tsuomela + disagreement   19

ScienceDirect - Journal of Monetary Economics : Why do forecasters disagree? Lessons from the term structure of cross-sectional dispersion
"Key sources of disagreement among economic forecasters are identified by using data on cross-sectional dispersion in forecasters’ long- and short-run predictions of macroeconomic variables. Dispersion among forecasters is highest at long horizons where private information is of limited value and lower at short forecast horizons. Moreover, differences in views persist through time. Such differences in opinion cannot be explained by differences in information sets
forecasting  economics  success  failure  agreement  disagreement 
august 2011 by tsuomela
Open Left:: Building, Not Splitting Ourselves In Response To Democratic Disappointments
I myself have spent most of my activist life as an issue activist, rather than a party activist, in part because I've always known that being a party activists first and foremost would drive me screaming out into the night--sooner, rather than later.
activism  democrats  party  third-party  disagreement 
september 2009 by tsuomela
Open Left:: On Being Hated In a Nation of Assholes
I'll put it bluntly: We are becoming a nation of haters - a nation, really, of assholes, or at least dominated by assholes. And sure, maybe we've always been that way - but what's different is that it's become almost impossible to pretend otherwise. There's no more delusions, no more fantasies. Despising one another and ignoring the substance of issues has become the defining mark of Americanness in the 21st century - and that's a tragedy.
politics  discourse  disagreement  argument  ideology  polarization  hatred  civility  decency 
september 2009 by tsuomela
Of Cranks and Olives « Larval Subjects .
The true measure of a successful philosophy, I think, is whether or not it becomes a difference engine. As I understand it, a difference engine is an entity that is perpetually adept at producing differences. This is not an egalitarian, happy go lucky free for all. There will be antagonisms, conflicts, wars, and so on.
philosophy  purpose  trolls  criticism  opposition  disagreement  argument 
august 2009 by tsuomela
The Grid of Disputation | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine
Grid of Disputation. It’s just a reminder that, when it comes to other people’s views on controversial issues, they should be classified within a two-dimensional parameter space, not just on a single line of “agree/disagree.” The other dimension is the all-important “sensible/crazy” axis.
argument  disagreement  debate  dialogue 
august 2009 by tsuomela
[cs/0406061] The Complexity of Agreement
A celebrated 1976 theorem of Aumann asserts that honest, rational Bayesian agents with common priors will never "agree to disagree": if their opinions about any topic are common knowledge, then those opinions must be equal. Economists have written numerous papers examining the assumptions behind this theorem. But two key questions went unaddressed: first, can the agents reach agreement after a conversation of reasonable length? Second, can the computations needed for that conversation be performed efficiently? This paper answers both questions in the affirmative, thereby strengthening Aumann's original conclusion.
reasoning  rationality  bayes  probability  philosophy  agreement  disagreement 
may 2009 by tsuomela
ASCII by Jason Scott / Opinion Spectrum Collapse Disorder
"As the accessibility of a conversation increases, so too does the spectrum of opinion brought to that conversation, until the opinions range along such a wide spectrum that the conversation simply cannot move forward. It will continue to grow, but like a tumor it is useless and for all purposes dead. It will not better anyone involved in it. The conversation has collapsed from the width of the spectrum of opinion."
online  culture  discussion  dialogue  conversation  opinion  flame-war  disagreement  community 
march 2009 by tsuomela
Ending the Rationality Wars - How to Make Disputes About Human Rationality Disappear
Paper by Richard Samuels, Stephen Stich, and Michael Bishop.
Abstract: On the face of it, the dispute between evolutionary psychology and the heuristics and biases tradition would appear to be a deep disagreement over the extent of human rationality -- a conflict between two sharply divergent assessments of human reasoning. This impression is strengthened by the heated exchanges that pepper the academic literature and reinforced by steamy reports of the debate that have appeared in the popular press (Bower 1996). It is our contention, however, that the alleged conflict between evolutionary psychologists and advocates of the heuristics and biases program has been greatly exaggerated. The claims made on either side of the dispute can, we maintain, be plausibly divided into core claims and mere rhetorical flourishes.(1
rationality  philosophy  decision-making  information  disagreement 
december 2008 by tsuomela
Overcoming Bias: The Mechanics of Disagreement
Two ideal Bayesians cannot have common knowledge of disagreement
philosophy  argument  disagreement  bayes  probability  rationality 
december 2008 by tsuomela

Copy this bookmark: