Philosoraptor

Thursday, May 26, 2005

Tips on Thinking: What if the Tables Were Turned?

Another in my fascinatin' series in which I tell you things you alread know...

Here's a little trick to help you be a better reasoner in general, based on a trick your mom taught you about how to be morally good. Since many mistakes in reasoning are actually moral mistakes--e.g. unfairly using different standards for yourself and others--it should come as no surprise that the same trick that helps you in your moral reasonings will help you in other domains as well.

The trick goes a little something like this: when you are evaluating an inference or assertion, simply ask yourself "what if the tables were turned?" That is, if you are evaluating someone else's inference or claim, ask "how would I evaluate this if I had made it?" And if you are evaluating your own inference or claim, ask "how would I evaluate it if someone I disagree with had made it?"

This trick works very well, and that's because we do tend to apply differential standards to the claims of those with whom we agree and those with whom we disagree. We tend to be far less critical of the inferences made by ourselves and our allies than we are of our opponents. This is the logical analog of certain well-known moral facts: we all have a tendency to cut ourselves more slack than we cut others.

Cognitive scientists tell us that humans have a tendency to accept rather uncritically claims that they find congenial, but to submit other claims to scrutiny until they find some flaw in them. There is a certain respect in which this may be a rational strategy, but the logical downside of this inclination should be fairly clear.

Of course, applying a consistent standard to yourself and others doesn't guarantee that you're applying the correct standard...but applying different standards does guarantee that you're getting it wrong at least half the time...

Winston Smith

¶ 11:27 AM

Comments:

I liked the Scientific American article that speculates about the evolutionary basis of the double standard you talk about here. See Natural Born Liars.

It basically speculates that we employ this double standard, in which other's failings are more obvious to us than our own, in part because it makes us more effective liars. Like method actors, we need to believe we're being truthful in order to successfully deceive others. So, according to the article, our subconscious impels us into a self-serving act of deception aimed at someone else, while simultaneously deceiving our own conscious mind into thinking we're actually being honest..

The article's pretty skimpy on supporting detail, but I thought it provided an interesting notion of how the double standard might have evolved.

# posted by

John Callender : 11:51 AM

"I just came across your blog about **keyword** and wanted to drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with the information you have posted here.
I just installed a web site about **keyword**. Submit your articles for free and get lot of back-links and better ranking:
Keep up the great work, you are providing a great resource on the Internet here!"

Trondfree travel article

# posted by

WorldTrader : 10:31 AM

Speaking of directories, has anyone headr about the new political search directory out now? It is pretty much open to just about any category as far as I could tell and free to submit to. http://www.conservafind.com

# posted by

Anonymous : 4:03 PM

# posted by

archangel : 1:07 PM

Winston Smith

PHILOSORAPTOR(AT)GMAIL(DOT)COM

LINKS

PAST POSTS THAT DON'T SUCK