Conversation

I think people are continually surprised by how often I use believability as a metric when evaluating practical advice: - have you had at least 3 successes in the domain? - do you have a coherent explanation? If yes, queue to test against reality. If no, discount advice.
6
57
But what about SuRvIvOrShIp BiAs? In my experience, this usually gets invoked by people who don’t like the advice they’re given. In practice, 3 successes in a practical domain is plenty rigorous as a lower bar for practical advice.
1
7
Another interesting quirk: this sounds suspiciously like ad hominem. It *does* mean I will write you off if you don’t have 3 successes in the domain you’re giving advice on. But it also means I will shut up and listen if a junior person has more successes in a domain than I do.
2
4
But the key thing to notice here is that it doesn’t matter how compelling or how plausible the argument/model/advice SOUNDS, all that matters is if it works when tested in your own life.
1
1
Replying to
Hmm, one last note: when I say that I commit to this as an epistemology of practical evidence, I truly mean it. You are more believable than I am -> you give me advice -> I take it. (Assuming, of course, that it doesn’t break some ethical rule).
1
2
But think about how hard this is, though. It means that I have to commit to actually testing the advice, so long as it’s given by a more believable person, EVEN IF it clashes against what I currently believe. Because what I believe doesn’t matter. I’m not believable.
2