I think you're thinking about this too much from a model where everybody is a good-faith Mistake Theorist.
In a mistake theory model, it's a mystery why people fail to update their beliefs in response to evidence that they're wrong. If the only penalty for being wrong is the short term pain of realising that you'd been wrong, then what y…
I think you're thinking about this too much from a model where everybody is a good-faith Mistake Theorist.
In a mistake theory model, it's a mystery why people fail to update their beliefs in response to evidence that they're wrong. If the only penalty for being wrong is the short term pain of realising that you'd been wrong, then what you've written makes sense.
I think that most people tend to be conflict theorists at heart, though, using mistake theory as a paper-thin justification for their self interest. When I say "Policy X is objectively better for everybody", what I mean is "Policy X is better for me and people I like, or bad for people I hate, and I'm trying to con you into supporting it".
There's no mystery, in this model, why people are failing to update their "Policy X is objectively better" argument based on evidence that Policy X is objectively worse; they never really cared whether Policy X was objectively better in the first place, they just want Policy X.
I think there are three things: honest mistakes, honest conflicts, and bias - with this last being a state in which you "honestly believe" (at least consciously) whatever is most convenient for you.
If a rich person says the best way to help the economy is cutting taxes on rich people, or a poor person says the best way to help the economy is to stimulate spending by giving more to the poor, it's possible that they're thinking "Haha, I'm going to pull one over on the dumb people who believe me". But it also seems like even well-intentioned rich/poor people tend to be more receptive to the arguments that support their side, and genuinely believe them.
I don't think honest mistakes or honest conflicts need much of an explanation, but bias seems interesting and important and worth figuring out.
Is the conventional explanation unsatisfactory? That people are more convincing when they argue for their position honestly, and so it's beneficial for them to become biased in ways that favor their interests.
The question is, what is the mechanism? If I was offered a billion dollar incentive to sincerely believe I have three hands, I still wouldn't be able to do it. I can't alter beliefs on command. That makes the bias idea harder to explain.
That's because such offers presumably weren't common in the ancestral environment in which our brains evolved.
As far as I can tell, we're pretty far off of being able to establish the exact ways in which high-level adaptive strategies are implemented in the brain. For these purposes, it's an extremely complex black box, which also isn't too amenable to high-precision controlled experiments.
Thank you for the comments on this post. I was having a hard time figuring out what the post was about. I'm not sure why we ignore the Ugh fields, I sometimes see these balance scales in my head, on one side is the badness of not taking care of my taxes, and on the other side is the slight goodness of ignoring this problem for another day. The badness keeps building and eventually I have to open the dang letter.
Then why do many people make decisions that are objectively bad for them and the people they care about, are GOOD for the people they hate, and then actively defend these decisions unto the trenches for decades?
I'm referring to people who, as an example, vote for tax breaks for the wealthy and increased taxes for their own income bracket who, when asked WHY they do this, don't have a satisfactory answer beyond "My strawman conception of an enemy tribe wants that and I'll be damned if I ever agree with them on anything." (Yes, you can accuse this itself of being a strawman, but these people really do exist, and in sufficient numbers that calling it a "strawman" is a bit deceptive. You see them on both sides of the aisle, usually yelling at each other on social media). This isn't behavior that can be explained purely by calculated zero-sum games, because EVEN BY THEIR OWN CALCULUS they're making decisions that damage their own side (salt-of-the-earth Real Americans who work with their hands and backs) and empower their enemies (rich, effete latte-sipping Coastal Elites) based on weird ideological principles.
I mean, you could certainly say that the above descriptions are just branding those people consciously adopt, but that doesn't explain the core issue here- I'm not sure if conflict theory is willing to believe in tactically shooting yourself in the foot.
I knew exactly where you were going with it and responded accordingly. I've not met a single person who bemoans people "voting against their own interests" who wasn't entirely convinced that their preferences are derived from universal and timeless moral rightness and that anyone opposed to their preferences are stupid (poor people), evil (rich people), or both.
Yes, I do in fact think people should be paid a living wage and shouldn't be condemned to a life of misery, hunger, or dependence on intoxicants as an alternative to suicide, regardless of their genetics. And I do, in fact, think people who argue that Moloch-sacrifice is good and that inquiries into bringing the number down as close to zero as we can should be sneered at are evil.
If someone kept hitting themselves in the head with a hammer, complaining loudly every time he got hit, you would, in fact, call him an idiot- or else determine that he really likes the idea of dying via TBI, but I don't pretend this is some kind of just world where people are making the rational decision to be systemically discriminated against, not make any money, get hooked on painkillers, and die in their own waste. If you think my attitude comes from a sneering condescension towards the working poor instead of being one of them, that's your problem- unless you want to say you have access to my mental states.
>If someone kept hitting themselves in the head with a hammer, complaining loudly every time he got hit, you would, in fact, call him an idiot
No one did or said this, stop fantasizing.
>If you think my attitude comes from a sneering condescension towards the working poor instead of being one of them, that's your problem
I think your attitude comes from an unwarranted confidence in the correctness of your beliefs - which is pretty damn funny given that I knew the direction your diatribe was going to go based on how banal your "insight" is.
For my part, I assume in the overwhelming majority of cases that people make decisions for themselves for good reasons, where "good" is defined by the decision-making person him/herself. I don't presume to be able to define another person's preferences for them.
This model explains why people would make this kind of mistake when it benefits them, but it doesn't explain examples like procrastinating on your taxes.
I think you're thinking about this too much from a model where everybody is a good-faith Mistake Theorist.
