It is still possible that they present information that is of some use in other respects, but only to the extent that it is not correlated with the truth or falsity of the bottom line.
Said simply, when someone has their bottom line written, you should think about whether the argument they’re presenting is more or less convincing than you’d expect on priors. If its more, update in favor of them. If its less, update against.
Of course, I would suggest pairing this with some practice making concrete forecasts so you can calibrate yourself on the typical qualities of argument to expect for various wrong and right conclusions.
Said simply, when someone has their bottom line written, you should think about whether the argument they’re presenting is more or less convincing than you’d expect on priors. If its more, update in favor of them. If its less, update against.
Does this apply for people who don’t have a bottom-line written first? I’m thinking about, say, how I like hearing the opinions of people who view modern art, but have no art history or formal art education: I like hearing their naive judgements—now if they argue why a artwork is good that I find convincing, is this analogous to hearing a salesman who obviously has their bottom-line written first why this supplement or food product is good for, I dunno, sleep, and making a surprisingly bad or good argument in favour of that?
In both cases: the naive judge of art, the salesperson—I have a certain expectation about how convincing they will be.
Actually, I tend to expect television salespersons will not be convincing. I find the type of arguments (or lack of argumentation) and rhetoric they deploy just don’t work well with me. And I realize I’m in the minority. I expect their style works on the majority of television viewers.
This is not true, see filtered evidence.
Said simply, when someone has their bottom line written, you should think about whether the argument they’re presenting is more or less convincing than you’d expect on priors. If its more, update in favor of them. If its less, update against.
Of course, I would suggest pairing this with some practice making concrete forecasts so you can calibrate yourself on the typical qualities of argument to expect for various wrong and right conclusions.
Does this apply for people who don’t have a bottom-line written first? I’m thinking about, say, how I like hearing the opinions of people who view modern art, but have no art history or formal art education: I like hearing their naive judgements—now if they argue why a artwork is good that I find convincing, is this analogous to hearing a salesman who obviously has their bottom-line written first why this supplement or food product is good for, I dunno, sleep, and making a surprisingly bad or good argument in favour of that?
In both cases: the naive judge of art, the salesperson—I have a certain expectation about how convincing they will be.
Actually, I tend to expect television salespersons will not be convincing. I find the type of arguments (or lack of argumentation) and rhetoric they deploy just don’t work well with me. And I realize I’m in the minority. I expect their style works on the majority of television viewers.