I have had to re-evaluate nearly all my opinions that have made up “me”. Fortunately I have never carried the burden of “religion”, nor had any mindset on paranormal things. I have believed “healing” can work, but is mostly the result of “caring” – not found homeopathy useful – except on wailing children, but I have been guilty of listening to anecdotal evidence, and believing it proves something. And it “proves” it even more, if the anecdote concerns something that I too have experienced.
I was reminded (anecdote coming up!) whilst watching the birds having dust baths in the sunshine today, of when I read in a book of how crows in England reportedly stole lit cigarettes which they held carefully under their wings where the smoke (it was presumed) “smoked out” inaccessible places. Now, as a layperson I have NO EVIDENCE that this is true or not, EXCEPT that when I lived in Africa we had a tame Myna bird that did exactly the same thing. So I believe! “I saw it with my own eyes” is a woo statement.
But, of course I’m not wanting to know about birds’ smoking habits – just using it as an example of how anecdotes from other sources become “what I know” if I have experienced it too. So picking through “what I know AS A FACT” and what I know just because someone told me so, or I experienced it too – has been a great task that is still not over!
I know what I thought I knew – and a lot of it was “in my gut”. I’m trying not to listen to “gut feelings” even if they are confirmed by the anecdotes of the “gut feelings” of others…. what is so difficult is that my “gut feelings” have seemed right on many occasions – confirmation bias. Where is the place for intuition? Is there any place for it in scepticism? (This is a question!)
M
Gut feeling's are real, but not in a psychic way. Gut feelings are just experences of the past and the memories are brought back while having a similar experence.Originally Posted by Allo Allo
I would say that it’s not necessarily woo or certain to lead to a false conclusion, but it’s not as reliable as people think that it is. We seem to have an in-built tendency to accept that if we’ve seen or experienced something that it must be true. The perceived infallibility of the senses!!
Of course there are many ways in which both our perception and reasoning can lead us to false conclusions.
Visual illusions are a good way of demonstrating that our vision can fool us (although the examples are rather non-representational of every day life).
Cognitive illusions are also built-in to us. They’re not so easy to demonstrate but here’s an example:
Imagine yourself in a city and you’ve heard that young, black males have an offending rate for mugging that’s three times higher than that of young, white males. Now, whilst walking down the street one evening you’re being followed by a young, black male and the next evening you’re followed by a young, white male.
Which would make you feel most anxious and why?
Most people would feel most anxious being followed by the young, black male as they are 3 times more likely to mug you. That would be our ‘gut instinct’ as it’s where our ‘common sense’ leads us.
But…
There are often around 10 times the number of young, white males than young, black males in most cities so, in fact, you’re actually more likely to be mugged by a young, white male because there are more of them.
This fallacy is called: Neglect of Base Rates and it’s a mistake that we make naturally – think of anti-vaxers as an example.
The trouble with making such mistakes is that unless you’re aware of the fallacy you don’t realise that you’re wrong (!)
So, things like intuition or gut instinct can appear to be a good way of making decisions etc. when in fact the choices you make could be completely wrong.
That’s not to say that in everyday life going from intuition is a bad thing as a lot of the time we’re going from past experience; but when it comes to important decisions etc., intuition is not the best solution to problems.
There are loads of ways that we fool ourselves (without knowing it) and this is why science has developed the methods it uses to find things out. Things like double-blind testing are designed to remove human biases and judgements (as much as possible) precisely because we are so easy to fool.
It’s also why when opposing things like alternative medicines the supporters will always say, “have you tried it for yourself?”
Their line of reasoning is that although these things don’t work under scientific testing, they can work if you try them for yourself – now we know why this is so!
.
John, that's a great post. Allo Allo raises an excellent question, too, which is whether there is a place for intuition and if so, what is it.
My answer would be: depends what's at stake. If it's someone's life, for example, then I would say, no, gut feeling has no place at all and you should make decisions entirely on the evidence (unless it's your own life, then you can do what you want if you are prepared to live (or die) with the consequences).
But if it's, say, a shopping decision, for example trying to work out how a date will react to the red shoes versus the green ones, then you have nothing to lose by going with your gut. Apart from anything, you'll never know what the outcome would have been had you bought the green shoes instead :D
And of course, as ghosthunterdebunker points out, gut feelings are really just a rehash of previous, similar experiences you've had, or knowledge you've stored, and you draw on that very quickly. Unfortunately, you may be wrong. It happens often. I run a business and often have to make very quick decisions on instinct. What I'm actually doing is drawing on more than ten years of practical experience and learning in my field, but I simply cannot process all the required information and all the potential outcomes in the short amount of time I have, so I short-cut the process and come up with a solution that 'feels' right. But I may be missing a vital piece of information, or something may change that I couldn't forsee, and my instinct will turn out to have been wrong.
