To What Extent is Human Judgment Distorted and Flawed?
This thread topic is based on the discussion in 'Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment', by Daniel Kahneman, Olivier Sibony, Cass R. Sunstein(2021). They argue that,
'Some judgments are biased; they are systematically off target. Other judgments are noisy, as people who are expected to agree end up at very different points of view around the target.'
The use of the idea of noise is referring to interference, which may include weather, as well as human moods and fatigue. This involves filtering information and clarity in the process, as well as biases. It comes into medicine, especially the subjective aspects of psychiatric diagnosis. Also, it comes into play in assessments in child custody, job interviews and performance appraisals. The authors argue that, 'In the case of professional judgments, the belief that others see the world much as we do is reinforced in multiple ways'. Here, they point to consensus agreements about language and rules.
The authors argue that, 'measurement is in the human mind', and, 'Matters of judgment, including professional judgments, occupy a space between questions or facts or computations on the other hand, and matters of taste.'They also suggest that groups and organisations amplify the noise, and that both system and pattern noise is involved in errors.
The topic area is important for considering human judgments in daily life. The argument in the book is that artificial developments may help with accuracy, although this is not a substitute, as, 'understanding the world depends on our extraordinary ability to construct narratives that explain events we observe.' This underlying problem is of human subjectivity and the authors suggest that awareness of noise as a critical aspect of human judgments is important.' Any thoughts?
'Some judgments are biased; they are systematically off target. Other judgments are noisy, as people who are expected to agree end up at very different points of view around the target.'
The use of the idea of noise is referring to interference, which may include weather, as well as human moods and fatigue. This involves filtering information and clarity in the process, as well as biases. It comes into medicine, especially the subjective aspects of psychiatric diagnosis. Also, it comes into play in assessments in child custody, job interviews and performance appraisals. The authors argue that, 'In the case of professional judgments, the belief that others see the world much as we do is reinforced in multiple ways'. Here, they point to consensus agreements about language and rules.
The authors argue that, 'measurement is in the human mind', and, 'Matters of judgment, including professional judgments, occupy a space between questions or facts or computations on the other hand, and matters of taste.'They also suggest that groups and organisations amplify the noise, and that both system and pattern noise is involved in errors.
The topic area is important for considering human judgments in daily life. The argument in the book is that artificial developments may help with accuracy, although this is not a substitute, as, 'understanding the world depends on our extraordinary ability to construct narratives that explain events we observe.' This underlying problem is of human subjectivity and the authors suggest that awareness of noise as a critical aspect of human judgments is important.' Any thoughts?
Comments (74)
Quoting Jack Cummins
I think Kahneman’s approach is fundamentally limited due to his attempt to explain human behavior on the basis of an objectively normative model. Cognition is not the computational representation of information, it is the subjective constural of valuative relations. Words like ‘distortion’, ‘bias’, ‘error’,’off target’ rely on normative abstractions serving as the criterion of accuracy and correctness.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Judgement is not a space between fact and value. Value is prior to fact , in that all facts are intrinsically valuative.
n
I think the notion that our judgments are "distorted and flawed" has become so commonplace among many of those of the Academy and their acolytes that it serves merely to discourage judgment, if it doesn't render judging anathema. It's a truism in any case. We judge all the time, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. We can make better judgments than we do. Let's try to do that rather than avoid making them or apologize when we do.
I have to admit that I was a little disappointed by the book because its arguments didn't go as deep as I thought that they could have done. Other than show subjective bias and interferences in the processing of information there was not much scope to the discussion.
Back in the 70s, there was a campaign for natural childbirth in the UK. Women often felt that child birth was over-medicalised, that the wishes of expectant mothers were being overridden, and that obstetric interventions such as forceps delivery, caesarian sections, induced contractions, etc, were overused because they were expressions of male power in a place where the previous tradition had been for female midwives to be in charge.
The campaign had some success, and all sorts of innovations came in to re humanise childbirth and de-medicalise it; birthing pools more natural positions than lying on a bed, de- stressing the event to reduce pain and promote relaxation, and so on.
50 years on, there is a scandal in several hospitals about excess neonatal and maternal deaths, caused by an ideological commitment to natural childbirth, overriding the mother's wishes and failing to implement those same interventions of caesarians, inductions and forceps that were being overprescribed before. So it goes.
There is no recipe for avoiding both type one and type two errors, except this:
[quote= Lao Tau - 29]Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it?
I do not believe it can be done.
