Re: Extremists due to strong priors?

[Edward Dodson]

Ed Dodson responding...

Robin Hanson wrote:

> Ed Dodson wrote:
> >I admit to being extreme only in my defense of objectively-derived
> >principle. ...extreme in belief or action without objectivity ...
> >most inflexibile ... are those who are so far beyond objectivity
> >as never to be confused by the facts.
>
> So it seems to me that you accept the model of the paper - the
> correlation is due to a large group of stupid inflexible people.
> Which means that being extreme is on average a sign of ignorance.
> You just think you are an exception to the usual rule.
>

My conclusion is rather different. Remember the quote from Aristotle
borrowed by the rock band the  Moody Blues -- "Child is Father to the
Man." It is the exceptional person who is able to significantly escape
the exposure to intense nurturing in cultural relativism. Leaving one's
community of early life to interact with others, broad reading and
studying and an intellect driven by curiosity all contribute to the process.
There is, of course, an enormous distinction between 'stupidity' and
'ignorance'. Few people are stupid; many are ignorant or much. Stupidity
and apathy have a stronger correlation than stupidity and extremism.
Mass ignorance has a strong correlation to blind obedience and to criminal
license in the name of an extremist (i.e., an unprincipled) cause. I do
not see this as a rule; rather, this seems to be a deeply-embedded
quality of human behavior influenced by entrenched socio-political arrangements
and institutions that deny fundamental liberty and champion privilege.




begin:vcard 
n:Dodson;Edward
tel;fax:215-575-1718
tel;home:856-428-3472
tel;work:215-575-1819
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Fannie Mae;Housing and Community Development, Northeast Regional Office (NERO)
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Senior Affordable Housing Business Manager
note:If you need to reach me during non-business hours, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
adr;quoted-printable:;;1900 Market Street=0D=0ASuite 800;Philadelphia;PA;19103;U.S.A.
fn:Edward J. Dodson
end:vcard

Re: Extremists due to strong priors?

[Fred Foldvary]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Robin Hanson wrote:

> It seems you posit that people who reason will be inflexible, and those
> who don't will be flexible and go with the crowd, which won't happen to
> be where reason would lead.  But under this theory, how do you explain that
> the people on the *other* side from you of the crowd are also inflexible?

The concept of anchoring may explain such inflexibility.
Some people get inculcated with some concept, and then cannot shake it
off.  An idea which is not grounded in fact but sounds plausible can
easily get anchored.  Examples include religious ideas, conspiracy
doctrines, anti-semitism and racism, and crackpot economics.

But I don't see why this would be more prevalent among those we think of
as extreme.  The difference seems to be that for meainstream ideas such as
the major religions, anchoring does not seem to be inflexible because we
are not shocked by the idea, while for non-mainstream views such as
neo-Nazis, their refusal to budge is more apparant and shocking.  Even if
they do budge a little, they would still be in an extreme position, and
the movement would not seem like much when viewed from the center.

Fred Foldvary  

Re: Extremists due to strong priors?

[Robin Hanson]

Fred Foldvary wrote:
> > It seems you posit that people who reason will be inflexible, and those
> > who don't will be flexible and go with the crowd, which won't happen to
> > be where reason would lead.  But under this theory, how do you explain that
> > the people on the *other* side from you of the crowd are also inflexible?
>
>The concept of anchoring may explain such inflexibility An idea which is
>not grounded in fact but sounds plausible can easily get anchored.  But I
>don't see why this would be more prevalent among those we think of as
>extreme.  The difference seems to be that for meainstream ideas ...
>anchoring does not seem to be inflexible ... while for non-mainstream views
>... their refusal to budge is more apparant and shocking.  ... the movement
>would not seem like much when viewed from the center.

I don't think you're taking the two data sources cited seriously.  The
observe a correlation between extremism and apparently objective measures of
inflexibility.  So either you have to say the data doesn't measure what it
seems, or accept the data and try to explain it.



Robin Hanson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323

Re: Extremists due to strong priors?

[Alex Tabarrok]

Consider the following model.

If you are ignorant it's reasonable to adopt what you perceive as the
consensus view but unreasonable to hold that view firmly since you
haven't investigated the issue in any depth.

If you investigate the issue (you receive a series of signals) it may
turn out that the consensus view appears to be correct or it may turn
our that it appears to be incorrect in which case you are buffeted by
the signals towards an extreme.  As you are pushed towards the extreme
your views become firmer since they are the result of cumulative
signals.  

It thus happens that everyone at the extreme is firm since they have
received many signals pushing them to that extreme.  Some people in the
middle who have received middle signals are firm but many people are in
the middle because they are ignorant and simply adopt the consensus view
as the best first approximation.  Thus, a positive correlation between
extremeness and firmness.

Alex
-- 
Dr. Alexander Tabarrok
Vice President and Director of Research
The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way
Oakland, CA, 94621-1428
Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Extremists due to strong priors?

