This article is interestingâand I agree that the base case you make that bias is hard to counter without a due process is convincing.
The policy you put forward (for you or Jordan Peterson) sounds good for public intellectual who are really busy.
I have more trouble seeing how that would play out in the EA forum, however.
As for me personally, Iâm not sure that I will use it nowâas I feel like I agree with the points you make, Iâm less busy than you so I answer to everything even if I donât agree with it, and I already try to do all you said in my mind.
(which might sound like from the outside exactly like bias- but I feel like I have a track record of changing my viewpoint on complicated topics as I got better information, even for some core questions like âIs industrial civilization good?â or âIs capitalism good?â).
I might use such a policy in the future in the future if I feel this would be useful as I debate more people, however.
For debating an EA related thing, Iâm not sure I have a lot to debate on besides the basics. Maybe the following claims that I have in mind ?
Not being vegetarian causes a lot of suffering (unless you somehow manage to get food from scarce places with non-factory farming)
Conversely, donating to effective animals charities is one of the very top ways to reduuce suffering in the world
Meditation, if done right, is one of the best ways to improve oneâs mind
Limits on energy depletion will have very serious effects on the world in the next 10-20 years, including but not limited to a probable long-term economic degrowth (this is one of the topic of my post)
Would you (or anyone else reading this) be interested in debating something about EA with me?
This is a yes or no question, but you didnât give a direct or yes/âno answer to it. I choose to communicate more directly and literally than you do. The value of literalness in communication is actually one of the topics Iâd have an interest in debating. You donât have to answer, but I wanted to repeat the question because not answering looked most likely accidental.
OK cool. Iâm most interested in debating topics related to methodology and epistemology. They have larger potential impact than more specific topics, and theyâre basically prerequisites anyway. I donât think weâd be able to discuss e.g. animal welfare, and agree on a conclusion, without some methodology disagreements coming up mid-discussion and having to be resolved first.
The specific issue Iâd propose to debate first is:
As for me personally, Iâm not sure that I will use it nowâas I feel like I agree with the points you make, Iâm less busy than you so I answer to everything even if I donât agree with it, and I already try to do all you said in my mind.
(which might sound like from the outside exactly like bias- but I feel like I have a track record of changing my viewpoint on complicated topics as I got better information, even for some core questions like âIs industrial civilization good?â or âIs capitalism good?â).
It does sound like bias to me, as you predicted. And I donât think trying to do rationality things in your mind is adequate without things like written policies and transparency. So we have a disagreement here.
I must admit that Iâm usually not that interested by things like methodology and epistemology, as I associate that with bureaucracy in my head. But I agree that they are importantâI just want to avoid the pitfall where this gets too abstract.
Maybe Iâll start with the methodology I use to gather information (I use it implicitely in my head, but I donât know if writing it down somewhere would change anything).
Letâs say I get a new information (say, that a serious drop in energy means a serious drop in economic growth). This is an idea that:
Itâs newâI havenât heard it anywhere else
It is supported by data, like say this graph :
I have a rough idea of how the conclusion was obtained (I can trace back to a study or a book) - the source is OK
It makes logical sense (the economy produces goods and services, and you need energy for that) - I see no internal flaw in this reasoning
I donât have a serious counter point for that
Itâs better than the previous explanation I had (economic growth is caused only by labor, capital and human ingenuityâwhich misses out on the fact that you need resources to produce goods and services)
In such a case, what I do is : I accept the conclusion, as âbest temporary explanationâ, and I live with it
If I find later a better explanation, I accept it (if it is more complete, with data more precise or more recent, it provides good counterpoints to the previous line of thinking I had, or has a more reliable source)
Now, the weakest part of this is number 1.5 : there may be good counterpoints but I may not be aware of them (for instance, one could say that we can do decoupling and still grow the economy with less energy). There are 2 different cases:
If this is not on an important topic, or itâs an information I canât really act on, then I donât do more researchâmaybe as I read more general stuff Iâll stumble over something better ?
If itâs an important information (like if we will have less energy in the next decade this would mean a very large recession), then I try to dig in more into it.
By reading books and articles. I try mostly to read experts that aggregated a lot of interesting data in a big picture view, and for whom Iâve found little criticism. They often provide useful links.
Note that while I read scientific papers, thatâs rarely where I learn the best, since few of them provide a big picture, and their writing style is poorly suited to human psychology.
For stuff that I write (like a book or article), I need to step up my game. Then I try to find reviewers who know their stuffâthe quality of what I write depends of the quality of my reviewers. If I find one that I disagree with, great ! It happened with the energy descent post, I exchanged a lot with Dave Denkerberger who was very knowledgeable, so I had to find good counterarguments, or accept his conclusion (which I did on several occasions).
For the energy/âGDP stuff, for instance, we had only 2 or 3 graphs eachâwhich was not enough. So I had some doubts about the validity of my data, I digged deeper, read about a dozen papers on ecological economics⌠and found that, surprisingly, the energy/âGDP relationship was even more supported by data than I initially envisioned.
If I have two concurrent explanations that contradict each other, or if the data is poor on both sides, I flag the data point as âcontestedâ in my head and I try not use it in my reasoning, until Iâve done more research (this is the case for the causality of energy/âGDP, whether âGDP causes energyâ or âenergy causes GDPâ or both. There is no consensus)
However, even if they disagree on causality, studies still indicate that a high GDP needs a lot of energy. Good enough, I use that instead.
Now, this is very rough, I agree, but I feel like I learned a lot, and changed my views on a wide range of topic, so I feel like this kinda works so far.
There may room for improvements, of course. What do you think about it ?