The universe is sacred.
You cannot improve it.
If you try to change it, you will ruin it.
If you try to hold it, you will lose it.
So sometimes things are ahead and sometimes they are behind;
Sometimes breathing is hard, sometimes it comes easily;
Sometimes there is strength and sometimes weakness;
Sometimes one is up and sometimes down.
Therefore the sage avoids extremes, excesses, and complacency. [/quote]
Kinda like Gödel's incompleteness theorems: no system can prove its own consistency and all systems will always be incomplete. We need (a) god(s), by definition superior to us and thus not limited by the flaws in human cognition.
A good idea god(s) is/are but, at the same time, extremely dangerous. We're playing with fire, we're gonna get burned!
:fire:
And yet, however "distorted" or "noisy" it is (via e.g. misunderstandings, expectations, biases, delusions, etc), judgment is the enabling-constraint of every adaptive behavior and practice.
I definitely agree that it is worth striving for making the best and fullest judgments possible. It probably involves looking at all the factors and not being superficial. The book didn't seem to me to give enough consideration to the ways of overcoming 'noise' and bias in specific ways, other than recognizing that it occurs.
Actually, given the constraints of 'noise', human beings often make fairly good judgments.
I don't feel able to write anymore. I think that I am coming down with flu because I can't eat properly today and just fell asleep, so I will go to bed and look at the thread when I am feeling a bit better.
Jack hits the bullseye!
I work in a small office and over the years I've learned a valuable lesson: perfection is impossible BUT we must, at all times, do the best given the available information & resources. Maximize gains with what you have (real) and not what you'd like to have (imaginary)! What say you Jack? A good judge should be able to say more.
Have we picked ourselves up from the ground? Are we still falling? Did we die from the fall? What is it? pray tell!
Get well soon Jack!
Desperately trying to mend broken wings while free fallin'.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1lWJXDG2i0A :cool:
Nevertheless, pressing ahead, in ancient and pre-modern culture, there was a definite link between sagacity (the attributes of sages) and judgement, including (but not limited to) moral judgement. For example a few months ago, I provided a link to one of the publishers who had a collection of ancient philosophical texts for modern reader (here.) So I would suggest that the Peter Harrison book is related to that genre (with the caveat, of course, that according to Biblical authority, all the other purveyors of ancient wisdom were pagans).
I will say, I haven't read the book Jack mentions although it does look interesting.
:lol:
From my college days, if memory serves, errors are of two kinds:
1. Haphazard/random errors: +/- (too much or too less) with no clear winner. Jack Cummins probably refers to these as noise.
2. Systematic errors: Bias, either always excessive or always deficient.
Both are errors in measurement/judgment
Systematic errors are a double whammy: not only are there errors but now the errors are, let's just say, unfair (partiality).
If you want to make mistakes, the moral of the story is, make random ones!
that's a judgement.
I am feeling a bit better, but the problem of human error is still one which remains. I am not suggesting that many aspects of the human limitations of judgments are not ones to be tackled philosophically. It may be that the elimination of error and bias is the most which human beings can strive towards. Clarity of thought and aspects of objective approaches in evaluating information may be of utmost importance in the best possible attempts at careful judgments.
The question of whether a judgment is beyond an art form is outstanding. It could be asked how various perspectives are considered here, especially those of the arts and sciences. How may such approaches be evaluated in relation to the larger picture of philosophical truth?
Medical judgments, like law have such an 'official' status. Many dare'nt question them. I am not coming from the view that effort and expertise is not involved in such judgments. However, in some instances the judgments may not be full enough and the lack of the fullest depths of judgments in human affairs, including medicine and law, may lead to compromised views of possible options and the scope of understanding the complexities of life, and choices.
[quote=Christian Ready]But one thing these images have in common is that they're all what's called diffraction limited and that means they can't get any sharper because of the effects of light diffracting off of the telescope hardware and the internal optics of the instrument. So really these images are as sharp and as best focused as the laws of physics and optics will allow.[/quote]
We're on the same page Jack.
The issue may be about the best lens of perception, for judgment. It may be about recognizing biases and interference as a potential problem, and as a means of overcoming these problems. It is not possible to go beyond subjectivity in the process of evaluating and interpretation, but it may be that it more that can be understood about these aspects, which infringe on judgment, may allow for a certain amount of distance in understanding. Human beings are not able to step outside of subjectivity, but the awareness of subjectivity may be an important starting point for thinking about how interpretation and evaluations are made.
