Ignorance is Contagious| Critical Thinking| Mob mentalities

Eric Frei · 8th February 2009, 02:13 PM

Covers many bases.

I have often said that I don't like extremists, you know ... on one hand save the trees on the other cut them down. I'll often debate the opposing point of view purely due to what I see as an unbalanced point of view.

Written by Dr Ian Woodward (Environmental Scientist in Australia) in 2008 I'm sure if you took the 5minutes out to read this you'll be nodding your head agreeing.

Read some of the Top Logical Fallacies and see if you succumb to any.

Over time I have witnessed and felt the heroism of cutting a tree down to the vilification of such. 20 years ago you were a hero, now a days some try to paint you as the devil.

I have worked with developers and councils on sites with trees, and again the vilification of these developers is so narrow minded it boggles me, on the other hand public scream about house prices and availability.

I have been on sites adjacent to large normal cleared house blocks where residents live with few trees, yet they complain to councils and lodge all types of complaints, like noise, dust, mud, start times etc. Yet they live in a place that had the same happening to it a while back.

Read this PDF, start to see things for what they are, become a critical thinker and expand your scope on the world, I encourage it.

Quote:

Ad hominem (attacking the person) An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to
counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing
the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the
arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded. Skeptics, on the other
hand, may fall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, for example, by
stating that people who believe in UFO's are crazy or stupid.

Jeff Darby · 8th February 2009, 04:34 PM

This paper is a good read, it made me start to think about the way I go about things.

...Mobs are nothing but pure uglyness.

hanging from a rope · 9th February 2009, 01:22 AM

save the world,well in the states we call those people greenie wachos or idiots,it's to easy to follow the crowd,thats why enviromentalists can get everyone behind them they just use a scare tactic not the truth

newguy18 · 9th February 2009, 02:12 AM

Very good read,i can see certain people reading it and going"i'm not like that".

gawd · 7th January 2010, 09:45 PM

I normally tell them-

- u tree hugging

-with beautifully pollished floor boards in ur house ,timber furniture- IF U LOVE THIS TREE SO MUCH - I CAN TRANSPLANT IT INTO UR YARD-4 A PRICE (THEY NORMALLY GO HOME ) funny there never seems to be any large trees on their block

Eric Frei · 29th March 2010, 10:31 PM

Also here's a great read.

Edge: BEWARE THE ONLINE COLLECTIVE By Jaron Lanier

Quote:

What's to stop an online mass of anonymous but connected people from suddenly turning into a mean mob, just like masses of people have time and time again in the history of every human culture? It's amazing that details in the design of online software can bring out such varied potentials in human behavior. It's time to think about that power on a moral basis.

BEWARE THE ONLINE COLLECTIVE

(JARON LANIER

It's funny being an "old timer" in the world of the Internet. About six years ago, when I was 40 years old, a Stanford freshman said to me, "Wow Jaron Lanier—you're still alive?" If there's any use to sticking around for the long haul — as computers get so much more powerful that every couple of years our assumptions about what they can do have to be replaced — it might be in noticing patterns or principles that may not be so apparent to the latest hundred million kids who have just arrived online.

There's one observation of mine, about a potential danger, that has caused quite a ruckus in the last half-year. I wrote about it initially in an essay called "Digital Maoism."

Here's the idea in a nutshell: Let's start with an observation about the whole of human history, predating computers. People have often been willing to give up personal identity and join into a collective. Historically, that propensity has usually been very bad news. Collectives tend to be mean, to designate official enemies, to be violent, and to discourage creative, rigorous thought. Fascists, communists, religious cults, criminal "families" — there has been no end to the varieties of human collectives, but it seems to me that these examples have quite a lot in common. I wonder if some aspect of human nature evolved in the context of competing packs. We might be genetically wired to be vulnerable to the lure of the mob.

One of the most wonderful things about the rise of the Web and other Internet-based communication schemes is how anti-mob they have been. I was in heaven 10 years ago watching millions of people build web sites for the first time as a form of expression. I'm just as excited today when I run across a creative web page, Myspace site, YouTube video or whatever. There are zillions of people out there who are developing themselves, reaching out to others, becoming more creative, better educated, and richer than they otherwise would have been. My personal favorite of the current batch of fast growing sites might be Second Life, where people create avatars of themselves to share in a virtual world. Bravo!

