Econlib Resources
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Blogging software: Powered by Movable Type 4.2.1.
Pictures of Bryan Caplan and Arnold Kling courtesy of the authors. All opinions expressed on EconLog reflect those of the author or individual commenters, and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of the Library of Economics and Liberty (Econlib) website or its owner, Liberty Fund, Inc.
The cuneiform inscription in the Liberty Fund logo is the
earliest-known written appearance of the word
"freedom" (amagi), or "liberty." It
is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.
|
||||||||
Isn't "be humble" just a specific bias that needs to be overcome? If so, then of course asking someone to overcome all of his/her biases will produce better understanding than asking them to only overcome one of them.
I'd say "be humble" is good advice precisely because it is a specific (and common) bias. "Overcome bias" is a nice sentiment, but it's terribly nebulous to apply. Humility is more specific, easy to understand and put to practical use.
It isn't very humble to even assume you can overcome bias. Don't fool yourself.
I agree with Lord.
Another point is that responding to advice like
and responding along the lines of
is a good example of what he's talking about.
The bias that we find in people is unconscious, and all the fundamental unconscious bias points in the same direction: I am right.
Claiming that understanding all the particular baises allows one to overcome them through careful study is like saying, 'Once I learned the earth has magnetic poles I was able to feel them."
I mean in some ways it's like saying, "because I'm a psychiatrist, I'd know if I was delusional."
I think hubris and humility are equally important. One must have enough hubris to take risks and take on the conventional view, and enough humility to realize that others have come before and considered the problem, so our own insights may not be as profound as we think.
One without the other is the problem. They are equally detrimental to the advancement of science and society when they are not properly paired together.
I haven't read The Sensory Order of Hayek but apparently he proposes that our memory enters heavily into the process of interpreting reality.
I wonder what does this entail for the Overcoming Bias project. It cannot be that the better our memory is, the more biased we are???!
You don't need humility if you have moderate skepticism. The key is to neither be so skeptical as to deny knowledge is possible (which gets you into the irrational loop of being certain that you can't be certain) nor be so certain of something that no amount of evidence will sway you to change your mind. What is annoying is when people who have a poor argument accuse you of being arrogant just because you do happen to know more then they do about something. More often than not, accusations of arrogance come from people who can't stand the fact that you're right, and they're wrong about something.
And that I think is a specific problem that libertarians have when trying to persuade people. (It also happens to be at the core of why I'm not libertarian any more.)
I don’t understand why so many people today see humility as a weakness rather than a virtue. It was a defining characteristic of those we typically admire as the greatest that history has produced (Lincoln, MacArthur, Thorpe, Friedman, Einstein, etc.). It has been said that “humility is to inculcate natural principles in personal behavior, relationships, and other areas of human development." Without it, we can neither rule nor serve benevolently.
A truly humble man is someone who is self-confident enough that he doesn't have to show off how smart, wise, etc. he is.