Re: Extremists due to strong priors?
Alexander Tabarrok wrote: >Robin, > My model explains a negative correlation between extremity and >flexibility. You objected that correlation of *signals* would mean that >"The people who >become more confident and move from the initial consensus position >should also tend to move in the same direction from that consensus. But >we observe similar levels of confidence moving both directions away from >the consensus." My later post simply indicated that your conclusion >does not follow from the premise. Correlation of signals implies more >people on one side of the extreme than the other, it does not imply >asymmetric confidence levels when moving away from the consensus. The >number of people at either extreme and the confidence with which the >extremes hold their views are two totally different things. I agree that your model explains the correlation in question. I was just pointing out that it does not explain other available data. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Extremists due to strong priors?
Robin, My model explains a negative correlation between extremity and flexibility. You objected that correlation of *signals* would mean that "The people who become more confident and move from the initial consensus position should also tend to move in the same direction from that consensus. But we observe similar levels of confidence moving both directions away from the consensus." My later post simply indicated that your conclusion does not follow from the premise. Correlation of signals implies more people on one side of the extreme than the other, it does not imply asymmetric confidence levels when moving away from the consensus. The number of people at either extreme and the confidence with which the extremes hold their views are two totally different things. Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extremists due to strong priors?
William Sullivan wrote: > >Another problem is that people have to be unaware of other people's > >positions, otherwise they could update on that and then should all > >end up at the same place. > >I'm not clear why they'd have to be ignorant of other people's positions. >It seems that they could be ignorant of the evidence that has swayed other >people or the methodology other people use in sifting through evidence. So, >with limited information and limited information using tools, they could be >quite aware of other people's conclusions while simply thinking that other >people are wrong. > >Unless, by "position" you mean the evidence and methodology as well as the >actual conclusions. If that's the case, I agree with you. No, there is a large literature on "agreeing to disagree" that says that it is enough to know their position, you don't need to know their evidence. If you would be at the same position were it not for having different information, and you see they are at a different position, you can use that to infer something about their information. And in fact, you can infer enough that the disagreement should go away. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Extremists due to strong priors?
Alexander Tabarrok wrote: > Robin then concludes "But we observe similar levels of confidence >moving both directions away from the consensus." > > The latter observation, however, is not what correlation predicts. >Correlation predicts that more people should be on one extreme than the >other - it says nothing about the firmness of those on either extreme. To be clear, the paper observes a correlation between flexibility and extremity of position, with flexibility declining roughly the same on both sides as one moves away from the median position. These are US legislators and positions are ADA scores. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Extremists due to strong priors? (Out of Country)
I will be out of the country between July 21st and August 20th. Shireen Pasha
Re: Extremists due to strong priors?
Robin writes (in reference to my model explaining extremeness and firmness) "A problem with this model is that if all these people are getting signals about the same thing, their signals should be correlated. The people who become more confident and move from the initial consensus position should also tend to move in the same direction from that consensus." Robin then concludes "But we observe similar levels of confidence moving both directions away from the consensus." The latter observation, however, is not what correlation predicts. Correlation predicts that more people should be on one extreme than the other - it says nothing about the firmness of those on either extreme. I would argue that on factual matters this is often what we see, i.e. an ignorant consensus which one might read about in say Time magazine or ABC news or hear about in the street and a quite different view among those who have seriously studied the issue. [Bryan's research perhaps provides some evidence - Bryan?] Moreover, on a number of issues I don't think correlation is that high - the world is not so kind as to produce all true signals or to make every signal equally available to every person. If that were true, then obviously everyone would agree with me. A better world no doubt, but not the one we have. Robin also writes "Another problem is that people have to be unaware of other people's positions, otherwise they could update on that and then should all end up at the same place." Not a bug, a feature! People *are* unaware of other people's positions! Moreover, even if I knew everyone's position it would still be difficult to judge the relative credibility/expertise of those positions. Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extremists due to strong priors?
At 02:46 PM 7/20/00 -0400, Robin Hanson wrote: >Another problem is that people have to be unaware of other people's positions, >otherwise they could update on that and then should all end up at the same >place. I'm not clear why they'd have to be ignorant of other people's positions. It seems that they could be ignorant of the evidence that has swayed other people or the methodology other people use in sifting through evidence. So, with limited information and limited information using tools, they could be quite aware of other people's conclusions while simply thinking that other people are wrong. Unless, by "position" you mean the evidence and methodology as well as the actual conclusions. If that's the case, I agree with you. William Sullivan
Re: Extremists due to strong priors?