In the last few years, though, a new twist has appeared. Along with all the sites that encourage individual expression, we are seeing a flood of schemes that celebrate collective action by huge numbers of bland, anonymous people. A lot of folks love this stuff. My worry is that we're playing with fire.

There are a lot of recent examples of collectivity online. There's the Wikipedia, which has absorbed a lot of the energy that used to go into individual, expressive websites, into one bland, master description of reality. Another example is the automatic mass-content collecting schemes like DIGG. Yet another, which deserves special attention, is the unfortunate design feature in most blog software that practically encourages spontaneous pseudonym creation. That has led to the global flood of anonymous mob-like commentary.

I remember the first time I noticed myself becoming mean when I left an anonymous comment on a blog. What is it about that situation that seems to bring out the worst in people so often? It's a shame, because the benefits of blogs (such as that citizen journalists can pool resources to do research that otherwise might not get done) get cancelled out. Blogs often lead to such divisiveness that people end up caring more about clan membership than truth after a while.

There's a pattern in recent online businesses that is sometimes called Web 2.0 that I think is distinct from the collectivity problem, but for some reason seems to be leading a lot of entrepreneurs into promoting collectives.

The Web 2.0 notion is that an entrepreneur comes up with some scheme that attracts huge numbers of people to participate in an activity online — like the video sharing on YouTube, for instance. Then you can "monetize" at an astronomical level by offering a way to bring ads or online purchasing to people in your gigantic crowd of participants. What is amazing about this idea is that the people are the value — and they also pay for the value they provide instead of being paid for it. For instance, when you buy something that is advertized, part of the price goes to the ads — but in the new online world, you yourself were the bait for the ad you saw. The whole cycle is remarkably efficient and concentrates giant fortunes faster than any other business scheme in history.

So what's wrong with this pretty picture? All too many entrepreneurs seem to think that if you reduce the human element, the scheme will become more efficient. Instead of asking people to create videos or avatars, which require creativity and commitment, just watch their clicks, have them take surveys, have them tweak collective works, add anonymous, unconsidered remarks, etc. This trend is lousy, in my opinion, because it encourages people to lose themsleves into groupthink.

What's to stop an online mass of anonymous but connected people from suddenly turning into a mean mob, just like masses of people have time and time again in the history of every human culture? It's amazing that details in the design of online software can bring out such varied potentials in human behavior. It's time to think about that power on a moral basis.

Eric Frei · 27th October 2010, 11:42 PM

Some interesting reader comments at the bottom of the article too.

Quote:

Mark of Coffs Harbour Posted at 7:38 PM Today

Violence can be the answer. As a society we support armed services prepared to use violence - army, navy, air force, police services. To meet violence with violence and deter violence with violence. The law also provides that an individual can use reasonable force to defend themselves providing it is not disproportionate. Interestingly an assault is lawful when it is in response to an insult "if the response is immediate and before an individuals passion has time to cool". But you don't see schools informing the victims of their rights. Schools are only interested in protecting their images. My advice to my kids was avoid violence if possible. But don't be naive enough to take your eyes off the bully. And if it keeps happening then be prepared to fight, give as good as you get and don't worry about the school authorities because they can only have a minor impact on you.

Children should hit back at bullies, says expert Michael Carr-Gregg | Courier Mail

Quote:

October 27, 2010

THE pop psychologist charged with tackling bullying in Queensland schools will tell children to be ready to fight back.

Michael Carr-Gregg, who will be handsomely paid by the State Government to come on board as Queensland's anti-bullying expert, yesterday outlined his combat plan to empower children.

He called on parents to "find their digital spine" and children to be ready to defend themselves.

"Bullies, essentially, are buoyed by the support they get around them," Dr Carr-Gregg said yesterday.

He said self-defence should be taught at school, with training for parents as well.

Mr Carr-Gregg said he has, in his anti-bullying arsenal, a "15-second verbal intervention" strategy for other children witnessing bullying.

"We can teach young people themselves to not be scared, but to be prepared," Dr Carr-Gregg said.

"I had a boy in my room not so long ago who constantly was being referred to, rather unkindly, as a poof.

"And I taught him to stand up straight, and when this character said this to him he looked at him and said: 'Why are you so interested?' – and that just cut it dead.

"So we have the capacity to teach these young people how to protect themselves."

Dr Carr-Gregg said one in 10 children were cyber-bullied and one in four children were bullied at school.

Dr Carr-Gregg's appointment came on the back of a series of anti-bullying recommendations to the Government in the highly anticipated Queensland Schools Alliance Against Violence report.

Eric Frei · 5th December 2010, 03:22 PM

A long video but well worth watching, about 1 hour long.

Why are we so gullible

If you want to know Dr Greg Forbes qualifications etc listen to the

intro on this video

.

Bit of a run through timeline ....

7.30min Accepting a falsehood (type 1 error) and rejecting a truth (type 2 error).

9.12min Skepticism

11.40min Probability

14min Origins of dogmatic beliefs

18min Learning pyramid

58min Ad Hominem, discredit the claimant and discredit the claim .... "it's not about Darwin it's about evolutionary biology".

58.30min Intellectual apathy

In summation a very well demonstrated and presented piece of work.

It's not about what we think but how we think, and I'm sure you'll identify some of your erroneous thoughts.

Jeff Darby · 5th December 2010, 08:47 PM

another interesting post and a just as informative video well worth the time to it took to watch...

Jeff Darby · 18th December 2010, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayD

another interesting post and a just as informative video well worth the time to it took to watch...

Well I just sat through Dr Forbes intro video. This man certainly gets you thinking properly...Well worth a look..

Eric Frei · 12th January 2011, 08:34 PM

Paul Williams is a senior lecturer at Griffith University's School of Humanities.

Defamation risk increases as we hide behind the anonymity of the web | Courier Mail

Quote:

January 12, 2011
HERE'S my advice to budding law graduates: specialise in defamation. It will be the goldmine of the future.

And who will we thank for this bonanza in litigation? None other than that bastion of free speech, the internet.

Make no mistake, the Information Age has rung in some marvellous innovations. From serious research to frivolous entertainment, the web has broken through the information barrier more profoundly than any technology since movable type.

And just like the printing press, the internet - spurred on by our love of free speech - has empowered ordinary folk.

Voters can communicate with governments and consumers can give feedback to business like never before. As the browser and the mouse pad replace the picket and the bull horn as the tools of protest, the web has been a great social equaliser in its promise of a new democracy.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

And, in some respects, this brave new world really does resemble, as others have said, an "Athens without slaves".

Electronic petitions to politicians and open online forums are just a couple of innovations that have returned government to the people.

But all this is in peril of being compromised.

I would argue we are on the cusp - if we're not already there - of moving beyond Athens to some form of cyber mob rule.

The cause? The fact the uninformed and the malicious enjoy as much right as the learned and the civic-minded to express an opinion and to do it anonymously.

Free speech is a monumental human right, but it comes with equally monumental civic responsibilities.

As jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes said, the right to free speech does not extend to the right to wrongly shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

It's politically incorrect to say it but, even in a democracy, not all opinions are equal. Yet the web makes them so.

Imagine the lunacy of an online newspaper publishing two letters in response to an article on disease.

Should the ramblings of the moronic really be published alongside the expert opinion of a medical researcher just to satisfy the accepted need for "balance"? Should the vexatious be allowed to make vicious attacks, not on the doctor's research, but at a deeply personal level?

In past decades, stringent slander, libel and defamation laws - together with a series of gatekeeper editorial checks and balances - ensured that only fair and reasonable comment fell on to printed paper. But today, with the simplicity of a mouse click, the most foul abuse and most vitriolic of tirades can find themselves immediately and permanently on the public record.

Baseless opinion is passed off as fact and personal reputations ruined, all under the pernicious veil of anonymity.

I shudder each time I read shameless and cowardly online attacks on political figures, business and community lead-ers - and even private citizens such as public servants and journalists - just trying to do their job.

Wild accusations and hateful prejudice, diatribes that would never be published in printed editions, are freely posted online without an ounce of substantiation.

Retailer Gerry Harvey is just the most recent case. Irrespective of the arguments over taxed imports, the cyber attacks on Harvey were unnecessary and unwelcome.

A frank debate on the problems of import duties would enhance our democracy; a personal assault on Harvey's character only diminishes it.

For someone to launch a cyber attack on another without having the courage to fully identify themselves, is akin to a cowardly king-hit. It is plainly un-Australian.

If critics genuinely stand by their words, they should have the courage to put their real names to them.

