逆張り

"過小評価されている"

"もっと評価されるべき"

投資の逆張り (下がってるときに買う) とのアナロジーだと 変化に対し抗うみたいで、現状に対して抗うのと意味が違う

現状に対して抗うとはどういうこと?

現状を何に対して「○○に偏っている」と評価するのか

過去? 常に真理を言う理想的な人? 自分自身の意見? 何らかの五分五分などの基準?

過去と現状を比べて、現状がそれに対して偏っていると考え、それに抵抗する場合、変化に抗うのと同じ意味になる

無条件事前確率との比較かもしれない

みんなの意見の平均が採用されるとしよう。Aさん以外の3人の平均が10だとしよう。そしてAさんはほんとうは5を信じているとしよう。

(この戦略は部屋の温度が何がいいかをみんなの希望の平均を取って決めるというときにも生じうる)

交渉のテクニックで、最初に極端なことを言っておいて、「妥協」してあげたことにするみたいなのもあるかもしれない

I'm wondering if people's natural response to two conflicting views is not to notice which one is correct and take that one, but to average them. For example, suppose we invent a system where psychiatry being perfectly evil is -100, and psychiatry being perfectly good is +100, and in fact the truth is +20: psychiatry is on balance slightly good but does have some major dark sides. And suppose this article of Hanson's places psychiatry at -40.

If I know that psychiatry is +20, I have two options. I can correctly argue that psychiatry is +20, but then people average their two data points and get -10, halfway between +20 and -40. Or I can post something at +80, talking about how psychiatry is the BEST THING EVER and anyone who says anything even slightly against it is a DEMONIC ABOMINATION FROM THE NETHER REGIONS OF AN UNFATHOMABLE HELL. And then people average those two data points, and come up with +20, which is exactly where I was trying to land them.

The vicissitudes of reason

An ‘optimized’ society should have different epistemological rules governing different modes of belief

Let’s say that I’m a doctor. I believe that a certain form of cancer treatment is superior to another. My view is not widely held in the medical profession.

If I wanted to be right, there’s a pretty good case I should reason as follows:

Sure my judgment could be correct, but all those people who disagree with me are equally certain of their correctness. Taking the outside view then, I’m probably in the wrong, ergo, I heavily moderate my disagreement with the mainstream, unless I have very strong special evidence that they haven’t seen.

But if everyone reasoned like this, diversity of opinion in the medical profession would fall, and medical opinion would improve in accuracy more slowly, if at all. On the other hand, there’s a pretty good argument that you want your personal physician, in making medical decisions, to lean towards the majority view strongly.

So we have a contradiction between different well-motivated norms, what should we do?

The simplest solution is Double Booking 〔the name was invented by Mark Alfano, a fellow Sydney philosopher- to be clear, he doesn’t necessarily endorse the idea]〕

You should keep one set of beliefs governing what you advocate, formed solely on the basis of your judgment.

And you should keep another set of beliefs governing what you think is true on the basis of all evidence- including the opinions of others and the recognition that there is nothing all that special about your reasoning compared to that of others (or at least others with expertise in the relevant area).

実際に逆張りする因果的理由は心理的なものなのだから、合理的理由を書き連ねるのは何らかのミスリード, rationalizationなのでは →自分

ほとんどの突然変異が生物にとって有害なのと同様に、普通でない意見も、ときに進歩をもたらすけれど基本的には間違っているものと考えるべき?

悪魔の代弁者

アッシュの同調実験では、サクラの中に一人でも反対者がいると、同調が生じにくくなる (要チェック: 再現性)

競争。もし大して他に科学者がいないなら、素直にスタンダードなやり方をやるだけでlow hanging fruitが得られる。回帰分析を当てはめてくとか(?)。

一方、科学者が大量にいる場合、別のアプローチをしたり、主流派に挑んだりすることの利益が大きい。

もし頭がいい人がたくさんすでにやっているなら、他の人は逆張りすることに比較優位があるかもしれない。

そういう知識の発展という観点からの実益ではなくて、下っ端の主流派として仕事するのが社会的には有益でも、異端派になったほうが相対的地位が高くなるので、社会的地位の追求の観点から逆張りすることもありえる。

コストリーシグナリング。自分は○○ (外集団など) ではないぞということを強調するために、もし○○である場合にはコストが高くて言わないであろうことを言う。

タトゥーは一般社会で生きるにはコストが高くなるので、裏社会へのイニシエーションとして機能する。表明する意見にも似た役割がありそう。

The secret of Trump’s success is that most conservative Republicans don’t really care about medical marijuana (or whatever) for its own sake. They care because opposing medical marijuana symbolizes membership in their tribe, they feel like their tribe is persecuted, they have a fierce loyalty to their tribe, and darned if they’re going to support somebody who doesn’t use the right shibboleths.

…

On the other hand, when I’m trying to convince feminists of something, I start with a trigger warning – partly because I genuinely believe it’s a good idea and those posts can be triggering, but also partly because starting with a trigger warning is a tribal signal that people on the right rarely use. It means that either I’m on their side, or I’m being unusually respectful to it. In this it’s a lot like Trump saying illegal immigrants are rapists – something the outgroup would never, ever do.

これは逆張りとは関係ないのでは

There’s a saying that “the majority is always wrong”. Taken literally it’s absurd – the majority thinks the sky is blue, the majority don’t believe in the Illuminati, et cetera. But what it might mean, is that in a world where everyone is overconfident, the majority will always be wrong about which direction to move the probability distribution in. That is, if an ideal reasoner would ascribe 80% probability to the popular theory and 20% to the unpopular theory, perhaps most real people say 99% popular, 1% unpopular. In that case, if the popular people are urging you to believe the popular theory more, and the unpopular people are urging you to believe the unpopular theory more, the unpopular people are giving you better advice. This would create a strange situation in which good reasoners are usually engaged in disagreeing with the majority, and also usually “arguing for the wrong side” (if you’re not good at thinking probablistically, and almost no one is), but remain good reasoners and the ones with beliefs most likely to produce good outcomes. Unless you count “why are all of our good reasoners being burned as witches?” as a bad outcome.

英語の contrarian は意図して逆張りしているという含みではないかもしれない(どうなんだろう)

逆張りの逆張りは均衡点に達するでしょうか? 力学系として見るのはどうか