Alexander Tabarrok wrote: >Consider the following model. If you are ignorant it's reasonable to adopt >what you perceive as the consensus view but unreasonable to hold that view >firmly ... If you investigate the issue (you receive a series of signals) >it may turn out that the consensus view appears to be correct or it may turn >our that it appears to be incorrect in which case you are buffeted by >the signals towards an extreme. As you are pushed towards the extreme >your views become firmer since they are the result of cumulative >signals. It thus happens that everyone at the extreme is firm since they have >received many signals pushing them to that extreme. Thus, a positive >correlation between extremeness and firmness. A problem with this model is that if all these people are getting signals about the same thing, their signals should be correlated. The people who become more confident and move from the initial consensus position should also tend to move in the same direction from that consensus. But we observe similar levels of confidence moving both directions away from the consensus. Another problem is that people have to be unaware of other people's positions, otherwise they could update on that and then should all end up at the same place. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Extremists due to strong priors?
Consider the following model. If you are ignorant it's reasonable to adopt what you perceive as the consensus view but unreasonable to hold that view firmly since you haven't investigated the issue in any depth. If you investigate the issue (you receive a series of signals) it may turn out that the consensus view appears to be correct or it may turn our that it appears to be incorrect in which case you are buffeted by the signals towards an extreme. As you are pushed towards the extreme your views become firmer since they are the result of cumulative signals. It thus happens that everyone at the extreme is firm since they have received many signals pushing them to that extreme. Some people in the middle who have received middle signals are firm but many people are in the middle because they are ignorant and simply adopt the consensus view as the best first approximation. Thus, a positive correlation between extremeness and firmness. Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extremists due to strong priors?
Fred Foldvary wrote: > > It seems you posit that people who reason will be inflexible, and those > > who don't will be flexible and go with the crowd, which won't happen to > > be where reason would lead. But under this theory, how do you explain that > > the people on the *other* side from you of the crowd are also inflexible? > >The concept of anchoring may explain such inflexibility An idea which is >not grounded in fact but sounds plausible can easily get anchored. But I >don't see why this would be more prevalent among those we think of as >extreme. The difference seems to be that for meainstream ideas ... >anchoring does not seem to be inflexible ... while for non-mainstream views >... their refusal to budge is more apparant and shocking. ... the movement >would not seem like much when viewed from the center. I don't think you're taking the two data sources cited seriously. The observe a correlation between extremism and apparently objective measures of inflexibility. So either you have to say the data doesn't measure what it seems, or accept the data and try to explain it. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Extremists due to strong priors?
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Robin Hanson wrote: > It seems you posit that people who reason will be inflexible, and those > who don't will be flexible and go with the crowd, which won't happen to > be where reason would lead. But under this theory, how do you explain that > the people on the *other* side from you of the crowd are also inflexible? The concept of anchoring may explain such inflexibility. Some people get inculcated with some concept, and then cannot shake it off. An idea which is not grounded in fact but sounds plausible can easily get anchored. Examples include religious ideas, conspiracy doctrines, anti-semitism and racism, and crackpot economics. But I don't see why this would be more prevalent among those we think of as extreme. The difference seems to be that for meainstream ideas such as the major religions, anchoring does not seem to be inflexible because we are not shocked by the idea, while for non-mainstream views such as neo-Nazis, their refusal to budge is more apparant and shocking. Even if they do budge a little, they would still be in an extreme position, and the movement would not seem like much when viewed from the center. Fred Foldvary
Re: Extremists due to strong priors?
Ed Dodson responding... Robin Hanson wrote: > Ed Dodson wrote: > >I admit to being extreme only in my defense of objectively-derived > >principle. ...extreme in belief or action without objectivity ... > >most inflexibile ... are those who are so far beyond objectivity > >as never to be confused by the facts. > > So it seems to me that you accept the model of the paper - the > correlation is due to a large group of stupid inflexible people. > Which means that being extreme is on average a sign of ignorance. > You just think you are an exception to the usual rule. > My conclusion is rather different. Remember the quote from Aristotle borrowed by the rock band the Moody Blues -- "Child is Father to the Man." It is the exceptional person who is able to significantly escape the exposure to intense nurturing in cultural relativism. Leaving one's community of early life to interact with others, broad reading and studying and an intellect driven by curiosity all contribute to the process. There is, of course, an enormous distinction between 'stupidity' and 'ignorance'. Few people are stupid; many are ignorant or much. Stupidity and apathy have a stronger correlation than stupidity and extremism. Mass ignorance has a strong correlation to blind obedience and to criminal license in the name of an extremist (i.e., an unprincipled) cause. I do not see this as a rule; rather, this seems to be a deeply-embedded quality of human behavior influenced by entrenched socio-political arrangements and institutions that deny fundamental liberty and champion privilege. begin:vcard n:Dodson;Edward tel;fax:215-575-1718 tel;home:856-428-3472 tel;work:215-575-1819 x-mozilla-html:TRUE org:Fannie Mae;Housing and Community Development, Northeast Regional Office (NERO) version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Senior Affordable Housing Business Manager note:If you need to reach me during non-business hours, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] adr;quoted-printable:;;1900 Market Street=0D=0ASuite 800;Philadelphia;PA;19103;U.S.A. fn:Edward J. Dodson end:vcard
Re: Extremists due to strong priors?
