This is a topic that I find so frustrating. Bias and logical fallacies are so easier to see in others, and for others to see in you, but are something that we're blind to ourselves.

How does one attempt to iron out their own logic deficiencies?

By introspection. Dare to see your own faults and try to eradicate them. If they really are faults to you.

Sometimes you're right, but not as often as you'd wish.

You can attempt all sorts of things, but you first need to accept that you will never be completely successful at removing bias and that you will continue to commit some logical fallacies.

The easiest way is to be connected to people who are willing to have hard conversations with you that challenge your beliefs and challenge your intellect. As you said, it's easier for others to see it in you, so let others help you do the work of identifying them.

But just because this is the easiest way, don't think for a moment that it's easy.

Failing to be proficient at introspection (most of us do), in all conversations where you don't stand to benefit from bragging (e.g., monetary raise, promotion, negotiation, tenancy application, picking up shallow women) adopt a humble (student) perspective.

Redefine your ego by how often you correct yourself (when you operate sensibly to begin with of course not recklessly) not by how often you are correct.

Treat yourself and your positions as scientific problems. Winning is not the objective. Being worthy of a win is.

This is good stuff.

I've definietly tried to adopt a method similar to this in the past. I still feel kinda disappointed having to give myself a cheap pat on the back everytime I overcome my own bias, just so I can actually overcome that bias

If others can see your flaws then use that as a tool. Get involved in debates. Be open with people. Be honest about what you think and why.
We can change what we see. If we can't see something, we can't change it. So how you find out where you brain is broken? Two ways:

- Stress test it. Give it hard things to do, and see how it copes. Dozens or hundreds of little challenges a day, over time, make your mind sharper and sharper.

- Hone it against an immovable object. Precision is your friend. Do problems where there is a precise answer (math and physics are very good) and where intelligence is needed to get the right answer. Then when you fail, you see the flawed assumptions that got you to failure. Do that enough, and you start to sense the processes behind the flawed assumptions that created those assumptions. At that point you can start improving your brain more rapidly.

This is why people who do physics are (usually) much better thinkers than people who do simpler science or humanities or psychology or economics. Honing against difficult-to-understand, unflinching reality bends your mind to reality a lot better than honing it against topics where the answer is mushy. The harder the topic and the less wiggle room you have in being correct, the better.

On top of that, you should read fiction very widely, especially the classics. Classic fiction is an amazing resource - it's the distillation of another person's thought patterns and wisdom, from another time and with different assumptions and philosophies - recreated in a few hours in your own mind. If we could do it with technology/sensor pads/mind projection tools, people would be in awe of its capabilities, yet those same people ignore that we can already enter another person's mind just as well through books.

The value of books is that once you've seen a topic or philosophy from the minds of ten different people, your own will have a more nuanced view - and you can better see your own flaws.

Another useful thing is to read thoughts that are ridiculous to modern minds. For example, Aristotle's The Politics, in which he defends slavery as natural and good and right, would send many a lefty apoplectic. But such a response is a sign of a terrible mind and a cowardly heart. Aristotle and those of his time (and those of all times, in fact), were no less moral or intelligent than people of today. They in part had a different view of the value of various life events, in part had a different philosophy about what matters in life, and in part were subject to many of the same biases that people are today in validating what they see around them as good and just and right.

Reading thoughts that are absolutely ridiculous (to you) might seem silly, but once you come to the understanding that they came from minds as intelligent and moral and thoughtful as your own, they become fascinating. And give you a lot of subtle (and tons-of-bricks not subtle) insight into just how biases are formed.

Avoid modern authors (post 1960) like the plague, if you want to become freer of biases.

Finally, read Bertrand Russell. The man is a wonderfully clear thinker.

Just constantly trying to will put you way ahead of most people. R

Remember that sometimes when you see it in others you are wrong either because of your own bias or because of communicative mistakes. If you start from the position they have something to say you will end up far less biased than if you just dismiss them as biased, fallacious idiots. Sure you will be wrong about them having something interesting to say a lot but discover it rather than assume it.

Learning to argue from the other side is great btw. If your pro-something then arguing from the other side you will start addressing your own biases. Sometimes this has to be done introspectively

Senses of compassion and humor about mistakes is worth developing.

I have several grain of salt for external criticism. Mostly one for that fact that nobody else can actually be aware or think for another person.


Individual effort of thought is required to 'grok' a personal fallacy, as is a measure of intention and awareness.

Also, a person must have a plan, a framework for mental change in the present. Yesterday's logical fallacies are but ghosts and the potential one's in the future have no logical requirement to exist as long as a human individual can change their mind in the present.

Which leads to Mindfullness as a suggested practice to go along with one of self-examination for solutions to fallacious thinking.

Im actually impressed by the many good answers here. I have for a long time felt the subject to be of very high value to those who seek knowledge. Being able to criticize ones own thoughts is not a common trait in my experience. Even the brighter ones lack in it, i guess thinking straight is just a hard thing to do.

When you take in knowledge and store it in your brain some percentage of it is just going to be wrong. So the longer your lifespan the more energy and time you should put into testing the knowledge before accepting anything. If you live infinitely long then there is no limit to how much the knowledge should be tested before accepted. The reason is that false information will give your decisions false premises and the error will compound on and on into infinity. Since we live for not that long there has to be a tradeoff between practicality and energy for testing our knowledge. We basically have to accept that some of our knowledge will just have to be wrong because we cant sit around all day testing it (by e.g deducing stuff and see whether we like the result or not).

I think the way to go if you want to improve is a few things. First you have to commit to find truth. This is not always pleasant in my experience and I regularly find myself deviating from this. And to be honest even if I discover that I deviate i dont always want to correct myself onto the path where truth is. Truth can be cold and unappealing sometimes, i dont think you always want it tbh, people are emotional beings.

The second thing is to study logic or watch people who are masters at logic in action. An example of the latter could be e.g a professor pointing out a bunch of holes in Kasparovs arguments from an article, I havent seen this myself but heard about it. It starts with the professor asking the students whether or not Kasparov is intelligent (or something). I think the more you have seen of stuff like this the more you will recognize problems in your own opinions and thoughts and argument.

As a last note that can illustrate how fragile ones foundation for knowledge is: Look at what i have written, i have basically zero proof for any of this. Most of it is just writing what i feel is true about the subject. Its basically a number of claims with zero proof or data or questionaires to back it up. Hard knowledge doesnt come by easy.

Why? Are people who devote a lot of time to active skepticism happier than non skeptical people? Are they better thinkers? Are they more functional?

I'm not sure the answer to any of those questions is "yes".

I think most errors tend to be naturally self limiting, provided we do novel things, think in different ways, and interact with reality. Do you have some examples of errors compounding into infinity?

Well there you go right, so this view is called "Scepticism" in philosophy it seems (as you point out). I think its not possible to answer this in a good manner without the discussion escalating on to more and more problems of philosophical art. I recognize my view here is actually no good.

As for your second quote, my view is that knowledge helps you build new knowledge. They serve as premises for your arguments and so lets you deduce new knowledge. If your premises are wrong, then your new knowledge will be wrong. This new knowledge will serve as premises for more new knowledge, building more wrong knowledge. The more bad knowledge you have the worse your decisions will be. So a single wrong knowledge here means you will compound more and more wrong knowledge, affecting more and more decisions.

Examples of something more concrete: a persons understanding of Nash equilibrium and game theory is slightly off, letting a life long heads up nl holdem player make millions of decisions coloured by his imperfect theory. Better understanding would have meant more Money at every stage of life, changing what stakes he has played, what car he drives, what x and what y.

I don't know what you mean by the last sentence. And escalating to deeper and deeper problems is basically what SMP is about. And science, for that matter.

This is the bit that I'm unsure about. I see held knowledge not as an isolated linear line of deduction, but something where many - dozens, hundreds, thousands of data points and views enter over time to form a picture. Basically a many-to-one mapping instead of a one-after-the-other type deal.

I agree that people have certain traits where bad knowledge/false beliefs becomes very sticky, but I'm not sure what the best way to root them out is.

Sure
I see what you're saying, but I don't see our minds as this fragile and error-prone. Am I wrong?

Generally I find shining a light in your mind a lot better than keeping your thoughts to yourself, if you want to become a better thinker. The only way to shine a light on it is to have other minds look at its products.

Well, putting your thoughts out there is a good idea. It's easy to be a watcher and criticizer (any kid knows that very well), a lot harder to be a doer. And the hard/uncomfortable path is how you get better.

Well done, you've just defined the blind spot bias.

I mean that since I cant really point to any specific reason why you "should" be conducting active scepticism as a function of life length there is no reason for me to honor the idea or thought I presented regarding the issue. Like I mentioned earlier, commiting to truth is central to overcoming bias.

Escalating to deeper and deeper problems is what SMP is about, I dont disagree here. My concern here was more to restrict myself from overcommitting to this thread and discussion. I dont think my views on many of the things in discussion is worth much, I believe I made some statements that I cannot backup.

Well the smallest unit of information is the distinction of two states, call this a bit of information, presented as either 1 or 0. You are talking about a "Picture", which sounds like a set of bits. I will bet that doing any type of deduction where the premise is a Picture instead of a Bit will be a far fetched thing. But who knows, im no expert here. I cant see myself having performed anything like that though. Mostly when I perform any deduction it is just a few simple pieces of information (statements) and the result is a single statement.

However when riding a Bicycle i dont think we perform any sort of active thinking at all, its just feelings and stuff like that. Maybe the brain is performing millions of deductions using Pictures to keep you stable here. I kind of doubt that though.


Well my view is that quite some percentage of our knowledge is wrong. Both information we take in and interpret from the external world as well as the results of our deductions (and inductions) often ends up wrong. I think part of the reason is that people have a very poor understanding of how hard it is for knowledge is to come by, its hard work, its not a walk in the park.

To examplify this concider the topics of politics, chess, mathematics, poker, stocks. Now we can all agree that all these topics are areas where you can become an expert after a large amount of studying. All of these topics are hard and there is alot to learn for anyone.

Now if you have ever visited any forums where topics like these are discussed then you might have noted a significant distinction between the forums where politics, poker and stocks are discussed vs forums where mathematics and chess are discussed. Basically in the forums of the first group everone think they are rich in knowledge, whereas in the latter group most people who doesnt have a clue are silenced. Also in the latter group people are very humble about their knowledge, whereas in the first group people are not humble at all (note that big international forums are quite a bit better than smaller national forums).

In the politics forums leaders are critizised all the time but nobody knows the whole picture without being in their shoes. In the Stock forums people want dividends for all the wrong reasons. In the poker discussions people would shove all in or herocall but ben86 or sauce would never do the same.

Like I mentioned, people dont recognize how hard it really is to have any kind of knowledge on these topics and therefore they talk about them like its nothing. In chess and mathematics however people understand how clueless they are. If you have read research papers on any topic of choice you have seen how much discussion and work and analysis is required to produce just a tiny bit of new knowledge. And even then their results are often critizised for their methods. Guesswork by people who have never invested the time in understanding logic or in understanding the topic isnt going to be worth much.

Okay enough of my rambling, but this is how I see it basically.

Knowledge is difficult to come by, sure. But your approach to knowledge, whether humble and sceptical, or confident and head-strong, will largely depend on what it is to be used for.

For example, the reason mathematicians or scientists generally appear more humble and sceptical, is because that knowledge is to be used for dialogue (and invention) with other mathematicians and scientists. If a scientist or mathematician were to talk to a political leader on the other hand, they wouldn't necessarily adopt a humble or sceptical approach. That's not what politics is used for, nor is that how dialogue is conducted in politics. Change must happen quickly there, so being overly sceptical or cautious are not particularly useful qualities.

To that extent, I believe that adaptability, is just as important, as the 'student' approach to dialogue may be.

I also believe that not enough scientists care to adapt. And as long as they continue avoiding the dialogue of the mass populace, the longer the divide between science and public affairs will endure.

Note that im merely attacking the truth value of peoples knowledge or statements, im not attacking their usefulness. A statement is either true or it is not true, whether the statement is useful in politics or other areas doesnt touch upon this.


Let me present some problems from my yesterday that comes to mind (not as a reply to you in particular)

I was going to throwing logs from one place to another, i thought i would have to throw them all but most were rotten, so i was wrong.

I started throwing logs from one end of the shelter where many was rotten, my neighbour told me that there was better logs in another end. I thought whatever I will find enough logs for today at where I am now, but no I didnt.

I was throwing logs and I thought I would manage in good time before the dark, but suddenly there it was, so I was wrong.

Before i started throwing logs i thought i would not get too worked up and sweaty, but no I certainly did, wrong again.

I asked my neighbour to connect the wire at his house to turn on the light in the log shelter, he told me ok and that I had to connect the other end at the shelter, I believed this fully, but no this wasnt the case - it was already connected, so i (and him) was wrong again.

I thought i could check something right behind the flood light without my eyes getting blurred from the light but no this wasnt the case, wrong again.

When I started arranging logs inside the shelter I immedietely saw that the way I had pictured to myself how i would arrange them was not realistic at all, wrong again.

I had also pictured to myself what effort it would take to remove the tarpaulin inside the shelter, definitely wrong again.

Later I thought I would be able to reply to this thread within a certain time interval, but I used alot more time than I had thought.

I also pictured to myself that I would not involve myself all that much in the topic, but I definitely involved myself more than anticipated.

I also thought that I should definitely not think too much about this abstract stuff, but i definitely ended up doing just that.

Later I pictured to myself that i would sleep at 0230 am and surf on my ipad for like 15 minutes and sleeping before 0300, but I ended up sleeping at about 0430.

Earlier on the evening I thought I would go down and get some cake before bed, but it didnt happen.

Something isnt true just because you feel that it must be true
Something isnt true just because you hope that it must be true
Somethign isnt true just because you think its silly for it not to be true
Something isnt true just because you wish for it to be true
Something isnt true just because you worked hard for it to be true
Something isnt true just because your emotions get hurt if it isnt true
Something isnt true just because you said to yourself for 10 years that it is true

Just saying

Or IOW, have a strategy and not a plan.

One of my earliest influences was Lee's JKD book, the original edition. Sure it's easy to find.

Piss when needed, eat when hungry, sleep when tired.

Then just piss all over that to see what you can take.

I know, y'all. I do exist. They can **** off.

Sure thing. All I am saying is that the truth value of peoples statements can, depending on the domain, be determined entirely by the usefulness of the statements.

Indeed, truth is often determined entirely by its usefulness.

Let's look at one of your examples:

"When I started arranging logs inside the shelter I immedietely saw that the way I had pictured to myself how i would arrange them was not realistic at all, wrong again."

The fact that you were seemingly wrong about the way you pictured yourself arranging the logs doesn't mean that the truth about the best way to picture yourself arranging the logs is important. Or that there is such a truth.
For example, perhaps the way you pictured is the only way that anyone in your position, would picture it.

Ultimately, whether there is a truth on this would be determined, in reality, by the outcome of the process of arranging the logs. If it is seen that you arranged them badly, then the usefulness of your approach to arranging the logs could be improved. If, on the other hand, it is seen that you arranged them well, then the usefulness of your approach is sufficient.

See how in this instance, the 'truth' is conflated with 'what is useful'? In other words, it is determined by 'what is useful'.

The point is that, more often than not, this is the source of truth-value. There is not some ethereal realm of 'truth' where all truth resides. It is instead determined by the observed usefulness of various approaches (theories).

I think I definitely agree to this, if I understand correctly. I think my view is both down to earth and pragmatic. Let me write an example myself just to check.

I tell a person before we start arranging logs that we should definitely arrange from right to left as opposed to left from right. When we arrive at the log shelter it is evident that doing it the other way is way better somehow, then the person should definitely tell me my statement was not true: we should do it the other way. Mkay?

So then if we agree about this, I dont think this interrupts the view I have been presenting in this thread? Maybe you thought I had this realm of truth thing going on?

I just got that erroneous impression, from you focusing on 'truth' so much.

Sometimes a collective lie has more substance than the truth. Often, it will have more value.

gl.