Advertisements

Archive

Posts Tagged ‘The New Yorker’

Being Aware of Cognitive Bias

The New Yorker, “Why Smart People Are Stupid”:

Self-awareness was not particularly useful: as the scientists note, “people who were aware of their own biases were not better able to overcome them.” This finding wouldn’t surprise Kahneman, who admits in “Thinking, Fast and Slow” that his decades of groundbreaking research have failed to significantly improve his own mental performance. “My intuitive thinking is just as prone to overconfidence, extreme predictions, and the planning fallacy”—a tendency to underestimate how long it will take to complete a task—“as it was before I made a study of these issues,” he writes.

Ahh, that’s unnerving. I would like to think that being aware of my own cognitive bias makes me able to recognize it in different but similar situations.

The classic example:  A bat and ball cost a dollar and ten cents. The bat costs a dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? Apparently, most people say 10 cents automatically.

I would like to think that because I have practiced conceptualizing it as 2x+ 1.00 = 1.10, x=0.05, it will make me more self-aware when encountering different but similar math word problems. Does this study suggest that would not be the case?

I dunno. I’m not sure what they mean by more “cognitively sophisticated” or how exactly they determine bias. I want to continue my “reading and criticizing primary sources” kick today, but I am very poor and the study .pdf costs $12.

The fine denizens of the Internet who have read the study, however, are criticizing The New Yorker article for overstating things. They’re saying that the smarter people only overestimated their own ability to overcome bias. This is a different kind of bias than performing poorly on the tests, and the association was weak anyway. With such a grandiose title like “Why Smart People are Stupid,” this accusation of blowing things out of proportion isn’t surprising.

Advertisements

Twitter as a Medium for Fiction? “Black Box” by Jennifer Egan

Follow @NYerFiction for “Black Box,” which will appear in ten nightly installments, from 8 to 9 P.M. E.T. If you miss it on Twitter, you’ll find each day’s installment collated here on Page-Turner.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/05/jennifer-egan-black-box.html#ixzz1vueU8F3k

The latest evolutionary mutation of literary mediums is here–short stories on Twitter.

I’ve never been impressed with Twitter, except for its ability to propel the hashtag from IRC networks to colloquial diction. I follow two comedians regularly and the rest of the people get spot-glances from my homepage whenever I log in, which is about once every 3 days. Nothing says, “I was the attention-starved middle child,” like regularly using Twitter.

Twitter is annoying. It’s a way to blog that’s as random and incoherent as writing on a bathroom wall. To use it to present staggered fictional prose, one 140-character-or-less sentence at a time, makes it more annoying. Serialized fiction deadens the reading experience and is done mostly for the profit of the publisher.

Sorry, Jennifer Egan. Tweeting your work is like painting in period blood. The final product still matters more than the unique means of production.  (Also, in my elitist opinion, this “story” is too meh for The New Yorker. Try turning it into a T.S. Eliot poem.)

Fail Whale.