Reading with the right attitude
It’s weird how intellectual allegiance works. I had a scary experience yesterday. I was just reading along, forming a rough opinion of how much I agreed with the arguments. In general, I’m fairly favorable to them, but I worry that that’s just because I identify with the anti-IP culture of internet geeks. But then there was this one section I was much more skeptical about, concerning some attitudes toward government in general or something. All of a sudden the authors mention some other thinker who supports that idea, one that I generally respect and agree with, and who knows much more than me about the relevant issues.
At that point, my valuation of the arguments jumped. And if you’re a person who tries to overcome bias, the fact of this jump is pretty disturbing. First, I knew that it had no rational basis at all. (Edit: By my description, this is arguable. But take my word in this case.) But more importantly for me, it just revealed how much I had been evaluating all the other arguments using the same kind of credence. It hit me, pretty hard, the extent to which the subconscious* processes that comprise our judgment take into account tribal allegiance, and how that allegiance doesn’t have any consistent relationship to truth over humanity in general.
* I don’t agree with the expansive view of the subconscious espoused by many, but I don’t think the conscious mind is as powerful as it believes itself to be. Introspection, beyond direct perceptions of feelings and beliefs, is black-box deduction. We form theories of our motivations based on observing our emotions and their temporal relationships with external events and internal beliefs.
Now, such judgments can be valid in special cases. It is valid to a limited extent, as a shortcut for evaluating the scientific validity of the arguer’s process, to give them more credence if you judge that they’re a member of the Objective Science tribe, and more if they’re a member of the Rationalist tribe. On the other hand, tribes like Liberal and Conservative (the ideologies, not the parties) are probably not useful in that way. In fact, I don’t know of any other allegiances that are.
This tendency distorts your reasoning whether you’re inside or outside the author’s tribe. In the first case, you will be less critical of things than you should be, and in the second, more. People ignore contrary evidence to in-group attitudes, and blithly accept confirming evidence. There was a study done that showed that people who regularly read sites in opposing ideological camps tend to actually become more radical in their views, not less. Is there a middle ground between credulity and motivated skepticism?
I think the answer is in deliberately manipulating your sense of allegiances. Somehow you have to separate the allegiances you feel from the allegiances your genes and ideology would otherwise have you form. You must consciously employ feelings of allegiance in the service of rationality and finding truth. I’m not entirely sure what the best way to do this is, but I do know one way.
When you read or listen to any arguments, always do so while treating the arguer as “one of us”, as an in-group member. Do this whether you are inclined to agree with them or not. (You will find you’re more inclined to agree with them.) So, what of the fact that you’ll be likely to give them too much credence, to not be skeptical enough? You seek out opposite viewpoints, and try to arouse the same feelings of allegiance when reading them. When two members of your tribe disagree, and you don’t feel any closer to one than the other, the in-group bias will not be able to tilt your deliberations, and you’ll know you’re that much closer to deciding on the merits of the arguments and nothing else. (Of course, eliminating the in-group bias will still leave you with plenty of others to deal with.)
I’m not sure this is ideal, however. There might be a bias to compromise in order to avoid conflict and hurt feelings in this situation instead of choosing the side of the stronger argument. Perhaps there’s an intermediate level of allegiance one can feel where this isn’t an issue? (I think that thinking of all participants as out-group members will foster too much skepticism and not enough interest.)
I think there’s one small exception to this rule, and that’s when you’re trying to evaluate an argument which doesn’t yet have any thorough refutations. Because of the lack of other viewpoints, it’s worthwhile to take a very skeptical viewpoint in order to generate as many good objections as you can think of. But after doing so—and before entering the debate yourself—you should reverse your allegiance and re-evaluate all of the criticisms you generated in a light positive to the original argument, to see if you can eliminate some of the meritless ones. Needless to say, this only really works when you already know quite a bit about the subject matter in question. In fact, during debates, you should apply this back-and-forth switching every time you formulate a new reply.
I cover a lot of this in my guide to charitable debate, but I think connecting it explicitly to a cognitive bias, and recommending it even when simply reading arguments, is worth a post.
December 29th, 2006 at 12:37
My approach is a little different. While I may be interested in how much I agree with arguments, I try not to let that be how I determine the truth or falsity of an issue. Because of the pervasiveness and depth of the kinds of biases you are talking about here, it seems essentially impossible to compensate for them accurately. The difficulty you depict in the mental balancing act is a good example of this. There seems to me little hope (and there is, from what I have read, little evidence) that these kinds of tricks can compensate accurately for bias.
Instead, I view my agreement or disagreement with arguments primarily as a source of entertainment. My views on truth are independent of whether I agree with the arguments or not. I base my truth judgments on other aspects, primarily on where the weight of the consensus is in the relevant communities. If my evaluation of the arguments is in contrast to the appropriate consensus, my attitude is this: the argument seems reasonable to me, but I guess I’m wrong.