It's only a matter of time before victims of cyber attack turn, en masse, to litigation. And instead of a smug satisfaction under a cloak of anonymity, cyber stone-throwers will be answerable for their actions and, ultimately, subject to defamation laws.

Great social change, including winning the right to free speech, has come about only through ordinary men and women having the courage to stand up and be counted, not by slinking in the shadows.

I'm saddened as I wonder where that sort of courage has gone.

derwoodii · 24th April 2011, 01:19 PM

A bit to ponder here, being contradicted, far from refining our thoughts, embeds them deeper. Our belief systems are stronger than our critical faculties...

I'm right, you're wrong, let's have another latte

I'm right, you're wrong, let's have another latte
Kate Holden April 22, 2011

"People just aren't listening to each other any more," a friend said. I nodded furiously. "Everyone's shouting but no one hears." "I couldn't agree more," I said.

My friends and I often have these cosy chats. "If only they knew what we know/read the literature/didn't rely on crap media/listened better/stopped manipulating the ignorant. God, the level of debate in this country is rubbish." We slam, not sip, our lattes and we fulminate happily and then we go home, comforted as well as outraged.

The problem is, I have these chats only with people like me. Just like "those people" probably have this same conversation only with people like them. A bit like smelling your own breath, it can be a warm but claustrophobic experience. I think I've made a mistake in life. I only like people whom I'm like.

There is a lot of shouting going on at the moment. We are coalescing — or coagulating — into partisan groups, down sadly intransigent and predictable lines. Rallies are held and tribal loyalties vowed. Lobbying groups, advertising campaigns, town hall-style meetings and citizens' associations are hopping. In the din of violent agreement and brutal dispute, it's hard to hear what anyone's saying. What's that? No, don't bother repeating it. You're wrong anyway.

There is a theory, around for some time but timely as ever, called "motivated reasoning". If you have a set of assumptions based on experience or knowledge, and you come across new information confirming that view, you are more likely to accept it than someone who does not share your set of assumptions. The more supporting evidence you have, naturally, the more certain you are in your belief in that evidence. This applies even when the information is demonstrably, empirically false. A study from the University of Michigan has confirmed that facts are no obstacle to misconception. We select our evidence from the great murky cloud and prescribe our learning. And being contradicted, far from refining our thoughts, embeds them deeper. Our belief systems are stronger than our critical faculties. We know what we know because we know it. And because the people around us agree it is so.

It's one thing to believe in a set of values, another to mistake values for facts. When we neglect to examine the assumptions and experiences — perhaps misinformed ones — that lie behind our assertions, then, rather than acknowledge the unease of cognitive dissonance, we plunge on and risk perpetuating errors. No one likes to be wrong. Few, certainly, enjoy admitting it. And these days we're digging in. When is the last time you changed your mind about something important?

Stop for a moment. Consider who you are. Why you might think as you think. And how much that informs what evidence you believe. What have you read? What have you derided? Who raised you? Who have you talked to? What might be threatened if you altered your views?

Mea culpa, I have nestled too snugly in my beliefs and values. That's not to say that I'm not immaculately correct in what I believe and others aren't simply, or mendaciously, wrong. But for people like me — who pride themselves on being sophisticated thinkers, who read widely, who engage critically with the issues of the day whichever side of a debate they are on, who are just as convinced of their righteousness as I am of mine — our very engagement and intelligence is our blind spot. I'm not just talking about latte-spitters, urban elites, as we're called. I mean you, all of you.

Yet wilful ignorance is no alternative. The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias that makes incompetent people overestimate their skills or capacity (highly intelligent and otherwise able people are no exception). So basically we don't know how stupid we are and won't admit it anyway. In their study Dunning and Kruger quoted Bertrand Russell: "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision." Or as Tim Minchin sings, "I'm taking a stand in defence of the fence, I got a little band playing tributes to ambivalence."

I'm off to find people I disagree with, don't know, don't like. I still think I'm right, but I can't be certain until I know I'm not so sure.

Eric Frei · 24th April 2011, 01:59 PM

This part we see played out all the time.

Quote:

A study from the University of Michigan has confirmed that facts are no obstacle to misconception. We select our evidence from the great murky cloud and prescribe our learning. And being contradicted, far from refining our thoughts, embeds them deeper. Our belief systems are stronger than our critical faculties.

Nice Kruger and Dunning PDF attached summarized as follows:-.