In a mistake theory model, it's a mystery why people fail to update their beliefs in response to evidence that they're wrong. If the only penalty for being wrong is the short term pain of realising that you'd been wrong, then what you've written makes sense.
I think that most people tend to be conflict theorists at heart, though, using mistake theory as a paper-thin justification for their self interest. When I say "Policy X is objectively better for everybody", what I mean is "Policy X is better for me and people I like, or bad for people I hate, and I'm trying to con you into supporting it".
There's no mystery, in this model, why people are failing to update their "Policy X is objectively better" argument based on evidence that Policy X is objectively worse; they never really cared whether Policy X was objectively better in the first place, they just want Policy X.
I think there are three things: honest mistakes, honest conflicts, and bias - with this last being a state in which you "honestly believe" (at least consciously) whatever is most convenient for you.
If a rich person says the best way to help the economy is cutting taxes on rich people, or a poor person says the best way to help the economy is to stimulate spending by giving more to the poor, it's possible that they're thinking "Haha, I'm going to pull one over on the dumb people who believe me". But it also seems like even well-intentioned rich/poor people tend to be more receptive to the arguments that support their side, and genuinely believe them.
I don't think honest mistakes or honest conflicts need much of an explanation, but bias seems interesting and important and worth figuring out.
Is the conventional explanation unsatisfactory? That people are more convincing when they argue for their position honestly, and so it's beneficial for them to become biased in ways that favor their interests.
The question is, what is the mechanism? If I was offered a billion dollar incentive to sincerely believe I have three hands, I still wouldn't be able to do it. I can't alter beliefs on command. That makes the bias idea harder to explain.
That's because such offers presumably weren't common in the ancestral environment in which our brains evolved.
As far as I can tell, we're pretty far off of being able to establish the exact ways in which high-level adaptive strategies are implemented in the brain. For these purposes, it's an extremely complex black box, which also isn't too amenable to high-precision controlled experiments.
Selection. Economists who believe things convenient things for rich people get more connections, media exposure, grants, etc.
(In the conflict theory worldview; I have no idea how econ academia works IRL)
Thank you for the comments on this post. I was having a hard time figuring out what the post was about. I'm not sure why we ignore the Ugh fields, I sometimes see these balance scales in my head, on one side is the badness of not taking care of my taxes, and on the other side is the slight goodness of ignoring this problem for another day. The badness keeps building and eventually I have to open the dang letter.
Then why do many people make decisions that are objectively bad for them and the people they care about, are GOOD for the people they hate, and then actively defend these decisions unto the trenches for decades?
It's likely that your definitions of objectively good/objectively bad are good examples of what Melvin is describing.
I'm referring to people who, as an example, vote for tax breaks for the wealthy and increased taxes for their own income bracket who, when asked WHY they do this, don't have a satisfactory answer beyond "My strawman conception of an enemy tribe wants that and I'll be damned if I ever agree with them on anything." (Yes, you can accuse this itself of being a strawman, but these people really do exist, and in sufficient numbers that calling it a "strawman" is a bit deceptive. You see them on both sides of the aisle, usually yelling at each other on social media). This isn't behavior that can be explained purely by calculated zero-sum games, because EVEN BY THEIR OWN CALCULUS they're making decisions that damage their own side (salt-of-the-earth Real Americans who work with their hands and backs) and empower their enemies (rich, effete latte-sipping Coastal Elites) based on weird ideological principles.
I mean, you could certainly say that the above descriptions are just branding those people consciously adopt, but that doesn't explain the core issue here- I'm not sure if conflict theory is willing to believe in tactically shooting yourself in the foot.
>I'm referring to poor people...
I knew exactly where you were going with it and responded accordingly. I've not met a single person who bemoans people "voting against their own interests" who wasn't entirely convinced that their preferences are derived from universal and timeless moral rightness and that anyone opposed to their preferences are stupid (poor people), evil (rich people), or both.
Yes, I do in fact think people should be paid a living wage and shouldn't be condemned to a life of misery, hunger, or dependence on intoxicants as an alternative to suicide, regardless of their genetics. And I do, in fact, think people who argue that Moloch-sacrifice is good and that inquiries into bringing the number down as close to zero as we can should be sneered at are evil.
If someone kept hitting themselves in the head with a hammer, complaining loudly every time he got hit, you would, in fact, call him an idiot- or else determine that he really likes the idea of dying via TBI, but I don't pretend this is some kind of just world where people are making the rational decision to be systemically discriminated against, not make any money, get hooked on painkillers, and die in their own waste. If you think my attitude comes from a sneering condescension towards the working poor instead of being one of them, that's your problem- unless you want to say you have access to my mental states.
>If someone kept hitting themselves in the head with a hammer, complaining loudly every time he got hit, you would, in fact, call him an idiot
No one did or said this, stop fantasizing.
>If you think my attitude comes from a sneering condescension towards the working poor instead of being one of them, that's your problem
I think your attitude comes from an unwarranted confidence in the correctness of your beliefs - which is pretty damn funny given that I knew the direction your diatribe was going to go based on how banal your "insight" is.
For my part, I assume in the overwhelming majority of cases that people make decisions for themselves for good reasons, where "good" is defined by the decision-making person him/herself. I don't presume to be able to define another person's preferences for them.
This model explains why people would make this kind of mistake when it benefits them, but it doesn't explain examples like procrastinating on your taxes.
I agree, which is why I think that procrastinating on your taxes has a different mechanism to maintaining self-interested political beliefs.