Econlib Resources
Subscribe to EconLog
XML (Full articles)RDF (Excerpts) Feedburner (One-click subscriptions) Subscribe by author
Bryan CaplanDavid Henderson Garett Jones More
FAQ
(Instructions and more options)
|
TRACKBACKS (6 to date)
TrackBack URL: http://econlog.econlib.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/262
The author at The Importance of... in a related article titled Framing Effects and Copyright writes:
The author at Desirable Roasted Coffee in a related article titled How Word Choice Frames Your (False) Memories writes:
COMMENTS (5 to date)
Rob Sperry writes:
The question is how do people actually think? This page at this link has a video on the left side that describes a new hypothesis/theory on the basic computational unit of thought. http://www.jacobsschool.ucsd.edu/CAP/news/release.sfe?id=355 The basic idea called confabulation is that what humans (and mammals in general) are computing is not the most likely answer to a set of facts (baysian) but instead what would make the existing facts they have most likely to be true. The video presents both a neurological/evolutionary basis for this idea as well as examples of what computational models built on this idea can do. I think its premature to say if and how fully this principle can account for human thought, and even if this is the basic computational unit there are tremendous architectural questions still left open. But I think it casts an interesting light with witch to view human thinking and explain the weakness of so much of the traditional approach to AI. Posted May 21, 2005 3:30 PM
Brad Hutchings writes:
Here's another way... choose your information sources. I know that occasionally going through my browser bookmarks and deleting various blogs and sites that I have gathered can greatly improve my mood. Even rearranging things can help. A good explanation of the rationality of echo chambers might be that people who get caught in them actively seek to minimize challenges to their worldviews. I'm sure Bryan covered that in his paper ;-). A downside to that is that if one enters an strong echo chamber trying to understand what the basis of their beliefs are and one asks probative questions that make people uncomfortable, one is often accused of being a "troll" or the like. So there are local disincentives to being inquisitive or not adopting the same irrationality. Weird, huh? Posted May 21, 2005 4:13 PM
simon writes:
Byran, I have not yet read your link but will ... with that being said, I find your comment about people selecting their beliefs to be dissappointing ( a truism) ... especially coming from an economist ... You noted a while back that economists have focused on two concepts - optimization and equilibrium ... Very true ... they have of course chased many other concepts ... The rationale for focusing on these two concepts has been the desire to explain market behaviors ... not simply individuals ... I would suggest that an economist's perspective on belief selection and management would be linked to a market ... not simply an individual's ruminations ... Please remember that economists make assumptions about individuals to understand "markets" ... the highly stylized assumptions about individuals and organiztions enable market level characterization ... what may be absurd at the individual level may still render accurate market behaviors ... While behavioral decision theorists have documented many biases, they have yet to explain markets. Many of the biases that they experimentally create are compelling but a question of ecological validity remains unaddressed ... Please note that the legal system addresses the very biases that they document ... I also think that much of what is addressed stands to reason when we transition from closed system thinking to open system thinking ... the biases the identify are merely biases associated with the normative economic theory that arose from closed system thinking ... What will be dissappointing is to see economist enter psychology and fail to remember what they are trying to explain ... Posted May 22, 2005 6:16 PM
nobody writes:
Prof. Caplan, How many times have you seen "Momento"? I've seen it about 5 or 6 times now, and I get something new from it each time. The 2-disc version of the DVD contains a version of the film with each section shown "backwards"; in other words, the film is shown in the order the events actually occurred. Really interesting to watch this after you've seen the movie a few times. And, being the huge Rand fan you are, I trust you caught the "John G" reference? I think Christopher Nolan (the director) may have been commenting on the unreliability of memory, and the (potentially misplaced) faith many of us have in our ability to reason, which is of course inextricably tied to our memories. Posted May 22, 2005 9:38 PM
Patrick R. Sullivan writes:
This merely reinforces the Hayekian-Sowellian point about the inferiority of articulated rationality as a decision making tool. Why prices in a free market work so much better. Posted May 23, 2005 11:47 AM
Comments for this entry
have been closed
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||