The Bugs in Our Mindware (2016)

http://nautil.us/issue/32/space/the-bugs-in-our-mindware-rp

by dnetesn • 8 years ago

57 37 8 years ago

s-shellfish11• 8 years ago

We live in a three-dimensional world and we don’t have to worry about the fact that the mind makes mistakes when it’s forced to deal with an unnatural, two-dimensional world.

This is amusing. To a mathematician, physicist, computer scientist, logician, 2 dimensions are often easier to reason about than 3.

Honesty in the future is best predicted by honesty in the past, not by whether a person looks you steadily in the eye or claims a recent religious conversion.

This doesn't give people the chance to change if the whole system is based on everyone retaining an internal consistency in inferencing that is checked against reality by testing it.

The conjunction of two events can’t be more likely than just one event by itself.

This is mathematically incorrect. If two events are mutually dependent on the other to occur then two events are more likely to occur together than either or independently.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Apply this reasoning to yourself before you expect it from others. Apply it to the things about you that are the hardest to change, that you actually want to change. Shortest path to compassion, and one of the hardest lessons to learn.

iamthepieman• 8 years ago

This doesn't give people the chance to change if the whole system is based on everyone retaining an internal consistency in inferencing that is checked against reality by testing it.

Yes it does, start being honest and eventually people's most recent memories or interactions with you will be ones of honesty. This is different, of course, than the one strike and your out criminal offense system in the U.S.

s-shellfish11• 8 years ago

I'm speaking hypothetically, first.

Secondly, that assumes way too much about how people think.

smadge2• 8 years ago

> The conjunction of two events can’t be more likely than just one event by itself.
This is mathematically incorrect. If two events are mutually dependent on the other to occur then two events are more likely to occur together than either or independently.

The original statement is correct. You are talking about conditional probability: the probability that one event will occur given that another event has occurred. i.e. if A and B are two events P(A|B), read as the probability of A given B. This is equal to P(A and B)/P(B). Notice that, The conjunction of the two events, P(A and B), is divided by the probability of B, P(B). We have reduced the probability space to the smaller space of just B. The conjunction of two events is just their set intersection (at least in a probability system which defines events as sets of outcomes) and can never be larger than either event.

s-shellfish11• 8 years ago

That assumes events are sequentially occurring.

derangedHorse2• 8 years ago

Calculating the probability that A and a sequential event B will happen rather than inferring the probability of A given an a posteriori event B might be more intuitive to bring up in this argument.

An easy way to explain how the conclusion was derived is just by considering that we have to multiply probabilities to calculate the probability of a conjunction of events, and since most probabilities are below 1, the number will always be less than or equal to a single event.

losvedir2• 8 years ago

If two events are mutually dependent on the other to occur then two events are more likely to occur together than either or independently.

But that's not the statement that you're saying is incorrect. In your scenario, if A and B always occur together then P(A) == P(B) == P(A & B), and the original statement that P(A & B) is not greater than either P(A) or P(B) is still true (it's equal).

s-shellfish11• 8 years ago

The reasoning they are using isn't pure logic or math. You need more than logic and math to reason about people emotionally.

There's mutually established dependencies in relationships. One depends on the other but both minds think.

This is ridiculous reasoning to turn this crap into a math or logical expression to begin with. The fact that we have to argue out of common sense about emotions with logic and math is ridiculous enough and sucks because guess what! We know we reasoned ourselves into it.

People affect one another. Sometimes people understand each other mutually at the same time. It's not out of the space of probability for empathy to happen at the same moment in time and be dependent on the fact that both people are working towards it together.

s-shellfish11• 8 years ago

Edit: internal inconsistency is just as adequate

MrLeap2• 8 years ago

As long as we don't blow ourselves up first, these tend to be cognitively self correcting when exploited at scale.

Would something like the hysteria caused by the "war of the worlds" radio broadcast be possible to reproduce today? Yeah, absolutely. The bar's a little higher though, you'd need multiple organizations corroborating the story over multiple mediums.

Enough people on twitter would say things like "Uh, I'm standing around where the aliens are supposed to be and I don't see shit" to arrest some of the contagion.

I have a theory that new modes of communication automatically seem more trustworthy at first, because most of the time the liars don't move in until adoption reaches a certain level to make it profitable. The problem is that transition. We're late in the cycle right now for the internet. People are slowly learning to take extraordinary claims on the internet less seriously by default.

I like to think about the impact of Franklin D. Roosevelt's fireside chats. Most of America tuned in, captivated. The things he said calmed people down, reduced national anxiety and assuaged their fears. The default mode was to trust him, and that made a historic impact. It felt nationally like the president could finally talk to people on a personal level.

Then a few years passed, and the national trust was taken advantage of. Despite Tuskegee, MKUltra, The Bay of Pigs, Watergate -- pretty much everything about Nixon, and a hundred other events, it took a long time to make the majority of us into the politically disillusioned wrecks we've become.

It's easy to imagine how seductive messages like "the elite are all lying to you" are when that's become the safest default position for a while. The vulnerability we've found ourselves in now is lies bolted on to truths. I'm hoping that we'll all inoculate ourselves with some kind of generalized agenda aversion next.

A man running for state representative came to my door a few weeks ago. He wanted to know if he could place a sign in my yard. To be honest, my default position would have been to say "Go for it homie". Any candidate making door calls is atleast trying to put in effort. Especially since political candidates basically spout vague platitudes that turn into nebulous nonsense.

Fortunately for me, he seemed adamant he wanted to show me the key thesis in his pamphlet before I made my decision, he opened it up and tapped on the header. "Muslims are a problem for America."

"Ohhh you're a racist!" I said politely. "Thanks for letting me know, I have literally no interest in that being in my yard. Have a nice day!"

We don't even have symbols for the bugs in our brain that allow history to repeat itself like it does.

TeMPOraL5• 8 years ago

Your mention about Roosevelt's fireside chats reminded me of this post by 'idlewords that covered similar topics:

http://idlewords.com/talks/ancient_web.htm

I'm hoping that we'll all inoculate ourselves with some kind of generalized agenda aversion next.

I'm hoping people will inoculate themselves with the following meme: "Almost everyone has an agenda. All those agendas mostly cancel out."

The way I see it, people these days are (still) quick to blame individuals (usually "evil wealthy elites") for what really are systemic problems, out of anyone's direct control.

andai2• 8 years ago

This message has been approved by the Council.

delian66• 8 years ago

There are all kinds of people believing in Islam. It is a religion/ideology. It is NOT a race. So you jumped to a wrong conclusion.

crumbshot• 8 years ago

When being referred to in the manner described, it's being used as a proxy for race, so that was indeed racist.

DoreenMichele• 8 years ago

I have more usually seen the term Wetware, not Mindware.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetware_(brain)

(Not a criticism. Just an observation.)

laretluval2• 8 years ago

Which is more likely to contain bugs? The part of us we call "rational", which seems to be evolutionarily late, or our highly-evolved instincts, which served us for millions of years?

incompatible• 8 years ago

Living in a developed city today is a kind of virtual reality. It is different in many ways from the kind of existence that created those instincts.

laretluval2• 8 years ago

Yeah, the raw sensory input is pretty different. But how different are the basic incentives?

mmirate• 8 years ago

The former, obviously; but in the modern day, most usage of the latter in preference to the former is, in itself, arguably a bug overall. The modern world is mostly outside the operational parameters of our highly-evolved instincts.

TeMPOraL5• 8 years ago

Of course the latter, as in the past couple hundred years we've transcended biological evolution - with writing, printing, and now instant communication, we've created an environment that's fundamentally different (and changing, ever faster) than what humans have experienced before. In the timescale of recent developments, all those "highly-evolved instincts" are static.

aaaaaardvark• 8 years ago

Great article! Although it's definitely more likely (6 times) to have two investments fail and two succeed than all four succeed. Of course his point still stands that there's luck involved in investing.

jwilk• 8 years ago

Criticism of the hungry judges study: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14701328

The Bugs in Our Mindware (2016)

Related Stories