Saturday, December 10, 2011

Different Opinions

Few things in life are as incredible as the fact that people can hold radically different opinions. It honestly always amazes me. The latest impressive examples were the posts about international politics. But the same phenomenon can be experienced in all parts of life, including of course, MMORPGs.

(1)
The most important question in this regard is how to handle the fact itself; the fact that apparently curious, engaged and smart people come to completely different conclusions than oneself.

The first step towards dealing with this reality is accepting that people with different opinions are actually honest. They usually really believe what they say. This may sound obvious, but if you watch yourself very closely you will find out that you often see the other guy more like an unexplainable natural phenomenon than like a real person with a honest opinion.

(2)
The next step is trying to be convincing. It's very easy to fall into the trap of trying to convince oneself in a discussion, rather than trying to convince the other party. To that end it is important to distinguish between two kinds of different opinions.

The first one is a matter of taste. For example, some people want to play MMOs for 15min a day, they really care about the money they spend and any amount of unfairness in the payment model massively annoys them. Matters of taste need to be attacked on an emotional level. Rational arguments are mostly useless.
The second one is a matter of truth. How to create a MMO with as few bugs as possible? How to create a large middle class? These are questions with one true answer. There's right and wrong here - even if the 'right' answer might be very complicated.

Most topics, unfortunately, are a mix of the two. For example, the question how important it is that a MMORPG is balanced? Or the question of how important honesty is in politics? These are obviously matters of taste - but there are also universal truths regarding these questions. Few people would like a MMORPG that is not balanced at all - no matter of what they think at any point in time. Few people would like a world where politicians always have to say the truth - no matter of what they think they would like.

And often the most difficult part of any discussion is to actually discover and agree on which of the many possible questions are actually important.

(3)
Basically, there are two ways to exchange opinions. The one is to exchange overviews. That is what we have done in the latest posts. Every one of us writes a comment that makes like seven points, but the other party only picks one of the seven points - usually the one that appears weakest - and then adds seven new points. This kind of discussion never leads to a concrete result, but it does offer a chance to understand the other party and where they are “coming from”.

The other way is to focus on one narrow point alone. This is very useful after each party has given each other an overview. But it's usually very hard for people to stay focused on one narrow point. They will usually feel tempted to add a few decoys that distract the other party. Often this is not even in their own interest, but it is very hard to not do this. It is at least as hard, but even more important, to forgive them if they do it and to ignore the distraction.

An example would be a half-sentence like “and, btw, the cold war was inevitable”. If you are a “professional” and don't care so much about the truth and more about winning the argument, you can, of course, always add something that is wrong, highly provocative, but ultimately irrelevant. Especially good are personal attacks.

But, believe it or not, most people aren't professionals; and they are not trolling you; and they don't insult you on purpose. They are actually convinced of what they say. They just fell into the trap of trying to convince themselves rather than you.
After you wrote a comment it is usually a good idea to wait a second before sending it (copy it in case blogger sends it to hell) and to ask yourself whether this comment is actually useful for convincing anybody except for yourself. Sometimes the only purpose of a comment is to make yourself feel good. You can add these comments to the discussion if you want but you shouldn't expect anybody to be impressed.

(4)
Even when all people read the same news sources, radically different opinions can emerge. You can see this in this blogosphere. All of us read mostly the same news and blogs - and still we often have radically different opinions about MMOs.
However, this effect becomes dramatically worse if people actually use different sources for news.

A typical example would be economics. If you only read left-leaning media you will be convinced that taking money from the rich and giving it the poor will increase demand, because rich people don't consume all their money, but poor people do. Higher demand will increase supply and this leads to more jobs.
However, if you only read right-leaning media, you will be convinced that rich people own businesses or invest their money in businesses. Since to expand a businessman requires money, giving rich people more money does create jobs.

Both points of view are obviously part of the truth. The real question is what effect in which situation is more powerful. In economics there's always - at least - two sides to each argument. That's why it's so easy to abuse for media. If your media of choice only ever presents the one side, be careful.

In economics, also try to distinguish between what is fair and what is effective. Both aspects are important, but they need to be discussed separately.

