
Pretending to be Wise - MikeCapone
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/02/pretending-to-be-wise.html
======
pg
You have to retain a certain amount of ability to suspend judgement, or other
people can force you to participate in their quarrels on their schedule. They
can basically throw an interrupt in you. You have to be able to ignore people
who use lines like "if you're not with us, you're against us" or "if you're
not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" or even, more subtly,
"do you condone x?"

(Regarding the quote, we should remember that Dante lived in a time of extreme
factionalism in Italy. In fact he spent many years in exile because his
faction lost.)

~~~
Eliezer
I agree; but there's a whole world of difference between:

(a) Passing neutral judgment;

(b) Refusing an interrupt / declining to invest marginal resources;

(c) Pretending that either of the above is a mark of deep wisdom, maturity,
and a superior vantage point; and correspondingly that the original sides
occupy lower vantage points that are not importantly different and not worth
judging between.

~~~
jonmc12
That is clarifying. Is it possible that the impression of deep wisdom,
maturity and superior vantage point in these cases is an artifact of perceived
social status? The article is pointing out situations where effects of social
status interfere with the potential responsibilities of providing arbitration.

As humans most of us rely on judgment of social status as one of the most
fundamental ways to allocate resources and interact with one another. It
creates an inherent bias when we grant the right of arbitration to a fellow
human, because the privilege alone can elevate perceived social status, and
possibly interfere with the granted responsibility.

The independence of social status from the right to arbitrate may be a measure
of justness and liberty in a social group.

------
jmackinn
It seems to be that the article is confusing _neutrality or suspended
judgment_ with avoiding judgment. It is not pretending to be wise, it is
indifference.

A teacher who sees two children in a fight has likely seen those children
fight before. After seeing the same fight occur over and over they just don't
care who started it. Figuring out who started it becomes a chicken and an egg
situation.

This example from the article reveals an interesting point about passing
judgment in general:

 _...judges in the actual legal system can repeatedly hand down real verdicts
without automatically losing their reputation for impartiality_

That is because judges rule based on a set of written laws which they
interpret depending on the situation. Picking ethical or moral side of a
situation has no such standard.

Perhaps the writer also missed the idea that the majority of people in this
world do not like conflict. Having to pick sides creates conflict. They are
not trying to be wise as much as they are trying to avoid something that makes
them uncomfortable.

Arguments are not black and white. Demanding the people pass judgment over
situation where they do not know all of the information, do not have a set
measurement for passing judgment and most likely do not care is unwise.

~~~
joe_the_user
It sounds easy to say but I think the author of the article needs to grow up.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter who started a fight on the playground. How old is
he and he still cares about such things? It actually is wisdom to realize that
you should stop caring about who started fights - not always but often.

Here's idea. Being mature involves realizing there are many kind of
stupidities in the world and that most conflicts involve _one_ kind of
stupidity battling _another_ kind of stupidity so neither side is really worth
taking.

~~~
patio11
_How old is he and he still cares about such things?_

I think it is sort of silly for somebody to have to kill himself for other
people to give a shit about his physical wellbeing, but since suicide fairly
reliably makes people actually care about things, I note that most authorities
put the number of suicides as a result of bullying at between one and two
dozen a year in the US.

This means that bullies are more effective at killing American children than
terrorists, school shootings, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, sharks, and
kidnappers motivated by ransom. Combined.

But who cares about such things?

~~~
Eliezer
Well said. I really have to wonder whether other people had such different
childhoods than mine - if they were actually engaging in spontaneous random
playground fights with no aggressor - or if they just have very convenient
amnesia.

"How old is he and he still cares about such things" - this question is the
essence of why not caring is a pretension of wisdom, and I'm glad that the
illustration was so nicely provided.

------
jonmc12
I don't really follow the argument. The article states that 'Rationalists' can
avoid a conversation about politics because they have limited resources which
would be used for minimal impact.

The same argument applies to the 'principal' or 'Great Powers'. In both
situation the parties did not ask to have to expend their resources to absorb
information and pass judgment on someone else's problem (fight or war). They
are not being pretentious, serene, or pretending to be wise - they are simply
using their resources most efficiently to accomplish their own goals.

Its a simple matter of each party estimating that the outcome of action A
(without judgment), and the outcome of action B (with judgment) will have a
marginal difference.

~~~
three14
I'd agree in cases where the 'Great Powers' are really staying out of the
dispute. Often enough though, they do intercede, and want to ignore important
information when doing so. Imagine if the principal suspends both the bully
and the bullied - is that going to achieve the _principal's_ long term goals?

------
andyjenn
On reading this, I am reminded of the decision by the BBC not to broadcast the
Gaza fundraising appeal on the grounds of it affecting its reputation for
impartiality.

------
mapleoin
Could anyone give me some more info on what the author is referring to when he
says: "Why does ancient Egypt, which had good records on many other matters,
lack any records of Jews having ever been there?"

~~~
sketerpot
It's referring to the Bible's claim that the Jews were once slaves living in
ancient Egypt.

------
tigerthink
For some reason, I find it comforting that there will always be some sources
(e.g. Wikipedia) where issues will be presented neutrally.

