Conversation

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
I don’t think it’s just a social effect. There’s an epistemological component. Situationist models have salient local contextual data that might be intractable to make consistent beyond a “it depends” or “case by case” vacuous ensemble consistency.
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Depends on the scope, doesn't it? If our belief set consists of 1 belief like "all traffic offenders should be given a ticket" you might hit 90%. If it consists of a looser meta belief like "treat people kindly" that stands in for a dozen conflicting behavior norms, it gets messy
1
Replying to and
Low-paradigm fields like modern anthropology have a particularist bias and suspicion of even empiricist triage theorizing of the "90%" type, let alone grand conceptual theories. While naive economists often have unreasonably consistent belief in market efficiency.
1
Replying to and
A good way to consider ergodicity potential here is to simply think of case space as a different kind of time. You have a belief B on day t, based on case k. B(t,k) might need an update both for B(t+1,k) and for B(t, k+1).
1
Replying to and
Is the situation more stable in time or case-space? It is not clear to me that different default assumptions for time/case-space are warranted. Your original heuristic amounts to "beliefs are more likely to be invalidated by new data over time than by new cases in scope"
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Yes, so it gets tricky, depending on how exploratory in case space the time behavior is, and what additional sources of invalidation there are besides case variety. So I do think time is probably a richer source of invalidations than case space, but it's not trivial to separate
1
Replying to and
My initial skepticism to the proposition came from my sense that for most people "ensemble consistency" actually tends to be "stereotype consistency" across a subset of cases *already* in scope. Like ignoring exceptions you might already know of rather than give up consistency.
Replying to and
Interesting connection to distributed computing and CAP theorem (consistency, availability, partition tolerance -- pick 2 of 3). Truth maintenance in case space is a distributed computing problem and consistency might be the leg of the triad to fail.