posturing do not exist at all in the "nerd" culture, and it's all just people joyfully sharing gifts of factual information. I guess it can be useful as a first-order approximation to guide your own interactions; but it seems dangerously lossy to try to fit the narratives of other people (e.g., Harron) into that model.)
It's not clear to me that the other person really was "born on the other side of IQ tracks". (Unless you just mean that she's female and black, I guess?) I mean, she did a PhD in pure mathematics. Some of the things she says about it and about her experience in mathematics are certainly ... such as might incline the cynical to think that she actually just isn't very good at mathematics and is trying some passive-aggressive thing where she half-admits it and half-blames it on The Kyriarchy. But getting to the point at which anyone is willing to consider letting you do a mathematics PhD (incidental note: her supervisor is a very, very good mathematician) implies, I think, a pretty decent IQ.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not myself endorsing the cynic's position above. I haven't looked at her thesis, which may in fact make it clear that she's a very good mathematician indeed. In which case her difficulties might in fact be the result of The Kyriarchy, or might be the result of oversensitivity on her part, or any combination thereof. Or in fact might simply be a useful rhetorical invention.
But getting to the point at which anyone is willing to consider letting you do a mathematics PhD
On the other hand, all departments are under constant pressure to be "more diverse" so a black woman may face a lower bar.
I haven't looked at her thesis, which may in fact make it clear that she's a very good mathematician indeed.
Assuming it was written by her and not her adviser. An adviser writing a thesis for his student is something that shouldn't happen but occasionally does (I have heard first-hand reports). And a "diversity" student where you might face accusations of racism and sexism if she fails her PhD is precisely the kind of situation a adviser might do something like this in. Heck, the incident I heard about involved a lot less pressure, merely a bad student with a sob story about how he would have to return to China is disgrace if he failed his PhD.
Comment restored due to hell-ban imposed by power-mad administrator on The_Lion. (Note to administrators: attempting to abuse your power in this manner will generate far more drama than moderating in a transparent manner.)
Obvious in hindsight: one cause of massive bee death turned out to be neonicotinoids. In other words, newsflash: insecticides kill insects.
Was there any way this could have been anticipated?
It's not obvious that use of a pesticide would substantially harm bees, as pesticides have been in use for a very long time, and many organophosphate pesticides are fairly non-toxic to bees. Neonicotinoids, however, are extremely toxic to bees. The use of neonicotinoids is fairly recent; large-scale use only started in the late 90's, and very soon after that beekeepers started filing petitions to the EPA. They were ignored. I'd say this is more a case of systemic and deliberate ignorance/politics rather than a 'mistake'.
I'm an undergrad going for a major in statistics and minors in computer science and philosophy. I also read a lot of philosophy and cognitive science on the side. I don't have the patience to read through all of the LW sequences. Which LW sequences / articles do you think are important for me to read that I won't get from school or philosophy reading?
Check out the Rationality: A to Z contents page, click on things that look interesting, it'll mostly work out.
A Human's Guide to Words is really good exposition of philosophy. The subsequence of thinking about morality that I can point at with the post fake fake utility functions is good too. Or if you just want to learn what this rationality stuff is about, read the early posts about biases and read Knowing about biases can hurt people. That one's important - the point of knowing about biases is to see them in yourself.
I just don't know what suits you, is all.
Smoking cigarettes is very protecting against parkinsons. The evidence is clear, large and replicated in large samples. Hypothetically, would someone with strong genetic indications of risk for parkinsons, and genetic indications that they are protective against cardiovascular disease, lung cancer and that kind of other smoking related diseases be making a healthy choice to start smoking?.
Nate Soares' recent post "The Art of Response" on Minding Our Way talks about effective response patterns that people develop to deal with problems. What response patterns do you use in life or in your field of expertise that you have found to be quite effective?
Löb's theorem states that "If it's provable that (if it's provable that p then p), then it's provable that p." In addition to being a theorem of set theory with Peano arithmetic, it's also a theorem of modal logic.
Try this on for size: If I believe that (if I believe that this chocolate chip will cure my headache, then this chocolate chip will cure my headache), then I believe that this chocolate chip will cure my headache.
-Agenty Duck