(5)
Many people in Russia believe that Mr. Putin is good for the country. Almost nobody outside Russia thinks so. Many people in North Korea believe that their 'Leader' actually loves them. The people outside of North Korea think they are crazy. For decades the Japanese were convinced that their leaders make sure that their nuclear reactors are safe. In fact, none of their leaders ultimately felt responsible.
In the first half of the last century millions of Germans believed two times that a world war is in their interest. It's hard for any one of us to even begin to understand these thoughts.

Limited information is a powerful tool. And so is unlimited information as we can see in the Arab world and arguably Russia right now. If you, personally, want to make sure that your points of view resemble reality as closely as possible there are a few things you can do.


1) Try to read as many media from as many different interest groups as you can. Try to read global or at least foreign media. Domestic media has a stake - the outside world usually doesn't; and if it does it's often easy to spot. Nowadays most large news companies have an English version.

2) Try to use media that is honestly critical of itself from time to time. A few months ago a major German newspaper had the top-story: “Was the other side actually right all along?”. It was a genuine analysis of 'the other side”. I try to make sure to read this paper regularly since then.

3) Never, ever, think that it is more difficult to manipulate you than anybody else.

4) Try to be more critical of what you read, than about what you don't read.

5) Don't only try to understand what was written but also try to understand the author.

6) Don't shy away from different opinions. If several million people on the planet have a radically different opinion there's usually some amount of truth to be found there.

7) Try to use common sense. If you, personally, had $10mio in your bank account and intended to invest it to gain some 10% profit, at what tax rate would you not invest it?

8) Always be skeptical of business interests. If there's one thing that makes people manipulate you and even outright lie, it is money. Be aware of the fact that the best manipulation is to employ “journalists” who genuinely believe what one wants the outside world to believe. Remember that nobody changes his opinion if his job depends on it.

9) Always be skeptical of anything that sounds too good to be true. Examples are reducing taxes to increase tax revenue or spending more to reduce the deficit. These things might contain some parts of the truth but they sure as hell aren't the whole truth.

10) Do you want to believe or do you have reasons to believe? Is what you know actually sufficient to have a strong opinion in the first place?

11) Remember that the ultimate goal of any discussion is being convinced - to learn something. Trying to convince the other party is a favor you offer as a thank-you in return for their efforts.

12) Never give up trying to map reality with your neurons :)

28 comments:

  1. Apropos nothing, I was reading a CNN article about the Euro, and this paragraph made me laugh and think of you:

    "Printing money is associated with hyperinflation, the collapse of the Weimer Republic, and the rise of Hitler," noted Leach. "From a German perspective the question is that, once the ECB has lost its virginity printing money, just how promiscuous could it become."

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is what you would think if you read the most popular newspaper of this country. If you analyzed the politics in depth you would soon find that it is a "little bit" superficial :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Was Cameron right to seek protection for British finance at the possible expense of closer unity in Europe? Everyone has an opinion, but, for an average person, what facts are those opinions based on?

    A referendum on Europe is suggested, but if we really think the politicians can't rationally decide, then a referundum is really just a case of the totally clueless leading the blind.

    The problem is that we need democracy in order to avoid some form of oligarchy. But whilst we are avoiding it, it's best to leave technical decisions to technical experts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @CNN: I think one of the most impressive economic achievements of the last 100 years was Germany's ability to absorb the arguably "broken" East Germany and remain the power house of Europe.

    If this leads Germans to favour the real, hard solutions over the temporary, easy fixes then I say "Well done, Frau Merkel!"

    @Roq: I agree, to an extent - depends on which of my hats I put on.

    With my European hat on, I could say nobody asked me before we went down this road! Is it democratic to set up a technocracy? Or is that a tautology? Nevertheless, it's a question many Greeks and Italians are asking right now.

    With my British hat on, I have a lot of sympathy with the article from Der Spiegel that Nils linked to in a comment in his last post. It's right to say that we Brits were never fully bought in to the European project and we joined half-heartedly at the point it made economic sense for us.

    From a purely rational point of view you can argue that "It's what any sensible country would have done". However, see Nils post above - it's just the British point of view. The real point is that, from where we are now, a debate will be forced on the British about what it is they really want (and don't want) from Europe. I have no idea what the outcome will be but I'm going to enjoy watching the process!

    In the meantime, the rest of the Eurozone has to get on and make the hard decisions to fix the economy - that's what the whole of the economic world needs.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nils, I like that you have given us the opportunity to respond. I see in this latest example some areas where I need to improve. Here's a BTW, BTW an edit function for prior posts would help alot.

    Discourse in the US, and I assume all over the world, all too often falls into name calling. Take the debate about AGW. If you disagree you are a denier (ala holocost denier), and if you support you are an alarmist (ala chicken little sky is falling).

    But one reason for this is the vast majority of people don't know the facts let alone the capability to debate them. And when a denier starts to cite some facts they are dismissed with "thats just Fox News or an oil company saying that".

    This leads me to the biggest point that you missed. All too often people end up with a personal stake in their opinion. And they extrapolate that to mean if they are losing the debate somehow they as individuals are lesser or not as good. Most individuals are not interested in finding out the truth but instead in winning.

    Over here in the US our criminal trials have turned into this situation. You would think and hope that the prosecution (representing the state or government) would be more interested in truth and justice. Instead they are more interested in winning. So if we can't get a professional legalgroup of people to act outside of their own self-interest, how do we get average people to do so?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Take the debate about AGW. If you disagree you are a denier (ala holocost denier), and if you support you are an alarmist (ala chicken little sky is falling)."

    In the spirit of my last post, there's a pretty simple way to decide for yourself without becoming an expert in climate change. You, just have to look at the scientific consensus. The repeatability of scientific results is the only way we have of avoiding pitfalls. In the case of climate change, the consensus is that global warming is being caused by carbon emissions to a large extent. Consequently, there's a high probability that this is actually the case. Further, if the consensus is correct, the cost of doing nothing about climate change, far outweighs the costs of limiting emissions were the scientists wrong. So if you weight the probability with the costs you get a very convincing argument for controlling carbon emissions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Roq, scientific consensus has been wrong so often in history that I'm amazed anyone would ever state this. Science is not a poll but is based on proving theories through rigid experiments.

    Let's take the Big Bang Theory. A very big name in physics (Hoyle) was against the idea of an expanding univers. The name Big Bang was actually an insult created by him. Lemaitre was behind the expanding univers. His group were much smaller in number as Hoyle had the "scientific consensus". But then Hubble discovered the "red shift" and through this the Big Bang theory grew in consensus.

    I can also cite many, many examples where history later showed us that what the scientists just KNEW to be correct wasn't.

    Real science is the constant questioning of a theory and constant experimentation to actually prove the theory is wrong or that it has another explanation. AGW is not following this pattern. Just read the emails from Jones, Mahn etc as to how they state they must withold data and frame the argument to win politically.

    See believeing the "scientist" is fine if they are true to science. AGW is not a science but falls more into belief and religion based on how it is practiced.

    Your statement the cost of doing nothing about climate change, far outweighs the costs of limiting emissions has never been proven. It is scientifically proven that most species fair better in a warmer environment. And the Earth was many degrees warmer for millions of years then today (see cretaceous period). So how can you even state an opinion like that is anything more then just opinion?

    Here is one simple question. Can any scientist tell you what the optimal temperature of the Earth is or should be? If you can't answer that question how can you answer if getting warmer or colder is the right way to go?

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's certainly true that scientific theories evolve over time. Newtonian physics, for instance, is an approximation that Einstein improved upon. It's likely too, that relativity isn't entirely correct, since it's not compatible with quantum mechanics on the tiniest scales, such as those that may have existed close to the big bang. But Newton and Einstein are not wrong it's just that their theories progressively make our interpretation of physical reality more accurate.

    Hoyle's steady state interpretation arose in the very early days of cosmology, before cosmology became empirically testable - and in those circumstances, it was a reasonable assumption - one that Einstein made too (hence his original constant). Of course, now with powerful telescopes and CMB we know a lot more about the early universe.

    In short, you have to be able to distinguish what we know with reasonable certainty - Evolution, quantum mechanics, germ theory of disease, climate change etc. etc. These areas now have sufficiently large amounts of empirical evidence in their support that they can considered to be established fact. If you deny that science works then you can support any form of quackery. Fortunately though it does work - Airplanes do fly.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "It is scientifically proven that most species fair better in a warmer environment. And the Earth was many degrees warmer for millions of years then today (see cretaceous period). So how can you even state an opinion like that is anything more then just opinion?"

    This is nonsense I'm afraid. Species fair well in the environments that they have evolved in, whether that happens to be hot or cold, and they need time in which to evolve when the environment changes. If you make quick radical changes to those environments then that carries a severe risk of making species extinct.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Roq what si your point? I'm saying very simply that scientific consensus for AGW is not scientific proof of the theory. You go off on some tangent.

    Please state how scientific consensus is proff for a theory.

    I would like to point out as another example the consensus and changes in regard to super-symatry, M-Theory and 11 dimensions.

    Once again AGW has not been proven and climate change is not the same as AGW. I am not sataing that the climate doesn't change. I'm not stating that CO2 doesn't contribute something to climate. I'm stating that AGW or human caused CO2 is NOT the primary factor for any climate change.

    There are many credible sites including the University of Georgia climate studies (former believer in AGW but changed position) that believe other factors outside of human control are much more important to climate change then AGW.

    And BTW there is NO scientific consensus if you ask scientists a very specific question like:
    "Do you believe that the majority of any warming is due to human caused factors and that the changes in climate will be catasrophic to human nature?" Scientists are not supportive of that question. And without all parts being affirmative spending dollars on AGW is a wasted effort.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Here is one simple question. Can any scientist tell you what the optimal temperature of the Earth is or should be? If you can't answer that question how can you answer if getting warmer or colder is the right way to go?"

    Again, this misses the point. The Earth doesn't have a consistent single temperature. The best temperature for each species is the one that they're adapted to operate in. If you put a polar bear in the Sahara desert it's probably not going to thank you. Another thing you need to appreciate is that global warming does not equate to warmer temperatures throughout - it's more like putting a spanner in the works and some areas that are hot may have prolonged cold spells, drought, ... whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I'm stating that AGW or human caused CO2 is NOT the primary factor for any climate change."

    Yes. But why are you stating that? You seem to be contradicting your own rules that you stated earlier about bias. You're clearly not a climate scientist ... or a biologist. If you can't accept the scientific consensus, then how is it that you have arrived at your conclusions?

    ReplyDelete
  13. If you make quick radical changes to those environments then that carries a severe risk of making species extinct.

    You mean like the average 80-100 degree farenheit change between winter and summer?

    If a species can survive 100 degree summer heat and -20 degree winter cold (120 degree range) over the course of 6 months then your statement that it can't survive a 2 degree celius change over 100 years (IPCC numbers) would make them extinct?

    You really need to do some research. May I suggest studies from CERN regarding cosmic rays.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I would like to point out as another example the consensus and changes in regard to super-symatry, M-Theory and 11 dimensions."

    There's no consensus on these things - it's all at the cutting edge of physics. String theory just looks to be a promising approach at the moment. So the consensus here is just that string theory is the most promising of a number of different approaches, mostly because it accounts for a number of different phenomena without as many anomalies as other approaches - Occam's rasor applied to competing speculative theories, if you will.

    ReplyDelete
  15. My point is very simple. If AGW is not the primary cause of climate change then wasting trillions of dollars in CO2 changes is not only stupid but criminal.

    From a pure science perspective the pro-AGW people need to prove all the following conditions.
    1) The Earth's climate is changing.
    2) The change in climate is to where its warming up.
    3) This change is not associated to past trends.
    4) The cause of the change is due to CO2 emissions.
    5) Humans are the primary cause of CO2 changes.
    6) Reducing CO2 by humans will result in a reversal of the cahnge.
    7) The current change is actually bad for humans.
    8) The cost to do the reversal is actually LESS than any detrimental impact of the change.

    Unless you can prove all of the above points it does not make sense to spend trillions on 'doing something'.

    More research is necessary. Not some plan for wealth redistribution in the name of AGW.