December 29th, 2006 at 12:39
Truly excellent.
December 29th, 2006 at 13:30
“While I may be interested in how much I agree with arguments, I try not to let that be how I determine the truth or falsity of an issue.”
The strength of my revelation when I realized just how unconscious my bias had been acting was that I also try to do exactly this, and the revelation was how badly I was failing at it.
“and there is, from what I have read, little evidence”
I’d love to read someone making this case. I’ve heard that people have had little success in reducing bias by instructing people about the presence of the bias, but I haven’t read about the efficacy of more targeted/creative techniques.
“Instead, I view my agreement or disagreement with arguments primarily as a source of entertainment. My views on truth are independent of whether I agree with the arguments or not.”
An interesting and possibly workable position, but I shy away from it. I guess I’m idealistic in my belief that some people can develop their judgment to the point where it’s trustworthy, and that they can be justified in trusting it above that of experts or consensus when they need to disagree with the experts. (Although I’m happy to note that my skepticism of speed reading increased severalfold when I read about a study that showed people reading over 1000 WPM couldn’t get more than 50% comprehension, which I didn’t expect given how much I wanted it to be possible.)
Matthew, thanks.
December 29th, 2006 at 16:48
Chris - The question is whether it is true “idealism” to hope or believe that people can develop their judgment to the point where it is trustworthy. I’m afraid that when applied to ourselves, the motivation is actually more likely to be egotism. We prefer to believe that our judgment is better than simply relying on authorities and consensus beliefs, because we have an evolutionary drive to show off in order to attract mates and status.
I suppose the bottom line remains whether it is empirically possible to acquire this level of ability. It seems intrinsically implausible that a lay person can, with a few hours of studying arguments, come to a conclusion in opposition to the consensus reached by experts who have spent their lives studying the issue, and expect to do better than them.
December 29th, 2006 at 18:37
Hal, I don’t think it’s necessarily egotism to desire reliable judgment, just normal selfishness (or, to put it nicely, a desire for self-improvement). The ability would be very useful, and could make you much more successful in life in general. Now, to the extent that all such desire for success is at root geared toward reproduction, I guess you could cast aspersions on it. But I don’t think that even then it could be called egotism, as that implies a more direct connection with showing off.
But I still think the *hope* that such a thing is possible is idealistic, and I imagine you could agree to that.
I agree that whether it’s possible is an empirical question (though fraught with enough philosophical and psychological questions about point of view). But, contrary to your characterization, I didn’t have in mind the ability to come to more conclusions, or to come to them more quickly, only that the judgments one does find it prudent to make are very reliable. I imagine such a person would withhold judgment much more often than others, since they would know the limitations of their knowledge. But they would be able to know when they have studied enough to be confident in taking a side on an issue. If an issue had no knowable answer given a certain level of knowledge, that person would always withhold judgment (or weight the opinions of experts, or other consensus methods) at that level of knowledge.
December 29th, 2006 at 18:54
One approach to this problem is to adopt (inside one’s head) a “smarty-pants bias” where you try to a) understand the argument you’re reading well enough to be able to present it effectively yourself (i.e., give it at least surface plausibility to a sympathetic but skeptical auditor) and b) try to think of arguments against what you’re reading but also counterarguments you could make if you were the writer, up to as many levels of give and take as your interest in the subject warrants. In effect, you exploit the mechanism of cognitive dissonance by taking on the role of supporter or antagonist of each side.
If nothing else, you can always use your resulting knowledge of the dialectic to look smart (though insufferable) in a discussion (”That’s not a good argument for your position, because of x; a better argument for you is this one, but then of course I would respond with y’ and so on).
December 29th, 2006 at 19:14
srp, that’s effectively what I recommend when you’re reading arguments in areas where you already have considerable knowledge. But coming from a position of ignorance, you don’t often have the ability to come up with that many objections and defenses of new ideas. And even with your recommendations, I think the emotional aspect of it is important to get right. If you get it right, you’ll be better off even when you don’t take the time to really go over all the arguments in detail.
December 30th, 2006 at 1:23
My experience is that my tendency to agree with my “side” depends on what you plan to use the information for. If the information is going to be of no practical use to me (like political views)or for my entertainment then indeed I find I tend to be less critical as to the arguments made by my side. But if I am actually going to make use of the information in my personal life or work I find I am much more willing to listen to arguments from both sides before chosing the preferred approach. I guess it all comes down to incentives.
December 30th, 2006 at 22:16
One other comment I had - I notice that the example you gave was the issue of Intellectual Property. This is a particularly difficult topic for internet participants today because of the widespread infringement of IP regulations by people who download music, movies and other content. You yourself may have done so. If so, how objective can you be in evaluating a pro-IP argument, since it would make your previous actions be immoral? Plus, you would have to give up what is possibly one of your main sources of pleasure, instant access to almost any form of intellectual creation. Even if you haven’t personally downloaded copyrighted content without permission, you probably have friends who have done so, which will still give you a bias.