True, what you say. I still don't know how to tell these (mass hysteria/folie à plusieurs & objectivity) apart. If I'm mad then it's not ok; if everyone's mad, it's ok! Religions are deliberately bracketed out of the definition for delusions. Go figure!
I don't know what else to say Jack.
The nature of language may be a source of discussion, especially in understanding the lack of objectivity in judgments. It may be that many people think that they are being objective, but there may be more to it. There may be blindspots in judgments. Perhaps, the awareness of the psychological aspects of judgment may be important in understanding this area of philosophy. The understanding of where is coming from may be a starting point for escaping the attachment to opinions and a more rigorous and less slanted view, especially in relation to aspects of social and political life. Bias may be curtain for hiding behind, and it may be that once the curtains fall down the obstacles present in judgments may enable greater clarity of thought.
The task may be to try to see beyond delusion, which may involve greater awareness of the processes of evaluating information, as a path towards a certain amount of critical awareness.
@Wayfarer
Is everything broken? :cry:
Toys...Broken Toys
More awareness? Zen folk might wanna have a word with you (mushin no shin aka mind without mind). Try that on for size! The choices, Jack, are
1. Madness
or
2. Madness
Enjoy!
Cool!
I am sure that many of us make great errors in judgment. It may be that greater understanding of assumptions and premise of arguments may lead to greater understanding of thought. It may not be easy to filter out all biases and 'noise', but this awareness of the ways in which the various sources of distortion may lead to less distortion. I am not suggesting that all human beings may wish to get to the point of objective 'truth' it is possible that the breakdown of ideas of objectivity may be a catalyst for more careful, with more attention to the fine-tuning of detail.
There are blindspots in everything - that's where the light gets in... (Sorry Leonard).
Think on this - how do you tell the difference between a blind spot and someone practicing discernment?
Blindspots may be a problem and human beings may try to flee from them and hide in the shadows or under the duvet. It may be that the most strongest of perceived thoughts may be a source of delusions and blind spots. This is hard to work with though, and it could be that the greater entanglements of identity and quests for truth may enable a certain amount of demystification and more clarity about personal viewpoints.
We're all a little mad is what I wanted to get across to you. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be we're all insane in our own way. Each one of us is unique, oui? Then we're all crazy, by definition. Another way of coming at the issue would be that we all want to be in patient in a loony bin! We just don't realize that's what we want!
Many people may learn from small errors. It may be best to make the smaller errors, but it is a continuum. Also, what appears to be a small error for some may be an atrocious one for some other people. In this sense, the whole art or science of judgments may be haphazard and something to be learned, in order to avoid being belled as a 'failure' or lacking in the attributes of 'beauty ' in evaluating taste and evaluation of where one stands in relation to categorisation of what is conceptualized as 'normal.
Wild cards! Spanner in the works!
Hello, hello, 911, I'd like to report a suspicious looking person near my house.
It may be worth asking where are the most erroneous judgments are made. Part of the problem may be about seeing the consequences of certain behaviours and decisions. That is even if the outcomes of action are problematic, if other opinions or choices could have made.
The various judgments and measures affect outcomes, but the internal perceptions or projections of 'evil' onto others may be in relation to fear of a 'judge' who may punish and reward. In speaking of this, I am not suggesting that changing other should always, but the creative exploration of possible futures Any thoughts?
1. He has good judgment
2. Don't be so judgmental!
This just crossed my mind. Maybe our poor performance vis-à-vis judgment (violating the proportio divina rule) isn't a bug but a feature. We must, in a sense, keep ourselves in the dark about our and others' true nature. If not we may all be a suicide risk! How bad does one have to be to not wanna live anymore (guilt is a known suicide inducer)? :chin:
It's probably worth thinking a bit about what a judgement is and when one makes one. It looks to me that judgement is what is called for when the limits of knowledge are reached. It's associated for example in driving skill with anticipation. One judges the speed of other traffic and anticipates where they will go and where one will be in relation. In the circumstance of driving, good judgement means not maximising correct judgements but [s]minimising[/s] rather eliminating disastrously wrong judgements. But if you are playing a taxi computer game, a few lethal accidents more or less is unimportant. Thus good judgement is something different from getting it right all the time or even most of the time. this is what I was hinting at with my previous example.
question/comments prompts me to the famous story of the philosopher Thales (water of all things), who whilst looking at the stars fell into a well (not implying any users here! ). The below abridged passage is the earliest version for all to enjoy, for me it’s a reminder, a caution, at times not to take philosophers or philosophy too seriously.
From Plato’s Theaetetus:
Socrates and Theodorus in discussion…
SOCRATES: Well, here’s an instance: they say Thales was studying the stars, Theodorus, and gazing aloft, when he fell into a well; and a witty and amusing Thracian servant-girl made fun of him because, she said, he was wild to know about what was up in the sky but failed to see what was in front of him and under his feet. The same joke applies to all who spend their lives in philosophy. It really is true that the philosopher fails to see his next-door neighbor; he not only doesn’t notice what he is doing; he scarcely knows whether he is a man or some other kind of creature. The question he asks is, What is Man? What actions and passions properly belong to human nature and distinguish it from all other beings? This is what he wants to know and concerns himself to investigate. You see what I mean, Theodorus, don’t you?
Your point about avoiding drastic mistakes and consequences is important in relation to judgments. In this way, it is probably related to risk management, and the severity of what is at stake. It may be about the elimination of dangers with a certain amount of caution in preventing grave errors. Judgment is likely to be fallible, but the need for the utmost rigour is more important, especially in relation to life and death issues, including medical ones and legal ones. Some judgments are more important than others, so probably require far greater carefulness in weighing up all the intricate details.
What's interesting here is that you say 'utmost rigour' - which I do not disagree with. But what does utmost rigour look like in this domain? Judgements based almost entirely on... empiricism, perhaps? Life and death matters may not be found in Platonism, say, which is perhaps where we find consolation and myths to make life (seem) more meaningful. Not unimportant of itself, but a different job.
Food for thought: We humans are mistakes (re random gene mutations)! Intriguing, si?
Error and mistakes are how we learn, so if we focus too much on avoiding the risk of mistakes, then we reduce the information we can gain from enacting a narrower range of fallible judgements. The trick in risk management, I think, is to understand our capacity for error-making within our particular relational structure. Recognising, for instance, that we’re capable of going weeks without food but only days without water enables us to push the body closer to its limits in pursuit of information, despite a rising fear of death.
Kant’s critique of the faculty of judgement explores its limitations within the human condition. When we refrain from enacting judgement and examine the relation between all three faculties at conceptual and imaginative levels, we can see that feeling, attention and quality necessarily affect how we can and do enact judgements.
:snicker:
:up: Spiderman let an armed robber escape and it ended badly - beloved uncle Ben was fatally shot! Life, if it is a game, is in hardcore mode! No second chances!
[quote=Master Oogway]There are no accidents.[/quote]
[quote=William Cowper]God moves in a mysterious way.[/quote]
Maybe
[i]There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically. "May be," the farmer replied.
The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed. "May be," replied the old man.
The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. "May be," answered the farmer.
The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "May be," said the farmer.[/i]
Zero-Sum Games?!
:snicker:
It is a question whether everything happens for a reason or as a result of complex causations. How this is judged in the human mind may make a big difference. If someone believes that everything happens for a reason it may lead to a sense of fatalism and inevitability. However, if the multiple causal factors are taken into account it can lead to thinking about the future and how all the causes in the future may be determined by actions taken in the present.
Kahneman aside, there are so many different aspects of judgment, ranging from predictions about what is likely to happen, especially in relation to decisions made. Also, there is the way in which people judge, or prejudge other people. Judgments are made throughout life because they are at the centre of all choices in life, including who to associate with and weighing up information about the past. Judgment is at the core of thinking, involving reflective processes and without judgements people would be passive rather than able to make authentic choices.
Kant's ideas on judgment are useful for thinking about this various aspects of the process. It is likely that there are different levels of awareness and consciousness and the awareness, particularly in reflecting on mistakes is important. The reflection on mistakes is probably essential in learning from them but may not always mean that better choices are made in the future. I have come across the idea that the importance of studying history is in order to learn from mistakes made. But, it is not always clear that mistakes will be less likely because the variables being judged may change so much.
With risk assessment, that is so much of a current policy approach within organisations for making judgements and assessments. Sometimes it helps in looking at potential predictions. However, it often is less effective in practice due to the limitations of knowledge. One example which I give, and that is because it was what I used to be involved in judging risk in mental health care, is risk of harm to oneself and others. There were important aspects of guidelines as to how people had acted in the past, but the problem was that it was not possible to know people's plans and motivation.
The basis of evaluation is on knowing what is going on in someone's mind on the basis of what they say and do, which only gives a partial picture of intent. In all judgments involving human affairs the undisclosed truths of people, as well as general unpredictability make human judgments extremely difficult. Some people speak of intuition but that can even be subconscious bias, so there are likely to be restrictions in accurate judgments of events which have happened in the past, character and potential behaviour.
Really superb points. G'day.
You know that I am a little inclined to see philosophy as the search for answers and truth. When I wrote the thread I didn't clearly think about what I meant by the term judgment but I guess that I was implying accuracy as a general measure. For example, if there is a court case it is a matter of weighing up information and witness accounts to get the truest picture. For example, there have been people sentenced to prison and it has later been discovered that they were not guilty. Some aspects of judgment are about clarity and thoroughness, like if one has a medical issue and goes to doctors there is a need for thoroughness and care in getting the most correct diagnosis and treatment, which gets into medical ethics. It may be that judgment as an aspect of philosophy is connected to the application of philosophical scrutiny in the practical matters of life and the use of critical analysis and thinking.
Agreed. The choice may be simply to avoid the whole ‘bad’ situation in future, but personally I think we learn more when we don’t judge at the level of action. The importance of studying history is to break down our so-called mistakes and understand why as humans we made that particular sequence of choices, when we might have had alternative avenues available, and where those might have led us instead. If we had simply buried the shameful history of Hitler’s regime, we might never have recognised the errors in electing Trump before it was too late...
Quoting Jack Cummins
Agreed again. Past behaviour is not the best indicator of future behaviour, when all’s said and done. There’s far more to potentiality and risk than past actions, but often that seems to be all we can quantify, and we have to start somewhere. Risk of self-harm is especially difficult - often it’s what they’re NOT doing that’s indicative of increasing risk, which you can’t really quantify. I don’t think it’s all that useful to consolidate judgement or assessment here - it appears more certain, but is ultimately limiting because it leaves out unquantifiable relations. It think it’s more about an ongoing process of qualitative prediction and adjustment in increasing awareness, connection and collaboration to minimise risk. I find it is our capacity to relate without judgement to the thinking, feeling person, not the assessment, that is most effective in practice.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Well, we never really know what is going in someone’s mind, do we? Evaluation is not so much about what we know, but what potential information we can rely on in order to act. Human judgement of human behaviour and intent will always be uncertain to some extent, and always be subject to bias, whether sub-conscious or socially ‘justifiable’. We’re just not going to get around this. But I think we can improve accuracy in how we respond and relate to each other on an ongoing basis by taking judgement out of the equation - by acknowledging that we don’t know in a way that can be consolidated from one experience or moment to another, and then account for inevitable margins of error in the process of continually assessing and communicating risk.
Except that we usually prefer to be certain rather than accurate.
Certainly is much an issue in accuracy. However, in organisations there may be an attempt to gloss over the uncertainties. Sometimes, policies and statistics may make it appear that there is more certainty and predictability than there is. One book which I found helpful for thinking about the nature of lack of certainty was Nassim Taleb's, ' The Black Swan' which speaks about how the uncertainties can be understood and used as a basis for decisions. In relation to judgments, it may be that the attention in judgments should be focused on the unique and particulars rather than simply general patterns of predictability.
:up:
Great point.
And thanks for the reference! I’m always amused by the black swan metaphor - where I live, all swans are black! :smile:
To What Extent is Human Judgment Distorted and Flawed?
To the extent that the individual's belief system is false.
286. What we believe depends on what we learn. We all believe that it isn't possible to get to the moon; but there might be people who believe that that is possible and that it sometimes happens. We say: these people do not know a lot that we know. And, let them be never so sure of their belief - they are wrong and we know it. If we compare our system of knowledge with theirs then theirs is evidently the poorer one by far. (23.9.50)
Then the question becomes: What determines the standard of truth by which an individual's belief is judged?
I always say: whatever popular opinion, the truth is likely the opposite.
Wittgenstein was one. Looks like we got another moon landing denier here. :nerd:
Belief need not be judged to be either true or false. True and false belief existed in its entirety prior to our awareness of it.
Standard of truth?
What's that?
Did it? Please explain, what would that look like? Can you give me an example of its existing in its entirety prior to our awareness of it?
Quoting creativesoul
A standard of truth is any criterion that determines whether something is true or false. Empiricism for example: I must see it to believe it... if I can't see it, then it is false.
Quoting creativesoul
Then tell me:
Quoting creativesoul
???