    Finally, I notice that you resort to the false argument that only someone who supposedly is trained in a specific area could ever know about that area. Better tell Einstein that his theories were all wrong. Or take back the millions of inventions by people with no formal training in an area yet who discovered things.

    ReplyDelete
  16. There's no consensus on these things - it's all at the cutting edge

    And if that is the case then so is the sutdy of how climate works. QED

    ReplyDelete
  17. "If a species can survive 100 degree summer heat and -20 degree winter cold (120 degree range) over the course of 6 months then your statement that it can't survive a 2 degree celius change over 100 years (IPCC numbers) would make them extinct?"

    Again you seem to be completely missing the point. Ecosystems just don't work in that way. If you make random adjustments to temperature it doesn't get evenly hotter or colder, what happens is that you throw the whole system out of balance. Many of the worlds ecosystems - possibly most, exist in a delicate balance:- When you watch those salmon jumping up the rivers in Skyrim, imagine that the water was an inch or two shallower - the salmon could not jump and... That's the kind of slender thread on which nature hangs.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I really do strongly suggest you go read about the CLOUD research and the results they found over at CERN.

    I guess you can at least state that it advances the science sort of like how Copernicus did over Ptolemy or Newton over Copernicus or Eistein over Newton.

    Bottom line is the science is NOT settled and only a fool or someone in the religion believes that.

    Science is NEVER settled by the very definition of science.

    Take for example recent studies that may have found particles with mass exceeding the speed of light even in a vacuum.

    Or do you really believe that of all sciences only AGW is settled?

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Unless you can prove all of the above points it does not make sense to spend trillions on 'doing something'."

    Yes. A common enough fallacy. Proof is not a part of science - You can only prove things in mathematics and logic and then only when you have axioms that you assume to be true. Science is about the balance of empirical evidence; and here it's undeniable that the evidence shows with a high degree of certainty that carbon emissions are likely to be harmful to the future of the planet that we all depend on.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Roq, I also suggest you go study about the changes to the Saharah that happened about 8000 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Roq, please don't become a scientist.

    Science is about the balance of empirical evidence; and here it's undeniable that the evidence shows with a high degree of certainty that carbon emissions are likely to be harmful to the future of the planet that we all depend on.

    Even if true you still have to show that the costs of spending dollars today are cheaper then the costs of doing nothing.

    And you still refuse to even look at the CLOUD research from CERN (lots of scientists there BTW). That changes almost everything but the faithful in AGW don't want science. They want a religion.

    I can debvate science, I can debate facts. i can't debate with religion as that is based on beliefs and so far that is all you have presented here today.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I really do strongly suggest you go read about the CLOUD research and the results they found over at CERN."

    I'm well aware of this research and it's interesting. But again you are confusing the cutting edge of physics with the rather more prosaic, but valuable tasks, that are performed on a day to day basis by climate scientists. Perhaps in deed you should take your head out of the CLOUDs and attend to the more commonplace.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Goodmongo "Even if true you still have to show that the costs of spending dollars today are cheaper then the costs of doing nothing."

    You're correct, but it feels like you're trying to fight on too many fronts here.

    Your initial argument is that a scientific consensus does not exist on AGW -
    "AGW is not a science but falls more into belief and religion based on how it is practiced."

    Whether or not climate change is harmful to humans or we need to make significant investment to counter are separate questions.

    Despite the massive financial incentives to disprove climate change, there has not been a lot of success in discrediting prevailing scientific research as 'religious'.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Bernard: Re the burden of proof:

    If, as a somewhat benevolent global dictator on a lush and fertile planet, I said to my scientific advisory board: "In order to power my galactic invasion starfleet, I'd very much like to blow the entire stored carbon reserves of the planet over the course of the next century and I'll also need to cut down most of the world's trees. That's not going to be a problem is it?".

    What would my advisers say? Perhaps: "Sir, we can't say offhand exactly what will be the effect, but, since the atmosphere is dependent on natural processes, it does seem likely that there may be environmental impact to doing that. Perhaps it would be a good idea to check before you carry out your dastardly scheme; afterwards it may well be too late".

    ReplyDelete
  25. The burden of proof is always with the scientists PROPOSING the theory. That means the burden of proof lies with the AGW folks and not the other way around. This is how science works for every other field.

