14 ms·

Intellectual Humility doesn't go far enough. The goal should be to reap knowledge from all sources and to disassociate the emotional and intellectual self from

Intellectual Humility doesn't go far enough. The goal should be to reap knowledge from all sources and to disassociate the emotional and intellectual self from that knowledge set. I believe that the primary issue is the formation of heuristics about knowledge sources. e.g. Person B provides person A with knowledge of class "low-value in domain D" N times and knowledge of class "higher-value in domain D" K times in some time period T. At some time T_n A internalizes a heuristic about Person B's overall knowledge set. Depending on internal characteristics of A, all subsequent knowledge expressed by B may be ignored. This is problematic. Not only does A ignore that the difference set of A and B's knowledge (even in D) is likely nonzero, it effectively assumes that A's knowledge is a superset of B, and that A's rate of knowledge aquisition is greater than that of B for all T. It ignores that A and B are dynamical systems. In my opinion, formation of these kinds of heuristics and being dismissive of knowledge is a sign of intellectual weakness. It's akin to internalizing knowledge to the point of belief and belief is bounding.

dmichulke 9y ago
Isn't this a natural response to people bullshitting you (instead of saying "I don't know") and wouldn't saying "I don't know" help very much here? Of course, what I describe is just a special case of what you describe.
metaphor 9y ago
>> ...all subsequent knowledge expressed by B may be ignored. Given that we're human with a finite amount of time and attention at our disposal, it strikes me as intuitively sensible that we tend towards (but never firmly settling on) this outcome, especially where instances of N >> K...a sort of "survival of the fittest" feedback loop, if you will. I think Johnny Lee's analogy framed in the context of the user experience[1] is applicable here. >> ...it effectively assumes that A's knowledge is a superset of B, and that A's rate of knowledge aquisition is greater than that of B for all T. Sounds like narcissism. Surely we can have our pragmatic feedback loop without deteriorating into such a state. [1] https://youtu.be/kuhVfuhCcG4?t=220 https://youtu.be/kuhVfuhCcG4?t=220
- dan-compton 9y ago
  > it strikes me as intuitively sensible... This might be intuitive if A weighted each N of some class equally, and N>>Kevin for each _class_, but observation indicates this is not the case. Also certain N tend to be overweighted regardless of the knowledge class to which they belong. IRL I have observed that B can work around A's bias by framing knowledge expressed as a question. > Sounds like narcissism. I think this is a common bias with implications in the "machine consciousness" question, but I'll have to wait ton finish that point. Look for an edit.
  - metaphor 9y ago
    Why do I feel like I just failed a bloodninja-style Turing test.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
metaphorm 9y ago
> The goal should be to reap knowledge from all sources and to disassociate the emotional and intellectual self from that knowledge set. this is absurd, in my opinion. do you honestly believe that dissociation from emotions is actually possible in most people? emotional dissociation is a psychiatric disorder. can I suggest an alternative approach that is less dehumanizing? The goal should be to promote positive emotions and a sense of personal confidence when acquiring and verifying knowledge is accomplished. in most social situations this is not rewarded at all. in-group conformity is the most readily rewarded experience. a shift towards providing encouragement and emotional support for knowledge verification seems like a healthier response than emotional dissociation.

dmichulke 9y ago

Isn't this a natural response to people bullshitting you (instead of saying "I don't know") and wouldn't saying "I don't know" help very much here? Of course, what I describe is just a special case of what you describe.

metaphor 9y ago

>> ...all subsequent knowledge expressed by B may be ignored. Given that we're human with a finite amount of time and attention at our disposal, it strikes me as intuitively sensible that we tend towards (but never firmly settling on) this outcome, especially where instances of N >> K...a sort of "survival of the fittest" feedback loop, if you will. I think Johnny Lee's analogy framed in the context of the user experience[1] is applicable here. >> ...it effectively assumes that A's knowledge is a superset of B, and that A's rate of knowledge aquisition is greater than that of B for all T. Sounds like narcissism. Surely we can have our pragmatic feedback loop without deteriorating into such a state. [1] https://youtu.be/kuhVfuhCcG4?t=220 https://youtu.be/kuhVfuhCcG4?t=220

dan-compton 9y ago
> it strikes me as intuitively sensible... This might be intuitive if A weighted each N of some class equally, and N>>Kevin for each _class_, but observation indicates this is not the case. Also certain N tend to be overweighted regardless of the knowledge class to which they belong. IRL I have observed that B can work around A's bias by framing knowledge expressed as a question. > Sounds like narcissism. I think this is a common bias with implications in the "machine consciousness" question, but I'll have to wait ton finish that point. Look for an edit.
- metaphor 9y ago
  Why do I feel like I just failed a bloodninja-style Turing test.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

metaphorm 9y ago

> The goal should be to reap knowledge from all sources and to disassociate the emotional and intellectual self from that knowledge set. this is absurd, in my opinion. do you honestly believe that dissociation from emotions is actually possible in most people? emotional dissociation is a psychiatric disorder. can I suggest an alternative approach that is less dehumanizing? The goal should be to promote positive emotions and a sense of personal confidence when acquiring and verifying knowledge is accomplished. in most social situations this is not rewarded at all. in-group conformity is the most readily rewarded experience. a shift towards providing encouragement and emotional support for knowledge verification seems like a healthier response than emotional dissociation.