Culturally engrained error

The following post was first published on my now defunct blog "Random Acts of Thought" on July 11, 2005 in the wake of the bombings on the London underground.

I havent posted to my blog in a while because I felt I had to articulate a response to what has occurred in LondonI realise I really dont have one.Here is what globalisation does.

1) Relentlessly crush cultural practices and values that are incompatible with the dominant American-led free market system of trade and thought

2) Empower individuals and allowing groups to have a disproportionate impact on the world.

Jihadists are using the very fruits of western civilisation to strike at it. Cell phones and the internet. What the multiculturalists consistently miss is that cultures are not varied and beautiful things to be admired and idealised on the national geographic channel or preserved like beautiful pieces of period architecture. Cultures have a practical use in that they are toolsets for dealing with the world that we live in. The primary value of cultural institutions is not aesthetic but utilitarian. In an increasingly interconnected world the playing conditions are being progressively leveled.

In the game of global competition, the players that employ a suboptimal strategy will continue to lose.I am reminded of the book Moneyball about Billy Beane, General Manager of Major League Baseball's Oakland Athletics. Billy Beane was able to establish a culture of objective analysis within a sport in which most personel moves and ingame startegy were governed by instinct, traditional wisdom and convention.

He relied on the work of amateur baseball researchers such as Bill James to decide which factors were the important ones in determing the usefulness of a baseballplayer toward the end of winning games. The results (On base percentage as a far more important statistic than batting average, the worthlessness of Wins in evaluating pitchers) cut deeply against the grain of traditional baseball culture.

However the As culture was more effective. It more accurately described the (baseball) world as it actually is. The result: Billy Beanes As won more games per dollar of payroll than any other team in baseball. They got more bang for the buck. Slowly and inexorably baseballs hidebound culture has changed to take these discoveries into account but the immense inertia and weight of the received wisdom was almost immensely difficult to overcome. People had a huge emotional investment in incorrect ways of doing things.

If it is immensely difficult for people to accept changes in baseball strategy even in the face of evidence how much more difficult will it be for them to accept changes in social organisation, changes in working life changes in social protections changes in government institutions? Real life outcomes are immensely more important than baseball penant races.

The deeply entrenched african cultural practise of nepotism has led to immense levels of corruption in africa. Despite its debilitating impact on African society the obligation Africans feel to extended family members have proven impossible to shift. African and Middle Eastern culture are both WRONG in key aspects. The outcome is is more losing. In baseball losing is reflected in the standings, in real life, in GDP and per capita income. How does this tie in to the London bombings? Terrorism is a response to losing. Blow up the playing field. Disrupt the game by any means neccessary since you cant win without changing the strategy to which your sense of selfworth is anchored. . Terrorists are pissing into the wind. It is the natural result of creating a mental link between your penis and your adherence to an objectively incorrect course of action.

But in an age of the hyperempowered individual, their capacity to disrupt becomes ever greater. As the losses mount and technology empowers small groups and individuals ever more, the temptation for the losers to be disruptive grows ever greater.

Forming opinions as a non-expert

An issue that has interested me for some time is the following. On many issues, from the economy, to the environment, from foreign policy, to scienctific research there are highly intelligent, highly informed experts who disagree. How do I form opinions on subjects in which there is stark disagreement between experts? Do I read all their books? Where will the time come from? Often the arguments will be of a subtlety and complexity that is impossible for someone without a very thorough understanding of the subject matter to grasp. Equally there will be times when I am intellectually outgunned. The experts whose opinions differ are simplky smarter than I am.

From buying a home to purchasing stock to planning for the future intelligent decision making is impossible without at some point deferring to authority. The difference between an open society and a totalitarian one is that in an open society there are many- a market place- of authorities. The question is how do I from my position of relative ignorance and stupidity decide which authority to defer to? My only choices seem to be an evaluation of the expert and/or the opinion of other experts about the same claim.

Some ideas...
The popularity of the claim. On the whole, ideas which enjoy popular support in their field are probably true more often than those which enjoy less support. But how often is this the case. To what degree should the popularity of a claim bias us toward accepting its truth?

The personal desirability of a claim: Do I or the expert have a personal stake in whether the claim is true or not? If there is a lot of incentive to believe that a claim is true, wishful thinking may bias us in this direction.

The popularity of the expert. How much extra weight should be given to the opinions of an expert who enjoys a high standing and reputation in his field?

The age of the expert. What difference does the age of an individual play in evaluating the probabilistic likelihood that a given claim is correct? I have no idea but it is something I intend to research and think about in the future.

Evidence of flexibility of thought: Has the expert shown an ability to change his mind in the past on other issues.? To me an individual whose track record shows little change in his opinions over a lengthy timeframe must have ALL his claims viewed with an extra dose of caution.

The personal attractiveness of the expert. Given our preference for the beautiful the articulate and the charismatic, it seems to me that many opinions expressed by experts strong in such qualities are probably overpriced in the ideas market. Should we consciously discount the probability that the claims of charismatic experts are true? If so by how much?

All of us already factor a lot of this stuff in when making gut level judgements about whether something is true or not....
But I think it important to think about this stuff explictly rather than implictly. In evaluating experts intuitively our evolutionary biases are likely to impair our judgemnt considerably. We will be overly swayed by the experts personal charisma for example.

Identification With Beliefs

First published on my old blog on April 21 2006

We dont change our minds very much....

One of the most damaging things to human discourse is the fossilisation of ideas. Ideas often become so entrenched within individuals or cultures that an open debate of their merits is impossible. At the root of this problem, it seems to me is the fact that ideas and beliefs serve two purposes often fundamantally at odds with each other. The first purpose is that of a model of reality and a guide for actions.

Correct ideas generally produce results superior to incorrect ones.
The individual or group which holds correct views in a given field is far more able to make useful predictions concerning it than one who doesnt. The weather service in London is more effective at making predictions concerning the future weather than an African witch doctor because its ideas concerning this subject are orders of magnitude more true and useful.

Cultures also hold beliefs and ideas. The truth and usefulness of those ideas which are dominant within them are an excellent predictor of cultural success

This fact remains incredibly problematic for multiculturalists who want to reframe the terms of debate in traditionally marxist terms of oppressor/opressed. Multiculturalism is a classically academic idea. In academia beliefs are abstract things with no real consequences. In the outside world they have consequences.

It is the second purpose of ideas which is the most problematic. It results in the otherwise inexplicably long shelflife of ideas which are false useless or harmful to the individual or group concerned. w
Ideas serve to distinguish the individual or group from others and serve as a marker for personal or group identity.
If my selfhood is inextricably bound up with what I believe to be true then a criticism of my beliefs becomes a criticism of me. The only solution is to thro up the trade barriers and limit the exchange of ideas this is exactly wha happens. The consequences of intellectual trade barriers is exactly the same as that of trade barriers in the exchange of goods and services... Stunted growth...

There are areas where the use of ideas for the purpose of identity is generally harmless and even beneficial to human happiness. Fashion, allegiance to sports teams, many traditional cultural festivals and celebrations all give a sense of identity and belonging. It doesnt really matter if a belief in Chicago Cubs baseball, for example is an irrationally entrenched one. Indeed it may even give the believer pleasure. Believing in the Chicago Cubs is utterly different to believing in the Democratic party. A belief in the Chicago Cubs is irreleavnt to being able to form useful ideas about Economics, Law, family life and a whole host of other issues. An entrenched belief in a political party seriously inhibits my ability in this regard.
It is vital that we as a society recognise the difference between the two categories of belief.


While entrenched cultural attitudes such as preference for soccer over baseball or brown bread over white are harmless and enjoyable ways for individuals and groups to distinguish themselves attitudes such as a belief in a rigidly gender stratified society or in socialism are not.

A faith based adherence to ideas with practical consequences is dangerous. The more consequential an idea the more vital is a free flow of ideas in the debate surrounding it. The academic ideas market is not very efficient. The ideas market for correct supply chain management in industry is FAR more efficient becasue the holder of incorrect ideas will be more directly exposed to the consequences of them. Financial markets, the ultimate ideas markets are INCREDIBLY competitive. So are the odds Vegas sets for the outcome of sporting events.

The bible's Leviticus, Platos Republic, Karl Marx's Communist manifesto and the Q'uran ALL advance theories about the optimal organisation of society. The theories advanced in these works are largely incorrect at least in regard to the 21st century. By any measure, societies that follow the blueprints advanced in these works will be less successful than those which are based on free markets...

Persuasion

Persuasion

The following post was first published on my now defunct blog "Random Acts of Thought" on June 4 2005


An interesting article in the New York Times ran today concenring the degree to which beliefs are entrenched.

The vast majority of people hold essentially closed opinions on many many subjects and changes of mind are almost impossible.

I believe it was either Kuhn or Popper who stated that scientific theories are not so much discarded as that their proponents die. In general we cling to our beliefs with incredible tenacity. Differing degrees of intelligence seem mainly to influence how sophisticated our defense of those ideas is rather than our ability to abandon them in the face of conflicting evidence. Loyalty to ideas seems unfortunately to be something that is hardwired into us.

This is a subject Naseem Taleb discusses in his excellent book Fooled By Randomness.

The huge psychological resistance to changing our mind seems unfortunately hardwired into us. Idea, values, and beliefs become such an integral part of the self concept that refutation of them becomes a kind of challenge to the sense of "I"

Most people (including myself) instinctively distrust the opinion of individuals who frequently change their mind on issues. Flip flopping on issues is one of the worst sins a politician can commit in the public eye.

Why are changes in opinion accompanied with a loss of pride? The degree of difficulty involved in changing your opinion seems proportional to the energy and time you have invested in thinking about it. Inability to abandon existing ideas and beliefs is one of the most problematic of human traits and I would wager that it responsible for a large proportion of the evil and folly in the world