So I read the Epic of Gilgamesh last night

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by AliceHouse, May 27, 2013.

  1. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    The Irrationality of Irrationality: The Paradox of Popular Psychology
    By Samuel McNerney

    In 1996, Lyle Brenner, Derek Koehler and Amos Tversky conducted a study involving students from San Jose State University and Stanford University. The researchers were interested in how people jump to conclusions based on limited information. Previous work by Tversky, Daniel Kahneman and other psychologists found that people are “radically insensitive to both the quantity and quality of information that gives rise to impressions and intuitions,” so the researchers knew, of course, that we humans don’t do a particularly good job of weighing the pros and cons. But to what degree? Just how bad are we at assessing all the facts?

    To find out, Brenner and his team exposed the students to legal scenarios. In one, a plaintiff named Mr. Thompson visits a drug store for a routine union visit. The store manager informs him that according to the union contract with the drug store, plaintiffs cannot speak with the union employees on the floor. After a brief deliberation, the manager calls the police and Mr. Thompson is handcuffed for trespassing. Later the charges were dropped, but Mr. Thompson is suing the store for false arrest.

    All participants got this background information. Then, they heard from one of the two sides’ lawyers; the lawyer for the union organizer framed the arrest as an attempt to intimidate, while the lawyer for the store argued that the conversation that took place in the store was disruptive. Another group of participants – essentially a mock jury – heard both sides.

    The key part of the experiment was that the participants were fully aware of the setup; they knew that they were only hearing one side or the entire story. But this didn’t stop the subjects who heard one-sided evidence from being more confident and biased with their judgments than those who saw both sides. That is, even when people had all the underlying facts, they jumped to conclusions after hearing only one side of the story.

    The good news is that Brenner, Koehler and Tversky found that simply prompting participants to consider the other side’s story reduced their bias – instructions to consider the missing information was a manipulation in a later study – but it certainly did not eliminate it. Their study shows us that people are not only willing to jump to conclusions after hearing only one side’s story, but that even when they have additional information at their disposal that would suggest a different conclusion, they are still surprisingly likely to do so. The scientists conclude on a somewhat pessimistic note: “People do not compensate sufficiently for missing information even when it is painfully obvious that the information available to them is incomplete.”

    In Brenner’s study, participants were dealing with a limited universe of information – the facts of the case and of the two sides’ arguments. But in reality – especially in the Internet era – people have access to a limitless amount of information that they could consider. As a result, we rely on rules of thumb, or heuristics, to take in information and make decisions. These mental shortcuts are necessary because they lessen the cognitive load and help us organize the world – we would be overwhelmed if we were truly rational.

    This is one of the reasons we humans love narratives; they summarize the important information in a form that’s familiar and easy to digest. It’s much easier to understand events in the world as instances of good versus evil, or any one of the seven story types. As Daniel Kahneman explains, “[we] build the best possible story form the information available… and if it is a good story, [we] believe it.” The implication here is that it’s how good the story is, not necessarily its accuracy, that’s important.

    Wait.. hold up... Seven Basic Plots? Wasn't that the same shit I was talking about before? Hm....

    Read more here:
    Scientific American - The Irrationality of Irrationality
    test
  2. Ass Napkin Ed

    Ass Napkin Ed DC - 19th & Benning Rd

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,654
    do you have any thoughts of your own?
    why is everything a copy/paste festival with you?
    test
  3. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Because when I use my own words, you get defensive and change the subject.

    When I quote scientists, you attack me for being original.

    Add on to that the fact that it took you an entire page to state your point... three more pages for you to develop any supporting evidence, and the fact that you still ignore the point of this thread...

    Well, let's just say you don't have any original thoughts, and you're also jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence because you're irrational.

    That's not an insult, that's a fact.
    test
  4. Ass Napkin Ed

    Ass Napkin Ed DC - 19th & Benning Rd

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,654
    well we will agree to disagree
    test
  5. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    No.

    Two things slightly resembling each other, but also being severely different, and one predating the other does not mean the other "stole" from the predecessor.

    It's an irrational logical conclusion.

    Pterodactyls predate eagles, and their wings resemble each other. But in no way is the eagle related to pterodactyls. However, links can be made with sufficient evidence. For example, one might say that eagles are related to the archeopteryx.
    test
  6. Ass Napkin Ed

    Ass Napkin Ed DC - 19th & Benning Rd

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,654
    Alice - the majority thinks you lost

    the house always wins
    test
  7. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    In case you haven't noticed, it's just been you and me.

    This isn't about winning or losing. It's about facing your irrational fears and becoming a better human being.
    test
  8. Ass Napkin Ed

    Ass Napkin Ed DC - 19th & Benning Rd

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,654
    how many human beings have you made better?
    test
  9. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Well... you for starters.

    If you couldn't tell, I've been keeping you company. You've been lonely. But I've been your friend. Where is everyone else when you need them? Here I am.
    test
  10. Ass Napkin Ed

    Ass Napkin Ed DC - 19th & Benning Rd

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,654
    thanks for being a friend
    test
  11. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Of course. Anytime.
    test

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)