We are also way more likely to remember positive outcomes for gut decisions, I think. I bet I make as many bad choices based on instinct than good, but I believe I have a 'good instinct' because my confirmation bias is kicking in.
So yes, there is a place for instinct if you are prepared to take the consequences of your actions, but I try and use the following rule:
Use instinct when you have to do something, but never when you have to believe something.
When it comes to deciding what to believe, evidence is king and instinct is likely to be fuelled by emotion.
Sure but could instinct be nothing more than a experenced best guess!
I think that's exactly what she said.
I'm pretty sure it was :DI think that's exactly what she said.
But when it comes to beliefs, it's likely you aren't employing any actual knowledge or experience in your guess, so you shouldn't rely on instinct when deciding to believe, say, a paranormal claim. Lots of people believe in God, for example, because it 'feels right' that there's some higher power, but they're not basing that on anything. But if you decide to buy shares in a company based on instinct, it's likely you are employing something you already know in order to make your guess.
Yes but she also seemed to be having trouble believing that! And ranting about smoking crows!I think that's exactly what she said.
ghosthunterdebunker, I think you should read back through the thread.Yes but she also seemed to be having trouble believing that! And ranting about smoking crows!I think that's exactly what she said.
The person talking about crows was Allo Allo in the OP, and she pointed out that the mention was a side-story to her main point.
The person referred to in Cuddles' quote was Teek, who you had just quoted and responded to.
I don't see any confusion in either person's posts about what they believe, nor do I see any ranting.
Can I offer a small piece of advice - you are free to ignore this if you wish. I sense from your various posts here that you read and respond very quickly. Perhaps you could take a little more time to review what was said, or what you are saying in response, because I find some of your input quite confusing. (Perhaps it's just me - I don't mean to offend here - just trying to help one/both of us get the most from the forum). This isn't a chat room, and is not as busy as other boards, so you have time to read and compose before responding, without the danger of your post losing meaning because 5 other posts have been made while you were thinking.
Thank you!
M
Alright ranting wasn't the word to use!Thank you!
M
I think thats the least of your problems 8)
Imagine yourself in a city and you’ve heard that young, black males have an offending rate for mugging that’s three times higher than that of young, white males. Now, whilst walking down the street one evening you’re being followed by a young, black male and the next evening you’re followed by a young, white male.
Which would make you feel most anxious and why?
Most people would feel most anxious being followed by the young, black male as they are 3 times more likely to mug you. That would be our ‘gut instinct’ as it’s where our ‘common sense’ leads us.
But…
There are often around 10 times the number of young, white males than young, black males in most cities so, in fact, you’re actually more likely to be mugged by a young, white male because there are more of them.
This fallacy is called: Neglect of Base Rates and it’s a mistake that we make naturally –
I think that the idea of prior probability provides in many cases a valuable addition to the decision making process. However in this case it may not be appropriate, the question being is whether or not it is applicable to a conditional probability analysis
For example, after the assertion that blacks are 3 x more likely to perform muggings (0.75 v 0.25) it was reconsidered that, given the population numbers, the revised assessment of the chances of being mugged by a particular ethnic group is
0.9 x 0.25 =0.225 (white) versus 0.1 x 0.75 = 0.075 (black) [N.B. for simplicity using 9 x rather than 10 x ]
The revised figure takes into the consideration that there are more white people to actual commit the mugging. However it is also the case that there are more white victims and as such more ‘victims’ of the greater group will hence balances this up. In short, the rates of mugging by blacks and whites must take into consideration of crimes against blacks and whites.
So, consider the probability of mugged by black (0.075) plus probability of not being mugged by white (0.675). This equates to 0.75. It may seem trivial but the misses need to be accounted for just as the hits. ???
Then again I may be completely wrong
And if you're walking down a dark alley do you think of the statistics?
If there was some additional information that made the colour of the victims relevant, this might be the case (for example if white muggers only ever mug black victims). However without such information, it has to be assumed that the colour of the victim is irrelevant and everybody therefore has an equal chance of becoming a victim.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks