11/ Given OPs use of 'neutral' and the previous posts which mistakenly conflated evolving language with "a dramatic shift to the left," it seems like his prescribed objective function demands, i) an unbiased sample for attention allocation; ii) identity-less presentation.
-
Show this thread
-
12/ The former I want desperately. (And am slowly working on.) But, it's a remarkably challenging socio-technical problem where good solutions are mostly less wrong ones with lots of uncertainty. (E.g. descriptive representation w.r.t. one trait isn't going to get the job done.)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
13/ The latter — identity-less presentation — is something I increasingly think *everyone* gets wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
14/ PG drew some pretty bad inferences because social cognition — being faster and more integrated — caused him to process certain words as identities and out-groups, coloring his downstream perceptions and resulting quality of deliberation.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
15/ And guess what? The same mechanisms cause you to make similar mistakes, as they do for me. And, that *is* a problem because identity cues are so terribly reliable now that careful deliberation affords little boosting.
: "Just take the shortcut, it's fine."1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
16/ Polarization begets segmentation; segmentation begs polarization. The set of shared beliefs vanishes rapidly. Perception of ideological bias becomes omnipresent.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Replying to @generativist
The key question is: does this using this heuristic provide gain; make me more right than if I didn't? And that's about context. If nobody else is using it, even a biased heuristic is often a good shortcut. If everyone else is, it just increases your bias.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bettercount_us @generativist
So the first meta-heuristic is: be a bit contrarian. But! It's a really, really bad idea to extend that meta-heuristic to "only trust contrarians". Usually, the majority is right.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bettercount_us @generativist
The part I'm trying to figure out: I know that for minority groups, "discount the outgroup" is a survival heuristic. If you took every outgroup troll seriously, you'd end up Gish galloping yourself, and could never build a community. But it can obviously go to far. So, my ?:
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bettercount_us @generativist
If I'm an outsider, and I see somebody I otherwise respect getting caught in insider groupthink, is it worth speaking up? Chances are, I'll get discounted; so maybe in expectation I'm actually making it worse. But if everyone makes that call, then error only builds.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
That's mostly where I'm at. I *believe* people in the best position to correct are in-group because, 1. Their expressions get integrated; 2. The converse doesn't; 3. And it weakens expectations of in-group homogenity which has effects that escape a particular belief context
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.