Why discussions often go wrong - Kawasaki KLR 650 Forum
The Off Topic Lounge The area for all things off topic. Keep it clean, and keep it friendly.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 13 Old 03-11-2015, 03:07 PM Thread Starter
4th Gear
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Chilliwack, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,481
Why discussions often go wrong

Try this article concerning bias and belief.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ly-from-facts/



This ties into the Dunning-Kruger Effect which illustrates why democracy is so dysfunctional and why it can be so difficult for people to solve problems in general:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect
Normk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 13 Old 03-11-2015, 11:13 PM
2nd Gear
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 369
Hmmm, article seems legit, seeing as how it was authored by a "PhD candidate in the Fuqua School of Business and Center for Advanced Hindsight."

Who wouldn't believe what that guy says?
Dan Diego is offline  
post #3 of 13 Old 03-12-2015, 06:12 AM
5th Gear
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,329
To be as fair as possible, I find the Scientific American article to be profound and absolute rubbish.

The author makes sweeping, universal generations based upon what? "Opinion polls," involving sample sizes of only 179 and of 117 responders (not that such invalid conclusions from flawed sample-size "opinion polls" are unusual, in fraudulently justifying false premises).

Rather than conducting a meaningful, statistically-significant sample sized inquiry, I suspect the author is merely clearing the hurdle of his PhD dissertation with his, 'findings."

Further, no contextual definition-of-terms is mentioned in administration of these polls. For example, what attribute is the measurement for Obamacare to be "working," among the responders? Further, all the relevant facts in the surveys mentioned (immunization, religiosity, Obamacare) are not included in the surveys, as far as we know.

For example, if every impoverished child, every unwed welfare mother, received totally free medical care, and the US economy consequently spirals into bankruptcy, is Obamacare, "working?"

This guy's associated with "advanced hindsight?" What if he were studying, "retarded foresight?"

The second link, to the Cornell study, may have some merit; however . . . I think the investigation confuses delusional mental illness behavior with, "unskilled, unaware" behavior.

Not to dismiss Normk's conscientious exposure to these concepts; much appreciated! After all, Normk got me to read, Fast and Slow Thinking, offering significant revelation and behavioral understanding, for which I'm grateful. Yet, I've been mostly unsuccessful in conveying the concepts in the book to others; I fear I'm surrounded essentially by only "fast-thinking" individuals!
Damocles is online now  
 
post #4 of 13 Old 03-12-2015, 07:55 AM
2nd Gear
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 387
"The facts not withstanding, I believe everything published in Scientific American", he said matter of factually.
twinjet is offline  
post #5 of 13 Old 03-12-2015, 12:44 PM Thread Starter
4th Gear
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Chilliwack, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,481
I think you're missing the point. The point was not whether the Obama and other positions were correct because they used made up information to offer support or opposition to points of view. The author studied how people dealt with this information, whether they integrated it into the belief which they already held, or dismissed/ignored it when it opposed to their already held beliefs. This is along the lines of Daniel Kahneman's research and is empirically supported by most of our life experience in dealing with technical matters, IMO.

Unfortunately, I'm in agreement with your assessment of thinking styles held by most of us. I've shared a linguistics paper with hundreds of people who should be greatly impacted by the information but no one ever has reacted. This concerns me because it's both profound and not that hard to understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damocles View Post
To be as fair as possible, I find the Scientific American article to be profound and absolute rubbish.

The author makes sweeping, universal generations based upon what? "Opinion polls," involving sample sizes of only 179 and of 117 responders (not that such invalid conclusions from flawed sample-size "opinion polls" are unusual, in fraudulently justifying false premises).

Rather than conducting a meaningful, statistically-significant sample sized inquiry, I suspect the author is merely clearing the hurdle of his PhD dissertation with his, 'findings."

Further, no contextual definition-of-terms is mentioned in administration of these polls. For example, what attribute is the measurement for Obamacare to be "working," among the responders? Further, all the relevant facts in the surveys mentioned (immunization, religiosity, Obamacare) are not included in the surveys, as far as we know.

For example, if every impoverished child, every unwed welfare mother, received totally free medical care, and the US economy consequently spirals into bankruptcy, is Obamacare, "working?"

This guy's associated with "advanced hindsight?" What if he were studying, "retarded foresight?"

The second link, to the Cornell study, may have some merit; however . . . I think the investigation confuses delusional mental illness behavior with, "unskilled, unaware" behavior.

Not to dismiss Normk's conscientious exposure to these concepts; much appreciated! After all, Normk got me to read, Fast and Slow Thinking, offering significant revelation and behavioral understanding, for which I'm grateful. Yet, I've been mostly unsuccessful in conveying the concepts in the book to others; I fear I'm surrounded essentially by only "fast-thinking" individuals!