    Now the AGW people want to make drastic changes and spend trillions of dollars. If the argument did not impact global economies like say searching for the Higgs particle and validation of the standard model, it wouldn't be a big deal.

    But trillions of dollars are at stake. So the proof falls on the ones wanting to make the change and the spending of those dollars.

    And that means all 8 points have to be proved. Because if a single one of those 8 points turn out to be false you wasted away trillions of dollars.

    Now I can type another 1000 words and explain in detail why each individual point must be proved (and not just thought or believed to be true). But I'm hopin that logic overcomes your political desires and you honestly evaluate each point.

    ReplyDelete
  26. BTW - Looks like they've now found the Higgs at around 126GEV although details of exactly how confident they are reamin sketchy.

    Anyway your logic appears a little suspect. If there's a 50/50 chance that an asteroid is going to crash into the earth in 2012 destroying life as we know it and we have to spend a few trillion now to avoid it, would you advise the state to spend the money? I certainly would. Most scientists would agree that the danger of global warming is far greater than a 50/50 chance and that if we don't start averting it soon it will cost more than a few trillion to fix, if we can fix it at all. Fortunately, most countries in the world do take the danger seriously and hopefully we will get some kind of treaty on carbon emissions by 2015, that this time, hopefully, will be ratified by the U.S.

    As to the burden of proof being on one party - again that's nonsensical - The theory that pumping billions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere, whilst cutting down the worlds forests is not likely to cause damage most certainly hasn't been proven.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Roq, here is the flaw in your example.

    1) 50/50 chance of asteroid hitting earth.
    2) spend trillion dollars on device that has 0% chance of working.
    3) the astriod is very small and the damage from an impact would only be 1 billion dollars so spending 1 trillion is a waste.

    See points 2 and 3 are necessary to reach a logical conclusion.

    For AGW I listed 8 points. One of the points means that we must determine the exact percentage of any climate change that is caused by man. Can't you see that if man causes 1% of the change then we are limited to 1% correction. Unless we develope a weather/climate control system which is like developing a teleporter (not gonna happen in our lifetime).

    And you need to do an accurate and realistic cost benefit analysis that compares the actual costs and benefits (warmer climates do bring benefefits) and then compare that to the costs involved.

    So you must first accurately measure what the change if any is, then measure the amoutn of change that you can control.

    After that you need to determine how much your actions can impact or reverse the change. Not to mention determine if the change is actually detrimental.

    Many of these steps have never been done. Heck the IPCC can't even agree on what the change will be. From a low of 2 degrees celcius (with 1.2 already past us) to a high of about 7 degrees of change.

    I have no clue how old you are but watch what I say. Come 10 years maybe 20 when all of this has been completely rebuked and fully discredited reflect on this moment and see if you change how you approach these debates.

    I mean you have a consensus of nuts that state the world is ending in 2012 due to the Mayans running out of years on their calendar. Should we spend billions to to resolve that?

    Come 100 million years most life on Earth will be dead anyway due to plate tectonics and how that changes global climate. Or a gamma ray burst will be pointed at Earth and we'll die that way. And of course if we survive those in a couple to 4 billion years the sun will go red giant and Earth will be fried.

    Thank goodness countries like Canada are now seeing the fraud and leaving the scam. See I have news for you. the demand for energy has always increased and will continue to do so. More energy equates to longer lives and a better life. Carbon based energy will be around for hundreds of years at the least. And CO2 emmissions are NOT the primary cause of climate change.

    Do you even know what the largest greenhouse contributor even is? CO2 accounts for about 3% of all greenhouse contributions and man accounts for less than 15% of all CO2. Yet you believe that less than 1/2 of 1% is causing the changes?

    Oh BTW where do you get the line Most scientists would agree that the danger of global warming is far greater than a 50/50 chance and that if we don't start averting it soon it will cost more than a few trillion to fix from? Only the politicians say this or the Mann types. There is no most for that complete sentence. Most scientists have no clue and not done a cost study on how much it would cost to fix it. So please stick to facts, and seperate global warming from AGW. They are not the same.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Goodmondo - moved to Nils's new thread

    ReplyDelete