On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 05:40:45PM -0400, Robin Hanson wrote: > That explains a correlation between thinking and inflexibility, but > not between extremism and inflexibility. > Those whose thinking do not lead to an inflexibility against errors they found and recognized as such will not progress. Those who are weak-minded and will not dare reject the arguments of others will not progress; they might change opinions from time to time, with the weather, depending on who shouts loudest, on where they feel their basic interest resides, or whatever whim of the day; but such changes will be mostly brownian motion, not progress, and they are bound not to go very far, not to progress. They stay in a vague state of non-thought, whereby they do not oppose anyone, and never seem "extremist" to anyone, which "moderation" on all subjects they sometimes show with pride. Actually their position is at the real extreme: the initial extremity of thought, the beginning, in which one is utterly and completely ignorant. By purposefully remaining in this position, they show not just ignorance, but stupidity, anti-intelligence, anti-life. Their "moderation" is lack of thought; their pride of it is hate of thought. The free people, those who dare think and hold their opinions with a strength of will in accordance with the depth of their understanding, are not extremists, for their positions at any moment are but stepstones along as many roads of continuing progress, in various directions. They are inflexible against old errors; they are open to new truths. They will stick to their postjudices unless they are confronted to compelling evidence that they ought to change their minds. They will revise their prejudices at the first evidence that they are incorrect. They are inflexible in things they know, and moderate in things they ignore. They are not proud of their moderation in any particular matter, in as much as they are not proud of their ignorance in that matter; they are proud of their inflexibility in as much as they are proud of their knowledge. But in as much as their knowledge includes the reflective knowledge of their own limitation, they are proud of knowing when to be moderate, which is always the case in topics they do not know yet. Their moderation is reflective meta-thought. Their pride of it is love and respect for thought to come. Of course, there is also the dogmatic kind of "extremist", who are but the ignoramuses of the first kind above, whose education and personal history led to initial position different from the majority, hence disqualified as "extreme" by the public opinion. But as extremity and failure to progress go, they are no different from the masses that wooes them, in the lack of thinking that prevents their intellectual progress. All in all, the debate of about flexibility or inflexibility is completely irrelevant unless you confront it to the criteria of the position held being prejudice and postjudice, with degrees of flexibility and degrees of prejudice evolving together. As for why rational people with strong opinions might disagree, the answer is simply that the body of information upon which they found their postjudices differ. As they work to merge these bodies of information, by rational discussion, their opinions will tend to converge. However, a large part of the information used might be too difficult or too long to express in words, and might not be communicated in a reliable timely way through rational discussion, in which case rational people will have to agree to disagree. Below my .sig, a bunch of relevant quotations. Yours freely, [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] [ TUNES project for a Free Reflective Computing System | http://tunes.org ] The sunlights differ, but there is only one darkness. -- Ursula K. LeGuin, "The Dispossessed" Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. -- George Gordon Noel Byron (1788-1824), [Lord Byron] ... Another writer again agreed with all my generalities, but said that as an inveterate skeptic I have closed my mind to the truth. Most notably I have ignored the evidence for an Earth that is six thousand years old. Well, I haven't ignored it; I considered the purported evidence and *then* rejected it. There is a difference, and this is a difference, we might say, between prejudice and postjudice. Prejudice is making a judgment before you have looked at the facts. Postjudice is making a judgment afterwards. Prejudice is terrible, in the sense that you commit injustices and you make serious mistakes. Postjudice is not terrible. You can't be perfect of course; you may make mistakes also. But it is permissible to make a judgment after you have examined the evidence. In some circles it is even encouraged. -- Carl Sagan, "The Burden of Skepticism" In a reasonable discussion, you can't communicate opinions, and
Re: Extremists due to strong priors?