Last edited by Normk; 03-12-2015 at 12:46 PM.
Normk is offline  
post #6 of 13 Old 03-12-2015, 12:49 PM Thread Starter
4th Gear
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Chilliwack, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,481
They are doing some interesting stuff: http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/alumni/learn/coursera/





Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Diego View Post
Hmmm, article seems legit, seeing as how it was authored by a "PhD candidate in the Fuqua School of Business and Center for Advanced Hindsight."

Who wouldn't believe what that guy says?
Normk is offline  
post #7 of 13 Old 03-12-2015, 05:37 PM
OverDrive
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NW MO
Posts: 5,339
There is something important to be learned here, gentlemen.

Scientific American is the oldest continuously published monthly magazine in the United States. First Issue: August 28th, 1845.

Of course, while reading of the publication's history, I found this snippet to be the most entertaining:

"Dr. Danielle Lee, a female scientist who blogs at Scientific American, was called a "whore" in an email by an editor at the science website Biology Online after refusing to write professional content without compensation. When Lee, outraged about the email, wrote a rebuttal on her Scientific American blog, the editor-in-chief of Scientific American, Mariette DiChristina, removed the post, sparking an outrage by supporters of Lee. While DiChristina cited legal reasons for removing the blog, others criticized her for censoring Lee.[14][15][16][17] The editor at Biology Online was fired after the incident.[18]"

Never call a woman a whore unless she actually is one.



planalp is offline  
post #8 of 13 Old 03-12-2015, 07:30 PM
5th Gear
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,329
With due veneration to Scientific American, the article's thrust seeks to advance sweeping, even universal, conclusions, based upon infinitesimally small statistical sample sizes from questionably-structured opinion polls.

Hardly, "Scientific," IMHO; YMMV! The premise may be valid, but the methodology fails to corroborate convincingly.

FULL DISCLOSURE: Yes, I may have missed the point!

Off-topic irrelevant anecdote: The invocation of the phrase, "advanced hindsight," regarding the author's affiliation, reminds me of a British officer in the Boer War, using the pen name: "Foresight Backthought," in a series of cautionary tales about counter-insurgency warfare.

These writings were required reading at the US Army's Command & General Staff College.
Damocles is online now  
post #9 of 13 Old 03-12-2015, 07:42 PM
OverDrive
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NW MO
Posts: 5,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damocles View Post
With due veneration to Scientific American, the article's thrust seeks to advance sweeping, even universal, conclusions, based upon infinitesimally small statistical sample sizes from questionably-structured opinion polls.
Indeed. Really not fair to refer to her as a "whore" when the writer didn't know that much about her, no matter what others said about her. Maybe they just didn't like her.



planalp is offline  
post #10 of 13 Old 03-12-2015, 08:03 PM Thread Starter
4th Gear
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Chilliwack, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,481
"Never call a woman a whore unless she actually is one.", my 66 years of studying the species seems to indicate that that will not be sufficient justification... in fact the reverse may be true.



Quote:
Originally Posted by planalp View Post
There is something important to be learned here, gentlemen.

Scientific American is the oldest continuously published monthly magazine in the United States. First Issue: August 28th, 1845.

Of course, while reading of the publication's history, I found this snippet to be the most entertaining:

"Dr. Danielle Lee, a female scientist who blogs at Scientific American, was called a "whore" in an email by an editor at the science website Biology Online after refusing to write professional content without compensation. When Lee, outraged about the email, wrote a rebuttal on her Scientific American blog, the editor-in-chief of Scientific American, Mariette DiChristina, removed the post, sparking an outrage by supporters of Lee. While DiChristina cited legal reasons for removing the blog, others criticized her for censoring Lee.[14][15][16][17] The editor at Biology Online was fired after the incident.[18]"

Never call a woman a whore unless she actually is one.
Normk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Kawasaki KLR 650 Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
mod gone wrong mrxr750 1987 to 2007 Wrenching & Mods 24 05-03-2016 06:32 PM
something's wrong....but what?! Lizardrider 1987 to 2007 Wrenching & Mods 4 08-07-2012 04:43 PM
OK... what's wrong? Mark B (4) KLR & Other Motorcycle Related Discussion 9 09-13-2010 06:39 PM
Am I in the wrong place? Jjgres KLR & Other Motorcycle Related Discussion 1 12-06-2009 07:15 PM
Whats wrong with my beast tankermt44 1987 to 2007 Wrenching & Mods 2 05-28-2008 06:43 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome