Slouching Towards Oblivion

Showing posts with label psycology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psycology. Show all posts

Monday, January 20, 2014

Today's PodCast

From You Are Not So Smart: What's up with all that conspiracy theory shit?



It goes along with the Type 1 Error I posted about earlier.  We take a certain bit of information, it makes us skittish, and at some point (feeling the need for reasons and explanations), we ascribe Agency or Intent to it.

Nobody's saying there can't possibly be anything to any of what you think is a conspiracy regarding certain events or conditions.  But while there are (and have been) in fact many conspiracies to commit various acts both heinous and heroic, The Grand Conspiracy has so far been thoroughly delusional.

Oh yeah - in case you're wondering about the Ant Death Spiral mentioned in the podcast:



The ant gets a bit of info and, since he can't apply any reasoning to the problem, he can only follow along dutifully ("thinking" this is how he gets to a safe dry place that his little ant-sized brain calls home).  Eventually, they all die of starvation and/or dehydration, never even knowing they were acting on insufficient evidence.

The real difference of course is that the ants can't reason their way thru it, while we actually choose not to.

One last bit, for all you Randites out there, I'll paraphrase from The Fountainhead:  The evil at work in the world is when a man recognizes Truth and Beauty as they are, and denies them.

Monday, April 18, 2011

Try This One Out

I stumbled onto this blog today, and it seems worth a look.

A sample from one of the articles:
Humans can be an untrusting race. People are often very cynical about human nature, tending to think that strangers will happily lie to us if there is something in it for them.
We intuitive believe that being cynical is an advantage in detecting lies. Or so Nancy Carter and J. Mark Weber found when they asked a group of MBA students whether people high or low in trust would be better at detecting lies in others (Carter & Weber, 2010).
The results were as we'd expect: 85% thought low trusters are better than high trusters at lie detection.
Is this the right answer though? Are low-trusters really better at detecting lies?