|
About This Author
Come closer.
|
Complex Numbers #959965 added June 1, 2019 at 12:49am
Restrictions: None
On the Bias
A few days ago, there was a prompt about bias.
https://dariusforoux.com/thinking-errors/
I keep getting links from this guy. A lot of what he says is like baby formula: pre-processed, imbalanced, and not as good as the real thing. Why do I keep getting links to him? Because I've clicked on a few. The powers that be don't care if I like something or not; if I click on it, they assume I want more like it. This is why I keep getting links to New York Times articles: I click on them, discover that I can't read them without paying, and dismiss them.
We need a name for that. Analytics bias? Trending bias? I'm open to suggestions.
Regardless, I can't find much to rant about in this one, except maybe that it's not very comprehensive - but he links to more thorough resources.
If you've read the link, you might be asking, based on some other things I've posted here, "Waltz, how can you agree with an article that includes the sentence, 'What it comes down to is this: Avoid making decisions based on beliefs, obvious logic, and even science?'"
Well, I don't necessarily agree with how it's phrased, but the key takeaway for me is this: like it or not, we're emotional beings. Any decision that fails to take emotion into account is going to be risky. But that doesn't mean we should be slaves to our emotions; we can still use science, logic, etc. to inform them.
I'll use as an example my efforts at weight loss. Yeah, I know I talk about it a lot, but that's because my intention is focused on it. That, I've found, is how I get results. If it's an afterthought, it doesn't work. Anyway, the example: this may come as a shock to you, but I really like beer (and other distilled and fermented beverages). But beer isn't conducive to weight loss. Overindulgence also has its drawbacks, in terms of short-term impairment (though sometimes that's the whole point) and long-term damage. So, logically and scientifically, not drinking may sound like a perfectly good solution: you don't risk making an ass out of yourself while drunk, and maybe you live longer, and you don't have to worry about it sabotaging any efforts at losing weight.
That works for a lot of people. Great. But that's not a tenable solution for me, emotionally. There's no point, to me, in living a life without the things that make life worth living.
Consider this: What is something that brings you great joy? You don't have to tell me; just think about it. Your kids? Your car? Playing pranks on your boss? A particular friend? Reading? Whatever it is, imagine it. Now imagine being told - having solid scientific as well as anecdotal evidence - that doing without this one thing might extend your life and/or make you healthier.
Could you give up, say, your kids, never speaking to them again, never seeing them, and maybe only hearing second-hand about what they're up to, for the rest of your life? Even if you could be 99.999% certain that they'd do just fine without you?
I'm guessing the answer is no. In which case, by the rules of the situation I've set up here, you're deliberately choosing to die earlier and/or be less healthy in order to experience something that gives you great joy.
Well, that's the case with me and beer. (And scotch, tequila, wine, gin, etc.) and some other things that science says is bad for me. So I've made my decision, informed by science, but ultimately fueled by emotion, to live an alcohol-positive lifestyle.
So yeah, I didn't mind this link so much. But the next one, I'll likely have something to rant about. |
© Copyright 2019 Robert Waltz (UN: cathartes02 at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Robert Waltz has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work. |