Quote:

Kruger and Dunning proposed that, for a given skill,
less competent people will:
1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3. fail to recognize the depth of their inadequacy;
4. acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, but
only if they can be trained to substantially improve.
What this all means in ordinary terms, is that if we are less
competent at something we are unfortunately more likely
to overestimate our abilities.

Equally, we sometimes rationalise our failures under the
pressure of high cognitive load, and we usually will assess
our own skills more charitably than we assess those of
others. But the Dunning-Kruger Effect powerfully suggests
that those of us with the weakest skills, whether it be
in medicine or in the kinds of critical thinking necessary
to separate truth from nonsense, are also the least likely
to be able to recognize deficiencies.
However, there is some good news. The study also looked
at whether or not the least competent subjects could
improve the accuracy of their self-assessment. Fortunately
it appears that if you improve people’s skills, they also
become better able to accurately gauge their own
performance against others and be more self-critical.
Thus there is a strong argument for teaching of critical
thinking skills and encouraging a critical outlook about
our performance.

derwoodii · 24th April 2011, 02:55 PM

Aww man thats a lot to digest, skip to the end. The sufferers of a dual burden, poor sods,, hey wait they might mean me,,, & the phenomenology caveat the writers say they maybe at risk of intersubjective perspective,,,

now I'm really confused, may just go mow the lawn thats somethin I can handle.

In sum, we present this article as an exploration into why people
tend to hold overly optimistic and miscalibrated views about
themselves. We propose that those with limited knowledge in a
domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken
conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence
robs them of the ability to realize it. Although we feel we have
done a competent job in making a strong case for this analysis,
studying it empirically, and drawing out relevant implications, our
thesis leaves us with one haunting worry that we cannot vanquish.
That worry is that this article may contain faulty logic, methodological
errors, or poor communication. Let us assure our readers
that to the extent this article is imperfect, it is not a sin we have
committed knowingly.

8th February 2009, 04:34 PM	#2
Jeff Darby Moderator - Previously known as JayD Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: TreeWorld, Sydney Australia Posts: 2,030	Re: Ignorance is Contagious\| Critical Thinking\| Mob mentalities This paper is a good read, it made me start to think about the way I go about things....Mobs are nothing but pure uglyness. __________________ Member: Australian Tree Association Join the Australian Tree Association...Have your voice heard ! Arboriculture, A life long study for some, a passing phase for others © Jeffrey J Darby 2011

9th February 2009, 01:22 AM	#3
hanging from a rope Sappling Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: new york Posts: 26	Re: Ignorance is Contagious\| Critical Thinking\| Mob mentalities save the world,well in the states we call those people greenie wachos or idiots,it's to easy to follow the crowd,thats why enviromentalists can get everyone behind them they just use a scare tactic not the truth

9th February 2009, 02:12 AM	#4
newguy18 Part of the Furniture Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: orlando,fl Posts: 4,977	Re: Ignorance is Contagious\| Critical Thinking\| Mob mentalities Very good read,i can see certain people reading it and going"i'm not like that". __________________ Have your say join us today. old schooler

7th January 2010, 09:45 PM	#5
gawd Former Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: perth wa Posts: 26	Re: Ignorance is Contagious\| Critical Thinking\| Mob mentalities I normally tell them-- u tree hugging-with beautifully pollished floor boards in ur house ,timber furniture- IF U LOVE THIS TREE SO MUCH - I CAN TRANSPLANT IT INTO UR YARD-4 A PRICE (THEY NORMALLY GO HOME ) funny there never seems to be any large trees on their block

5th December 2010, 08:47 PM	#9
Jeff Darby Moderator - Previously known as JayD Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: TreeWorld, Sydney Australia Posts: 2,030	Re: Ignorance is Contagious\| Critical Thinking\| Mob mentalities another interesting post and a just as informative video well worth the time to it took to watch... __________________ Member: Australian Tree Association Join the Australian Tree Association...Have your voice heard ! Arboriculture, A life long study for some, a passing phase for others © Jeffrey J Darby 2011