Now it may be merely a fortuitous coincidence that you are persuaded intellectually by the argument which happens to work out so well for your personal happiness. But you have to ask yourself if you would find anti-IP arguments so persuasive if you were in a position where your livelihood depended on protection of intellectual property. My guess is that people in that situation would have a strong bias to favor the pro-IP side, just as internet downloaders have the opposite bias.
And it’s also the case that this is an area where there is a great deal of academic and legal work. Jurists, historians, and those who specialize in the study of fields such as publishing and radio have published many books on the pros and cons of IP. How much can you hope to understand all the ramifications of the issue by spending a few hours reading message board comments and blog postings? If there is so little that needs to be understood to come up with a correct view of the facts, what fills the books which have been published on the subject?
December 30th, 2006 at 23:30
Couple of things: my profession (software development) depends rather heavily on copyright protection, if anything does. On the other hand, it’s been particularly affected (some would say crippled) by patent misuse, and I think the case against patents is stronger. But my (startup) company does have an innovative product we’re patenting, that may turn out to help us down the road. I also have hobbies (like music creation) that many would say are benefitted by copyright. And I believe that even if it turns out pro-IP is right, my previous music-downloading actions wouldn’t have been immoral. For one, the RIAA deserves it, because the sooner it stops monopolizing and mucking up the industry the better, and for two, it doesn’t really hurt artists as much as they think, for various reasons. (I guess you could say that on this sub-issue I have stronger opinions. Indeed, I’ve spent more time considering it.)
(And the book I read and linked to was written by two economists, and others (like Lessig’s Free Culture) were written by lawyers. In fact, I haven’t read any blog posts or threads on the subject. I’ve probably spent about a dozen or so hours total reading on this, which is why I’m still only leaning in one direction. But any blogs I did happen to read would likely be written by academics who specialize on IP.)
So yes, there’s plenty of personal stake in the issues, if not completely lopsided, which is one reason I haven’t written anything about it. Because I don’t trust my opinions, not having enough pro-IP literature.
December 31st, 2006 at 13:24
Chris - I apologize for stereotyping your situation, which is more complex than I described. And I have to apologize in advance for the tone of this posting, which will come off harsh. I don’t mean it that way, and the only reason I am posting in blunt terms is because I sense that you are the kind of person who can take it. I can tell that you are honest and serious in your efforts to avoid bias and approach things in a straightforward manner.
That being said, if you look at your position, it is completely self-serving. You are generally opposed to IP, but you seem to be OK with patent protection, OK enough to work for (or perhaps run?) a startup that is relying on patents for its success! And to the extent that you can see possible merit in IP, you still think that your downloading is OK because the RIAA is evil and you’re not really hurting anyone. Your position is finely calibrated to fit in perfectly with exactly what you want to do anyway. Can this possibly be mere coincidence? You have to admit that the fact that your beliefs about reality fit in so perfectly with what serves your needs and desires is a suspicious hint that bias is lurking!
December 31st, 2006 at 19:17
“you seem to be OK with patent protection”
Not at all; I’m strongly anti-software-patent. Sorry that I gave the opposite impression. I’m much more sure that patents are bad than copyrights.
“OK enough to work for (or perhaps run?) a startup that is relying on patents for its success”
I don’t run it, but I was the third employee. We don’t rely on the patent at all, although there might come a time when we’re able to prevent other companies from competing in that particular subfield, or license it, and thus gain some competitive advantage. I sort of doubt it’ll happen anytime soon, though. And if it does happen, I’ll be more uneasy as an employee.
I cited my company’s patent as evidence that my anti-patent position isn’t quite as motivated by personal interest. On the other hand, I do have a some personal interest in an anti-patent position. Patents really only protect entrenched businesses from newcomers, and make startups’ and independents’ lives more difficult.
Those corrections don’t invalidate your main accusation, since my views remain generally consistent in supporting my desired actions. But my views are more internally consistent than you just characterized them as, and thus less likely to be self-serving.
“And to the extent that you can see possible merit in IP, you still think that your downloading is OK because the RIAA is evil and you’re not really hurting anyone.”
I don’t do any downloading myself, because I don’t listen to much music. (I’m not sure why I said that I did in my last comment. I’ve done a minuscule amount in the past, and a little non-music illegal downloading.) So my anti-RIAA beliefs are actually pretty theoretical.
And I reiterate that at this point, I’m still quite skeptical of my own views on the matter, partly for the reasons you point out, and partly because I know my own expertise in the area is still very limited. I believe that my support has more to do with wishful thinking than coherent reasoning, and will continue to believe that until I seriously engage with pro-IP arguments. If called to bet on whether those laws would actually end up helping or hurting innovation and creativity, I would take a rather conservative position. As I said in the main post, “In general, I’m fairly favorable to them, but I worry that that’s just because I identify with the anti-IP culture of internet geeks.” If that is too misleading, I apologize.