If you mistake general opinion for reality, then it’s logical to mistake the range of arguable opinion for your range of influence over reality. Natural error for folks in the persuasion business.
-
-
-
It also makes sense for influencers, because they can usually only regulate reality via regulating public opinion. Public opinion is more real to them than mere facts.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Interesting. Do we revert to magical thinking?
-
“we” always thought magically, ie in terms of symbolic causation
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Right, so we should distinguish actually three kinds of uncertainty: epistemic (due to ignorance), aleatoric (noise inherent in the observations), action uncertainty (due to different actions one can choose); though one might subsume that under epistemic?
-
Yes, I think all of them are epistemic. Observation noise is caused by lack of information about the state of the measurement device, action uncertainty by lack of information about yourself.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.