This article is interestingâand I agree that the base case you make that bias is hard to counter without a due process is convincing.
The policy you put forward (for you or Jordan Peterson) sounds good for public intellectual who are really busy.
I have more trouble seeing how that would play out in the EA forum, however.
As for me personally, Iâm not sure that I will use it nowâas I feel like I agree with the points you make, Iâm less busy than you so I answer to everything even if I donât agree with it, and I already try to do all you said in my mind.
(which might sound like from the outside exactly like bias- but I feel like I have a track record of changing my viewpoint on complicated topics as I got better information, even for some core questions like âIs industrial civilization good?â or âIs capitalism good?â).
I might use such a policy in the future in the future if I feel this would be useful as I debate more people, however.
For debating an EA related thing, Iâm not sure I have a lot to debate on besides the basics. Maybe the following claims that I have in mind ?
Not being vegetarian causes a lot of suffering (unless you somehow manage to get food from scarce places with non-factory farming)
Conversely, donating to effective animals charities is one of the very top ways to reduuce suffering in the world
Meditation, if done right, is one of the best ways to improve oneâs mind
Limits on energy depletion will have very serious effects on the world in the next 10-20 years, including but not limited to a probable long-term economic degrowth (this is one of the topic of my post)
This is a yes or no question, but you didnât give a direct or yes/âno answer to it. I choose to communicate more directly and literally than you do. The value of literalness in communication is actually one of the topics Iâd have an interest in debating. You donât have to answer, but I wanted to repeat the question because not answering looked most likely accidental.
Oh, youâre right, I wasnât clear enough. This feedback is appreciated.
Then my answer is âYes, I agreeâ, depending on the topic of course.
OK cool. Iâm most interested in debating topics related to methodology and epistemology. They have larger potential impact than more specific topics, and theyâre basically prerequisites anyway. I donât think weâd be able to discuss e.g. animal welfare, and agree on a conclusion, without some methodology disagreements coming up mid-discussion and having to be resolved first.
The specific issue Iâd propose to debate first is:
It does sound like bias to me, as you predicted. And I donât think trying to do rationality things in your mind is adequate without things like written policies and transparency. So we have a disagreement here.
Ok, very well.
I must admit that Iâm usually not that interested by things like methodology and epistemology, as I associate that with bureaucracy in my head. But I agree that they are importantâI just want to avoid the pitfall where this gets too abstract.
Maybe Iâll start with the methodology I use to gather information (I use it implicitely in my head, but I donât know if writing it down somewhere would change anything).
Letâs say I get a new information (say, that a serious drop in energy means a serious drop in economic growth). This is an idea that:
Itâs newâI havenât heard it anywhere else
It is supported by data, like say this graph :
I have a rough idea of how the conclusion was obtained (I can trace back to a study or a book) - the source is OK
It makes logical sense (the economy produces goods and services, and you need energy for that) - I see no internal flaw in this reasoning
I donât have a serious counter point for that
Itâs better than the previous explanation I had (economic growth is caused only by labor, capital and human ingenuityâwhich misses out on the fact that you need resources to produce goods and services)
In such a case, what I do is : I accept the conclusion, as âbest temporary explanationâ, and I live with it
If I find later a better explanation, I accept it (if it is more complete, with data more precise or more recent, it provides good counterpoints to the previous line of thinking I had, or has a more reliable source)
Now, the weakest part of this is number 1.5 : there may be good counterpoints but I may not be aware of them (for instance, one could say that we can do decoupling and still grow the economy with less energy). There are 2 different cases:
If this is not on an important topic, or itâs an information I canât really act on, then I donât do more researchâmaybe as I read more general stuff Iâll stumble over something better ?
If itâs an important information (like if we will have less energy in the next decade this would mean a very large recession), then I try to dig in more into it.
By reading books and articles. I try mostly to read experts that aggregated a lot of interesting data in a big picture view, and for whom Iâve found little criticism. They often provide useful links.
Note that while I read scientific papers, thatâs rarely where I learn the best, since few of them provide a big picture, and their writing style is poorly suited to human psychology.
For stuff that I write (like a book or article), I need to step up my game. Then I try to find reviewers who know their stuffâthe quality of what I write depends of the quality of my reviewers. If I find one that I disagree with, great ! It happened with the energy descent post, I exchanged a lot with Dave Denkerberger who was very knowledgeable, so I had to find good counterarguments, or accept his conclusion (which I did on several occasions).
For the energy/âGDP stuff, for instance, we had only 2 or 3 graphs eachâwhich was not enough. So I had some doubts about the validity of my data, I digged deeper, read about a dozen papers on ecological economics⌠and found that, surprisingly, the energy/âGDP relationship was even more supported by data than I initially envisioned.
If I have two concurrent explanations that contradict each other, or if the data is poor on both sides, I flag the data point as âcontestedâ in my head and I try not use it in my reasoning, until Iâve done more research (this is the case for the causality of energy/âGDP, whether âGDP causes energyâ or âenergy causes GDPâ or both. There is no consensus)
However, even if they disagree on causality, studies still indicate that a high GDP needs a lot of energy. Good enough, I use that instead.
Now, this is very rough, I agree, but I feel like I learned a lot, and changed my views on a wide range of topic, so I feel like this kinda works so far.
There may room for improvements, of course. What do you think about it ?
I created a debate topic at https://ââforum.effectivealtruism.org/ââposts/ââgL7y22tFLKaTKaZt5/ââdebate-about-biased-methodology-or-corentin-biteau-and
I will reply to your message later.
Please let me know if you have any objections to my summary of what the debate is about.