Did you mean to post something after “possible solutions to these issues: ” or is the paragraph that begins with “in regards to” your list of possible solutions? I assume the former because I also don’t see any mention of a ledger system.
With regards to a screening process, maybe something like the Harvard Implicit Bias test but for motivated reasoning? Asking people to quickly make decisions in situations susceptible to motivated reasoning? This test has been criticized but also has some research in support so it may be the best option.
This may also be a good question for the Less Wrong forum. If you post there, let me know and I’ll follow it because I am genuinely curious about this.
My paragraph beginning with “in regards to” is a possible solution to your first question “how would people who do not practice motivated reasoning be found and identified?”
My next statement “perhaps the ledger system I mentioned could be a blockchain system?” is a possible solution to your next question “Is there a more objective way of determining whether motivated reasoning is behind a decision, to counteract the possibility that the “nonpartisan” people may not actually be as unaffected by motivated reasoning as we would hope?”( I was referring to the ledger system mentioned in the final paragraph of my Checks and Balances writeup. Correct me if I’m wrong, but are blockchains supposed to be unbiased? (https://dailyfintech.com/2018/06/04/blockchain-gives-hope-for-unbiased-news/) ).
You mentioned that I should try the Less Wrong Forum, should I post my whole Checks and Balances writeup there as well, or only ask them about the Harvard Implicit Bias test for motivated reasoning?
Ah, thank you for your clarifications. Completely missed that you referenced the ledger in your original post, makes more sense now. Yes, I believe blockchain are unbiased, but frankly I don’t know enough about them to offer any input on that end.
For Less Wrong, I was referring to your Checks and Balances write-up, but the Implicit Bias Test would be good also as they do seem to like objective evidence. Take my advice with a grain of salt though, as I am a relatively new user to that site. However, you have little to lose and a fair amount to gain.
Thanks again eaphilosophy for your reply. I will post my write-up to the Less Wrong Forum. I just have one more question for now, are there any organizations out there who are looking for ideas such as this?
None that I know of, but on the 80000hours.org effective altruism website they mention that one of the top 5 problems to solve is institutional decision making, and mention that they can put you in touch with people who are in those areas, but I’m not sure if that’s only for people in their mentorship program or any of their readers.
Did you mean to post something after “possible solutions to these issues: ” or is the paragraph that begins with “in regards to” your list of possible solutions? I assume the former because I also don’t see any mention of a ledger system.
With regards to a screening process, maybe something like the Harvard Implicit Bias test but for motivated reasoning? Asking people to quickly make decisions in situations susceptible to motivated reasoning? This test has been criticized but also has some research in support so it may be the best option.
This may also be a good question for the Less Wrong forum. If you post there, let me know and I’ll follow it because I am genuinely curious about this.
My paragraph beginning with “in regards to” is a possible solution to your first question “how would people who do not practice motivated reasoning be found and identified?”
My next statement “perhaps the ledger system I mentioned could be a blockchain system?” is a possible solution to your next question “Is there a more objective way of determining whether motivated reasoning is behind a decision, to counteract the possibility that the “nonpartisan” people may not actually be as unaffected by motivated reasoning as we would hope?” ( I was referring to the ledger system mentioned in the final paragraph of my Checks and Balances writeup. Correct me if I’m wrong, but are blockchains supposed to be unbiased? (https://dailyfintech.com/2018/06/04/blockchain-gives-hope-for-unbiased-news/) ).
You mentioned that I should try the Less Wrong Forum, should I post my whole Checks and Balances writeup there as well, or only ask them about the Harvard Implicit Bias test for motivated reasoning?
Ah, thank you for your clarifications. Completely missed that you referenced the ledger in your original post, makes more sense now. Yes, I believe blockchain are unbiased, but frankly I don’t know enough about them to offer any input on that end.
For Less Wrong, I was referring to your Checks and Balances write-up, but the Implicit Bias Test would be good also as they do seem to like objective evidence. Take my advice with a grain of salt though, as I am a relatively new user to that site. However, you have little to lose and a fair amount to gain.
Thanks again eaphilosophy for your reply. I will post my write-up to the Less Wrong Forum. I just have one more question for now, are there any organizations out there who are looking for ideas such as this?
None that I know of, but on the 80000hours.org effective altruism website they mention that one of the top 5 problems to solve is institutional decision making, and mention that they can put you in touch with people who are in those areas, but I’m not sure if that’s only for people in their mentorship program or any of their readers.
Please post (or pm) the link when you do!