I wrote: > Since some people on this list might be considered extremists, > what do you think of this explanation? Are you extreme > because you are inflexible? Chris Rasch wrote: >Regarding the issue of flexibility, one explanation is that someone who >has spent a lot of time thinking about his/her belief system, and >believes it to be logically consistent, is likely to believe it more >strongly, and be more resistant to change than someone who hasn't given >it much thought. That explains a correlation between thinking and inflexibility, but not between extremism and inflexibility. Ed Dodson wrote: >I admit to being extreme only in my defense of objectively-derived >principle. ...extreme in belief or action without objectivity ... >most inflexibile ... are those who are so far beyond objectivity >as never to be confused by the facts. So it seems to me that you accept the model of the paper - the correlation is due to a large group of stupid inflexible people. Which means that being extreme is on average a sign of ignorance. You just think you are an exception to the usual rule. Fred Foldvary wrote: >No, I am inflexible because I am extreme. ... >I believe that my beliefs are based on reason. That being the case, I am >inflexible in changing them because that would require basing my beliefs on >non-reason. >My views are extreme because most folks base their views on the prevailing >culture, not on pure reason, i.e. logic and evidence. It seems you posit that people who reason will be inflexible, and those who don't will be flexible and go with the crowd, which won't happen to be where reason would lead. But under this theory, how do you explain that the people on the *other* side from you of the crowd are also inflexible? Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Extremists due to strong priors?
> From: Robin Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Since some people on this list might be considered extremists, > what do you think of this explanation? Are you extreme > because you are inflexible? No, I am inflexible because I am extreme. "Extreme" is relative, and means extremely far from the average. I believe that my beliefs are based on reason. That being the case, I am inflexible in changing them because that would require basing my beliefs on non-reason. My views are extreme because most folks base their views on the prevailing culture, not on pure reason, i.e. logic and evidence. But mainstream views can also be inflexible. For example, most folks believe that ordinary murder is evil, and I would hypothesize that this view would be inflexible. It seems to me the apparent flexibility of mainstream views derives from the appearance of large change when viewed from the center, while an extremist who changes seems not to change so much when viewed from the center rather than from the extreme perspective. Close objects seem to move a large distance, while far away ones seem to move only a small distance, even thought the movement in distance is the same. Fred Foldvary
Re: Extremists due to strong priors?
Robin Hanson wrote: > The June 2000 American Economic Review has an article by > Blomberg & Harrington, "A Theory of Rigid Extremists and > Flexible Moderates with an Application to the U.S. Congress". > > They offer data showing a correlation between political > extremism and inflexibility in changing one's opinions. > They refer to a 1950 army survey with a correlation > between extreme views and holding those views strongly. > And they present new data on US congressfolk explaining > variance in ADA scores in terms of longer tenure and > being closer to the median view. > > Their explanation is that opinion extremism and confidence > are initially independent, but those who are less confident > are more responsive to information, and thus move toward > some common value, while those who are more confident stay > put. Harrington has a larger research program on the > evolution of flexibility and inflexibility > (see: http://www.econ.jhu.edu/People/Harrington/) > > Since some people on this list might be considered extremists, > what do you think of this explanation? Are you extreme > because you are inflexible? > > It bothers me that his results seem so symmetric - it should > be unusual for the ex post information to be smack in the > middle of the prior distribution. I suspect that most people regard the labels "extremist" and "inflexible" to be perjorative. You're unlikely therefore to elicit many responses, since most people don't identify themselves as such. Someone you might label an "inflexible extremist" is likely to consider themselves "consistent" and "principled." Regarding the issue of flexibility, one explanation is that someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about his/her belief system, and believes it to be logically consistent, is likely to believe it more strongly, and be more resistant to change than someone who hasn't given it much thought.
Re: Extremists due to strong priors?
Ed Dodson responding... Robin Hanson wrote: > > > Since some people on this list might be considered extremists, > what do you think of this explanation? Are you extreme > because you are inflexible? > Hmmm. I admit to being extreme only in my defense of objectively-derived principle. Eric Hoffer said it correctly, I think, when he decribed those who are extreme in belief or action without objectivity as 'true believers'. And, the most inflexibile true believers are those who are so far beyond objectivity as never to be confused by the facts. begin:vcard n:Dodson;Edward tel;fax:215-575-1718 tel;home:856-428-3472 tel;work:215-575-1819 x-mozilla-html:TRUE org:Fannie Mae;Housing and Community Development, Northeast Regional Office (NERO) version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Senior Affordable Housing Business Manager note:If you need to reach me during non-business hours, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] adr;quoted-printable:;;1900 Market Street=0D=0ASuite 800;Philadelphia;PA;19103;U.S.A. fn:Edward J. Dodson end:vcard
