It's so interesting...there is this well known phenomenon where ~everyone has at least some bias the vast majority of the time, and in a forum thread where this phenomenon is the specific topic of discussion (say, a psychology paper discussing subconscious bias, and the associated psychological/neurological phenomena that enable it), any significant disagreement (including whether each one of us suffers from it) with this general notion is typically very rare.
But then switch over to a different thread where the topic of discussion is not some abstract idea like this, but rather an object level idea, say just for example a news story about conservative leaning people switching to a new social media platform to escape what they consider to be censorship, and something very curious occurs. In such threads, it is rare to encounter much talk about this phenomenon of psychological bias, and if it does come up, it is ~always only about the obvious bias suffered by those who are in the ~"general outgroup" of the forum community. In those cases, it is common to read numerous anecdotal observations of how people in the outgroup(s) are cognitively flawed in that they exhibit signs of "living in a bubble", and "just(!) won't listen to reason or consider ideas that are contrary to their worldview".
But then if one is to initiate a conversation with a person in one of these threads, and make a reference to the formerly non-controversial abstract idea (from the psychology thread) that ~all people suffer from some bias, at ~all times, it seems as if all knowledge of that phenomenon has somehow become cognitively inaccessible, that the individual has no knowledge whatsoever of the phenomenon.
Conversely, if one is to mention (say, in a different subthread in the same overall thread) this exact same phenomenon, except switching the object of reference away from the person (who was making a biased comment about their outgroup), over to members of the outgroup, this formerly inaccessible knowledge then becomes accessible once again.
Just for the sake of discussion (a mental experiment of sorts), let us imagine that there is some significant truth to this theory - let's (temporarily) assume(!) it to be True, at least to a significant degree. In this purely hypothetical scenario, might this phenomenon offer some logical explanation for the amount of extreme polarization of opinion that can be witnessed in the world, this "crisis of epistemology" we talk about where different tribes seem to live in completely different realities from each other, with each reality having significantly different sets of facts? To me, this seems not only reasonable, but quite consistent with objectively observable reality.
Consider the theory that aliens intent on causing strife are using mind control rays to affect people’s political opinions en masse.
Just for the sake of discussion (a mental experiment of sorts), let us imagine that there is some significant truth to this theory - let's (temporarily) assume(!) it to be True, at least to a significant degree. In this purely hypothetical scenario, might this phenomenon offer some logical explanation for the amount of extreme polarization of opinion that can be witnessed in the world etc.?
The answer is yes. If people’s political opinions were being manipulated by aliens en masse (assumed as a premise), then it would be very likely that the amount of polarization in the world would have some connection to that.
But assuming arbitrary premises like this this doesn’t seem like a very useful way to learn about the real world.
> But assuming arbitrary premises like this this doesn’t seem like a very useful way to learn about the real world.
See this comment is interesting, here are two ways (there may be more):
1. You have made a rather significant change in the topic.
I was talking about: "It's so interesting...there is this well known phenomenon where ~everyone has at least some bias the vast majority of the time, and in a forum thread...."
But you switched the topic, to the examination an attribute: arbitrariness
2. You have described a hypothetical scenario, focused attention one one single attribute, and then suggested/implied that the two scenarios are ~"the same". Also, in doing so, you are treating "arbitrary" as a boolean, which might cause a reader to not realize that the degree of arbitrariness is not even close to the same. This technique would generally fall under the Strawman Argument category.
These are really enjoyable conversations, let me know if you have more ideas.
There's actually a handbook (can't remember the name at the moment) of some sort floating around the internet that goes through lots of these techniques, in case you're interested in this sort of thing.
I am not talking about marketing. I am talking about a very specific neurological/psychological phenomenon, that is highly suggestive that memory access is dynamic, that it varies on the topic, that it varies based on perspective (abstract vs real-time object level), and that it occurs here on HN.
My claim is also contrary to a claim higher in the thread:
>>> Compare this to how things were 15 years ago, [or how they are in here, where everyone and their dog can challenge your opinion]. [You become more open minded long term, and can handle criticism in a more mature way].
Now it's true that on a relative basis, HN is superior to many other forums, and also that it is true to some degree that certain opinions can be challenged, and subsequent discussions will be handled in a mature way.
This is far from comprehensively true though. And also, it can be observed that people seem to not like to discuss this idea (that certain topics cannot be maturely discussed on HN, including the the abstract idea that certain topics cannot be maturely discussed on HN).
But then switch over to a different thread where the topic of discussion is not some abstract idea like this, but rather an object level idea, say just for example a news story about conservative leaning people switching to a new social media platform to escape what they consider to be censorship, and something very curious occurs. In such threads, it is rare to encounter much talk about this phenomenon of psychological bias, and if it does come up, it is ~always only about the obvious bias suffered by those who are in the ~"general outgroup" of the forum community. In those cases, it is common to read numerous anecdotal observations of how people in the outgroup(s) are cognitively flawed in that they exhibit signs of "living in a bubble", and "just(!) won't listen to reason or consider ideas that are contrary to their worldview".
But then if one is to initiate a conversation with a person in one of these threads, and make a reference to the formerly non-controversial abstract idea (from the psychology thread) that ~all people suffer from some bias, at ~all times, it seems as if all knowledge of that phenomenon has somehow become cognitively inaccessible, that the individual has no knowledge whatsoever of the phenomenon.
Conversely, if one is to mention (say, in a different subthread in the same overall thread) this exact same phenomenon, except switching the object of reference away from the person (who was making a biased comment about their outgroup), over to members of the outgroup, this formerly inaccessible knowledge then becomes accessible once again.
Just for the sake of discussion (a mental experiment of sorts), let us imagine that there is some significant truth to this theory - let's (temporarily) assume(!) it to be True, at least to a significant degree. In this purely hypothetical scenario, might this phenomenon offer some logical explanation for the amount of extreme polarization of opinion that can be witnessed in the world, this "crisis of epistemology" we talk about where different tribes seem to live in completely different realities from each other, with each reality having significantly different sets of facts? To me, this seems not only reasonable, but quite consistent with objectively observable reality.