24th April 2011, 01:19 PM	#12
derwoodii Mature tree Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 407	Re: Ignorance is Contagious\| Critical Thinking\| Mob mentalities A bit to ponder here, being contradicted, far from refining our thoughts, embeds them deeper. Our belief systems are stronger than our critical faculties... I'm right, you're wrong, let's have another latte I'm right, you're wrong, let's have another latte Kate Holden April 22, 2011 "People just aren't listening to each other any more," a friend said. I nodded furiously. "Everyone's shouting but no one hears." "I couldn't agree more," I said. My friends and I often have these cosy chats. "If only they knew what we know/read the literature/didn't rely on crap media/listened better/stopped manipulating the ignorant. God, the level of debate in this country is rubbish." We slam, not sip, our lattes and we fulminate happily and then we go home, comforted as well as outraged. The problem is, I have these chats only with people like me. Just like "those people" probably have this same conversation only with people like them. A bit like smelling your own breath, it can be a warm but claustrophobic experience. I think I've made a mistake in life. I only like people whom I'm like. There is a lot of shouting going on at the moment. We are coalescing — or coagulating — into partisan groups, down sadly intransigent and predictable lines. Rallies are held and tribal loyalties vowed. Lobbying groups, advertising campaigns, town hall-style meetings and citizens' associations are hopping. In the din of violent agreement and brutal dispute, it's hard to hear what anyone's saying. What's that? No, don't bother repeating it. You're wrong anyway. There is a theory, around for some time but timely as ever, called "motivated reasoning". If you have a set of assumptions based on experience or knowledge, and you come across new information confirming that view, you are more likely to accept it than someone who does not share your set of assumptions. The more supporting evidence you have, naturally, the more certain you are in your belief in that evidence. This applies even when the information is demonstrably, empirically false. A study from the University of Michigan has confirmed that facts are no obstacle to misconception. We select our evidence from the great murky cloud and prescribe our learning. And being contradicted, far from refining our thoughts, embeds them deeper. Our belief systems are stronger than our critical faculties. We know what we know because we know it. And because the people around us agree it is so. It's one thing to believe in a set of values, another to mistake values for facts. When we neglect to examine the assumptions and experiences — perhaps misinformed ones — that lie behind our assertions, then, rather than acknowledge the unease of cognitive dissonance, we plunge on and risk perpetuating errors. No one likes to be wrong. Few, certainly, enjoy admitting it. And these days we're digging in. When is the last time you changed your mind about something important? Stop for a moment. Consider who you are. Why you might think as you think. And how much that informs what evidence you believe. What have you read? What have you derided? Who raised you? Who have you talked to? What might be threatened if you altered your views? Mea culpa, I have nestled too snugly in my beliefs and values. That's not to say that I'm not immaculately correct in what I believe and others aren't simply, or mendaciously, wrong. But for people like me — who pride themselves on being sophisticated thinkers, who read widely, who engage critically with the issues of the day whichever side of a debate they are on, who are just as convinced of their righteousness as I am of mine — our very engagement and intelligence is our blind spot. I'm not just talking about latte-spitters, urban elites, as we're called. I mean you, all of you. Yet wilful ignorance is no alternative. The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias that makes incompetent people overestimate their skills or capacity (highly intelligent and otherwise able people are no exception). So basically we don't know how stupid we are and won't admit it anyway. In their study Dunning and Kruger quoted Bertrand Russell: "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision." Or as Tim Minchin sings, "I'm taking a stand in defence of the fence, I got a little band playing tributes to ambivalence." I'm off to find people I disagree with, don't know, don't like. I still think I'm right, but I can't be certain until I know I'm not so sure.

24th April 2011, 02:55 PM	#14
derwoodii Mature tree Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 407	Re: Ignorance is Contagious\| Critical Thinking\| Mob mentalities Aww man thats a lot to digest, skip to the end. The sufferers of a dual burden, poor sods,, hey wait they might mean me,,, & the phenomenology caveat the writers say they maybe at risk of intersubjective perspective,,, now I'm really confused, may just go mow the lawn thats somethin I can handle. In sum, we present this article as an exploration into why people tend to hold overly optimistic and miscalibrated views about themselves. We propose that those with limited knowledge in a domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it. Although we feel we have done a competent job in making a strong case for this analysis, studying it empirically, and drawing out relevant implications, our thesis leaves us with one haunting worry that we cannot vanquish. That worry is that this article may contain faulty logic, methodological errors, or poor communication. Let us assure our readers that to the extent this article is imperfect, it is not a sin we have committed knowingly.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tree protection zones\| Critical root zones\| Critical Root Radius\| AUSTRALIA	Eric Frei	Tree Information and Facts	11	15th December 2007 10:57 PM