Read the whole post. I am not to familiar with the basis for Robin's claim that prediction markets are a good way of cleansing discourse of political influence, but I would always approach such a claim from a position of scepticism, as I think Robin would suggest we do. Even if they were, they would sooner or later fall prey to political manipulation for that very reason But that is not what I really want to write about now." Most of us live in worlds of conversation, like books or blogs or chats, where we tend to give many others the benefit of the doubt that they are mostly talking “in good faith.” We don’t just talk to show off or to support allies and knock rivals – we hold our selves to higher standards. But let me explain why that may often be wishful thinking...
Do you presume that your worlds aremostly dominated by politics, where different coalitions vie tosupport allies and knock rivals? Or do you see the groups you hangwith as holding themselves to higher standards? If higher standards,are they standards that outsiders can easily check on? Or do you inpractice mostly have to trust a small group of insiders to judge ifstandards are met? And if you have to trust insiders, how sure canyou be their choices aren’t mostly driven by coalition politics? "
The more important takeaway from this post is that interpretation and evaluation are inherently political acts. In political discourse, I am often struck by how often each faction claims to be advocating policies that are based on "objective assessment" of "facts," "logic," and "arguments," as supposed to rivals whose proposals are based on emotion, prejudice, interest, authority, or whatever. However, all "objective criteria" really means is that evaluations can be easily checked against the criteria by more or less neutral outsiders and NOT that the criteria do not favor some over others.
Of course, this means that there is more than one way of assessing and interpreting something "objectively" and not necessarily any reason to suppose a priori that some criteria are necessarily 'better' than any others, especially in a way that did not vary with context. In other words criteria can be simultaneously 'objective' and 'relative.' This is not really to suggest, however, that we should start doubting whatever criteria we use to asses phenomena, especially if those criteria have served us well in the past. After all, we have to assess things somehow, and we cannot really believe anything without thinking that those beliefs are reasonable and that those who do not believe the same thing are somehow wrong. However, we have to keep two things in mind. First that those with whom we disagree, however ardently, probably have criteria they use to establish their beliefs that make as much sense to them as our criteria do to us. Secondly, that our choice of criteria probably has as much to do with serving our interests and maintaining our power as any commitment to "truth."
Objectivity is a useful and worthwhile thing; it is good for others to be able to double check our assessments, but some criteria being 'objective' does not mean that it is equally applicable and useful by all people in all situations, or that it is somehow above the fray of the power games played between individuals and factions.
Do you presume that your worlds are mostly dominated by politics, where different coalitions vie to support allies and knock rivals? Or do you see the groups you hang with as holding themselves to higher standards? If higher standards, are they standards that outsiders can easily check on? Or do you in practice mostly have to trust a small group of insiders to judge if standards are met? And if you have to trust insiders, how sure can you be their choices aren’t mostly driven by coalition politics? - See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/01/who-wants-clean-standards.html#sthash.VEkEbCit.dpuf
Most
of us live in worlds of conversation, like books or blogs or chats,
where we tend to give many others the benefit of the doubt that they are
mostly talking “in good faith.” We don’t just talk to show off or to
support allies and knock rivals – we hold our selves to higher
standards. But let me explain why that may often be wishful thinking. -
See more at:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/01/who-wants-clean-standards.html#sthash.VEkEbCit.dpuf
ost of
ost of
ost of
ost of
ost of
ost of
ost of
Most of us live in worlds of conversation, like books or blogs or chats, where we tend to give many others the benefit of the doubt that they are mostly talking “in good faith.” We don’t just talk to show off or to support allies and knock rivals – we hold our selves to higher standards. But let me explain why that may often be wishful thinking. - See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/01/who-wants-clean-standards.html#sthash.VEkEbCit.dpufMost of us live in worlds of conversation, like books or blogs or chats, where we tend to give many others the benefit of the doubt that they are mostly talking “in good faith.” We don’t just talk to show off or to support allies and knock rivals – we hold our selves to higher standards. But let me explain why that may often be wishful thinking. - See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/01/who-wants-clean-standards.html#sthash.VEkEbCit.dpuf- See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/01/who-wants-clean-standards.html#sthash.VEkEbCit.dpufWho Wants Standards?
Most of us live in worlds of conversation, like books or blogs or chats, where we tend to give many others the benefit of the doubt that they are mostly talking “in good faith.” We don’t just talk to show off or to support allies and knock rivals – we hold our selves to higher standards. But let me explain why that may often be wishful thinking.- See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/01/who-wants-clean-standards.html#sthash.VEkEbCit.dpufWho Wants Standards?
Most of us live in worlds of conversation, like books or blogs or chats, where we tend to give many others the benefit of the doubt that they are mostly talking “in good faith.” We don’t just talk to show off or to support allies and knock rivals – we hold our selves to higher standards. But let me explain why that may often be wishful thinking.- See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/01/who-wants-clean-standards.html#sthash.VEkEbCit.dpufWho Wants Standards?
Most of us live in worlds of conversation, like books or blogs or chats, where we tend to give many others the benefit of the doubt that they are mostly talking “in good faith.” We don’t just talk to show off or to support allies and knock rivals – we hold our selves to higher standards. But let me explain why that may often be wishful thinking.
- See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/01/who-wants-clean-standards.html#sthash.VEkEbCit.dpufWho Wants Standards?
Most of us live in worlds of conversation, like books or blogs or chats, where we tend to give many others the benefit of the doubt that they are mostly talking “in good faith.” We don’t just talk to show off or to support allies and knock rivals – we hold our selves to higher standards. But let me explain why that may often be wishful thinking.
- See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/01/who-wants-clean-standards.html#sthash.VEkEbCit.dpufWho Wants Standards?
Most of us live in worlds of conversation, like books or blogs or chats, where we tend to give many others the benefit of the doubt that they are mostly talking “in good faith.” We don’t just talk to show off or to support allies and knock rivals – we hold our selves to higher standards. But let me explain why that may often be wishful thinking.Most of us live in worlds of conversation, like books or blogs or chats, where we tend to give many others the benefit of the doubt that they are mostly talking “in good faith.” We don’t just talk to show off or to support allies and knock rivals – we hold our selves to higher standards. But let me explain why that may often be wishful thinking. - See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/01/who-wants-clean-standards.html#sthash.VEkEbCit.dpufMost of us live in worlds of conversation, like books or blogs or chats, where we tend to give many others the benefit of the doubt that they are mostly talking “in good faith.” We don’t just talk to show off or to support allies and knock rivals – we hold our selves to higher standards. But let me explain why that may often be wishful thinking. - See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/01/who-wants-clean-standards.html#sthash.VEkEbCit.dpuf
Most of us live in worlds of conversation, like books or blogs or chats, where we tend to give many others the benefit of the doubt that they are mostly talking “in good faith.” We don’t just talk to show off or to support allies and knock rivals – we hold our selves to higher standards. But let me explain why that may often be wishful thinking. - See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/01/who-wants-clean-standards.html#sthash.VEkEbCit.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment