The list of intervantion to help counter
- Know biases and acknowledge that you are subjected to them. Ask where I might miss it myself?
- Falsify your idea
- Find credible sources that disagree with the.
- Try to formulate own falsification: what types of things exist in reality that, if discovered, would prove my theory to be false?
- Do . Work with competent people who disagree with you.Adversarial collaboration
- Write your Antithesis
- In a debate, it helps to make people restate the opposite view. From Why facts don't change our minds
- Be proactive in stating your Epistemic status
- Explain details of processes you think you understand
- When working in a group make sure there is ann equal engagement and that all participants are engaged equally. This unbias people by sourcing individual perspective from many different sides What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team?
- Do , gather outsiders perspective on your positionsUser research
- [To get out of a trapped prior are] other practices and lifestyle changes that cause the brain to increase the weight of experience relative to priors. Meditation probably does this; see the discussion in the van der Bergh post for more detail. Probably every mental health intervention (good diet, exercise, etc) does this a little. And this is super speculative, and you should feel free to make fun of me for even thinking about it, but sensory deprivation might do this too, for the same reason that your eyes become more sensitive in the dark.” See more in Meditation
- Set up public forecasting scores (See Open Philanthropy setup) or forecasting tournaments
- Easy way to counter andOverconfidencein general? DoMy-side biasReference class forecasting
- List all possible things that in case they happen would disprove my theory
In a study conducted in 2012, they asked people for their stance on questions like: Should there be a single-payer health-care system? Or merit-based pay for teachers? Participants were asked to rate their positions depending on how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the proposals. Next, they were instructed to explain, in as much detail as they could, the impacts of implementing each one. Most people at this point ran into trouble. Asked once again to rate their views, they ratcheted down the intensity, so that they either agreed or disagreed less vehemently. Tip from
Is correcting bias at scale possible?
Seems like on the side of yes is: Jacob Falkovich, Eliezer Yudkovsky, CFAR. On the side of no is: Kahneman, Scott Alexander.
Why is it very difficult?
Improving the quality of debate, shifting people's mindsets from transmission to collaborative truth-seeking, is a painful process. It has to be done one person at a time, it only works on people who are already almost ready for it, and you will pick up far fewer warm bodies per hour of work than with any of the other methods. But in an otherwise-random world, even a little purposeful action can make a difference. Convincing 2% of people would have flipped three of the last four US presidential elections. And this is a capacity to win-for-reasons-other-than- coincidence that you can't build any other way.