[Robin Hanson]

Alexander Tabarrok wrote:
>Consider the following model.  If you are ignorant it's reasonable to adopt
>what you perceive as the consensus view but unreasonable to hold that view
>firmly ... If you investigate the issue (you receive a series of signals)
>it may turn out that the consensus view appears to be correct or it may turn
>our that it appears to be incorrect in which case you are buffeted by
>the signals towards an extreme.  As you are pushed towards the extreme
>your views become firmer since they are the result of cumulative
>signals.  It thus happens that everyone at the extreme is firm since they have
>received many signals pushing them to that extreme.  Thus, a positive
>correlation between extremeness and firmness.

A problem with this model is that if all these people are getting signals
about the same thing, their signals should be correlated.  The people who
become more confident and move from the initial consensus position should
also tend to move in the same direction from that consensus.  But we observe
similar levels of confidence moving both directions away from the consensus.

Another problem is that people have to be unaware of other people's positions,
otherwise they could update on that and then should all end up at the same
place.

Robin Hanson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323

Re: Extremists due to strong priors?

[William Sullivan]

At 02:46 PM 7/20/00 -0400, Robin Hanson wrote:
>Another problem is that people have to be unaware of other people's
positions,
>otherwise they could update on that and then should all end up at the same
>place.

I'm not clear why they'd have to be ignorant of other people's positions.
It seems that they could be ignorant of the evidence that has swayed other
people or the methodology other people use in sifting through evidence. So,
with limited information and limited information using tools, they could be
quite aware of other people's conclusions while simply thinking that other
people are wrong.

Unless, by "position" you mean the evidence and methodology as well as the
actual conclusions. If that's the case, I agree with you.

William Sullivan

Re: Extremists due to strong priors?

[Alex Tabarrok]

Robin writes (in reference to my model explaining extremeness and
firmness)

"A problem with this model is that if all these people are getting
signals
about the same thing, their signals should be correlated.  The people
who
become more confident and move from the initial consensus position
should
also tend to move in the same direction from that consensus."

Robin then concludes "But we observe similar levels of confidence
moving both directions away from the consensus."

 The latter observation, however, is not what correlation predicts. 
Correlation predicts that more people should be on one extreme than the
other - it says nothing about the firmness of those on either extreme. 
I would argue that on factual matters this is often what we see, i.e. an
ignorant consensus which one might read about in say Time magazine or
ABC news or hear about in the street and a quite different view among
those who have seriously studied the issue.  [Bryan's research perhaps
provides some evidence - Bryan?]

Moreover, on a number of issues I don't think correlation is that high
- the world is not so kind as to produce all true signals or to make
every signal equally available to every person.  If that were true, then
obviously everyone would agree with me.  A better world no doubt, but
not the one we have.

Robin also writes "Another problem is that people have to be unaware of
other people's positions, otherwise they could update on that and then
should all end up at the same place."  

  Not a bug, a feature!  People *are* unaware of other people's
positions!  Moreover, even if I knew everyone's position it would still
be difficult to judge the relative credibility/expertise of those
positions. 


Alex



-- 
Dr. Alexander Tabarrok
Vice President and Director of Research
The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way
Oakland, CA, 94621-1428
Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Extremists due to strong priors? (Out of Country)

[Shireen Pasha]

I will be out of the country between July 21st and August 20th.  

Shireen Pasha

Economics of crazy ideas

[Pierre Lemieux]

Why do people have crazy opinions? What are the social
consequences of crazy opinions? More importantly, How are promising ideas
selected among crazy and non-crazy opinions?  What makes an opinion
sound crazy, and another one look serious? For example, why do
libertarians look more or less crazy in public discourse, and are often
absent from public debates, while PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals) runs half a dozen websites (including cowsarecool.com) and
wage campaigns with slogans like "Help chickens in
China"?

Any ideas?




PIERRE LEMIEUX 
C.P. 725, Tour de la Bourse, Montréal,
Canada  H4Z 1J9 
Fax: 1(819)585-4423 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Backup: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) 
PGP Key 0xBDFFCD16
Fingerprint: CF3E 4A3F 57AB 8AB2 88FB  A1D8 C83D 2E15 BDFF 
CD16

Re: Economics of crazy ideas message dated "Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:25:31 -0400."

[Sourav K. Mandal]

"Pierre Lemieux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote:

>  For example, why do libertarians look more or
> less crazy in public discourse, and are often absent from public debates,
> while PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) runs half a doze
> websites (including cowsarecool.com) and wage campaigns with slogans like
> "Help chickens in China"?

There is heart-warming crazy, and coldly analytical crazy.  People 
figure that if someone's going to be crazy, at least let them be 
kind.  I will say that PETA is pushing the envelope with some of 
their antics, which border on violent -- ask Dan Glickman, the 
current Secretary of Agriculture, whose had all manner of foodstuffs 
chucked at him.




Sourav K. Mandal

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Physics
http://web.mit.edu/smandal/www/

"In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than
efflorescence of language. We must be simple, 
precise, terse."

  -- Edgar Allan Poe, 
"The Poetic Principle"




Sourav K. Mandal

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Physics
http://web.mit.edu/smandal/www/

"In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than
efflorescence of language. We must be simple, 
precise, terse."

  -- Edgar Allan Poe, 
 "The Poetic Principle"








Sourav K. Mandal

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Physics
http://web.mit.edu/smandal/www/

"In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than
efflorescence of language. We must be simple, 
precise, terse."

  -- Edgar Allan Poe, 
 "The Poetic Principle"