Post interesting research articles and papers here.
Did you have a password to read this? Because the actual article is behind a pay wall... If so, please post the full text.Top performers are not the most impressive when extreme performance indicates unreliability
The relationship between performance and ability is a central concern in the social sciences: Are the most successful much more able than others, and are failures unskilled? Prior research has shown that noise and self-reinforcing dynamics make performance unpredictable and lead to a weak association between ability and performance. Here we show that the same mechanisms that generate unpredictability imply that extreme performances can be relatively uninformative about ability.
As a result, the highest performers may not have the highest expected ability and should not be imitated or praised. We show that whether higher performance indicates higher ability depends on whether extreme performance could be achieved by skill or requires luck.
Top performers are not the most impressive when extreme performance indicates unreliability
Yeah, I got those two bias questions correct the first time I read the top one. But I'm still biased.These are articles about research articles, but they are much more fun to read.
Research Shows That the Smarter People Are, the More Susceptible They Are to Cognitive Bias : The New Yorker <- Smarter people make dumber mistakes
Famous Novelists on Symbolism in Their Work and Whether It Was Intentional - Mental Floss <- famous novelists on whether symbolism in their work was intentional
Of course, the actual findings are much less sexy than the headline. What they actually indicated is that intelligence doesn't get rid of bias, not that intelligent people are 'more biased' overall, but that all people are equally biased (with a slight correlation between higher intelligence, but not extremely high intelligence, and one certain type of cognitive bias called the "bias blind spot." Other research has shown a correlation between low intelligence/competence and certain other cognitive biases, see also The Dunning Kreuger Effect). I would also argue that anyone who got those bias questions incorrect was not actually very intelligent, but that's a methodology problem. I'd also be interested in seeing these findings replicated.What explains this result? One provocative hypothesis is that the bias blind spot arises because of a mismatch between how we evaluate others and how we evaluate ourselves. When considering the irrational choices of a stranger, for instance, we are forced to rely on behavioral information; we see their biases from the outside, which allows us to glimpse their systematic thinking errors. However, when assessing our own bad choices, we tend to engage in elaborate introspection. We scrutinize our motivations and search for relevant reasons; we lament our mistakes to therapists and ruminate on the beliefs that led us astray.
The problem with this introspective approach is that the driving forces behind biases—the root causes of our irrationality—are largely unconscious, which means they remain invisible to self-analysis and impermeable to intelligence. In fact, introspection can actually compound the error, blinding us to those primal processes responsible for many of our everyday failings. We spin eloquent stories, but these stories miss the point. The more we attempt to know ourselves, the less we actually understand.
I believe part of the thread's idea is to see what INTPs find interesting.What defines "interesting"?
It could be.Though personally, I'll take interesting research from anywhere.
I thought about it and then decided the bird killing was not needed, since 80 - 90% of research is probably done by INTPs / INTJs, who often have overlapping interests, it might be sort of incestuous.I'm disappointed in you, Ista...
I thought you were trying to kill two birds with one stone.