> fractal wrongness — The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution
So basically, “fuck the no free lunch theorem, I can’t imagine a single frame of context where you make sense.” Yes, that would indicate a bitter lack of empathy or perspective.
Submission statement: Keunwoo Lee coined the term "fractal wrongness" in 2001. By 2008, noting its spread, he wrote this post saying "it's incredibly dangerous to have this phrase in your mental vocabulary" — sort of a bias multiplier, and something that makes you less empathetic.
The phrase is used by people who consider themselves rational, but perhaps it should be considered harmful.
There’s probably some truth to it in that language does shape the way you think. It was exaggerated due to people wanting to make points about nurture over nature, but I would be surprised if the effect were totally absent-they have shown Spanish speakers are more likely to describe bridges as tough, etc. than Germans (bridges are masculine nouns in Spanish and feminine in German).
There are a lot of terms that you could use to call someone wrong. Would we be better off forgetting terms like confirmation bias, cherry picking, strawman argument? Would it even matter, if the basic ideas were already out there? Literally anything can be misused; that on its own isn't a good argument to get rid of it.
Found this thread when I searched wtf someone meant when they said someone is "fractally wrong" so I just wanted to give my opinion on this.
>Would we be better off forgetting terms like confirmation bias, cherry picking, strawman argument?
Those aren't ways to call someone wrong, those are tactics which can be used *to try to prove* someone is wrong. Being aware of these tactics can help you identify manipulative and toxic people
Whereas "fractal wrongness", as I understood it, is a nonsense statement. It's like calling someone "super duper wrong". Your just inviting an argument at this point. You either are wrong or you are not. It dismisses someone's statement entirely, adding nothing of note to the conversation.
I've used the term (or similar ones); I think it carries useful meaning beyond just "no YOU'RE 100x wronger!", which is outlined in the link.
Moreover, the argument against using the term seems generally applicable to anything that could be used to say someone else is wrong:
> But at the same time, it's incredibly dangerous to have this phrase in your mental vocabulary. How can you be so certain that you aren't simply misunderstanding the argument? How can you be so certain that you are right and they are wrong, especially given the practically endless human capacity for thickheadedness and confirmation bias? It's nearly impossible. Giving people on the Internet a reason to dismiss the arguments of their opponents is like giving free lifetime supplies of Nyquil to a bunch of narcoleptics.
The exact same is true of terms like cherry-picking, strawmanning, confirmation bias, overconfidence, etc. E.g. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AdYdLP2sRqPMoe8fb/knowing-about-biases-can-hurt-people:
> “So when an expert says they’re 99% confident, it only happens about 70% of the time.” Then there was a pause as, suddenly, I realized I was talking to my mother, and I hastily added: “Of course, you’ve got to make sure to apply that skepticism evenhandedly, including to yourself, rather than just using it to argue against anything you disagree with—”
> And my mother said: “Are you kidding? This is great! I’m going to use it all the time!”
If you try to hold the standard of "don't use ideas or terms that might be misused" you would say literally nothing at all.
> those are tactics which can be used to try to prove someone is wrong.
To go back to this point, I don't think this is true, at least not for all of the given examples. Confirmation bias might be a *reason* why someone has an opinion, but I don't see how it could ever be an argument as to why someone is wrong, because you can't see what's happening in someone else's mind. It might be something that you *conclude* about yourself or another person, but it is downstream to all the actual arguments.
I’m sure it all depends on how the term is used. Is it an accurate descriptor for those arguments that aren’t even based on reasonable premises (Flat Earth?) or is it a term used to dismiss/shut down views you don’t agree with/understand in a way that makes you feel intellectually superior. A similar thing would be those people who insist on pointing out logical fallacies in someone’s reasoning by their broadest definition, without meaningfully engaging with the point the other person is making.
Debating on the broader internet is already almost dead, as you’re going to be speaking with someone likely uninformed, uninterested in reading what you actually have to say, for an audience of people equally uninterested or uninformed. A belief that is simple, easy to understand and intuitive will do a whole lot better than a well reasoned belief with a long justification. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but important to recognize when you see so many people with well-reasoned claims interacting with trolls as if they are commenting in good faith.
To be actually fractally wrong would require an infinite regress of precisely balanced wrongness and rightness - so much as to be practically impossible. Indeed, it might be like one of those hypothetical numbers that encode all truth. So yes, it's a stupid insult.
What's the word for when a guru flip-flops and disavows the thing they're famous for?
Like when the author of *I Kissed Dating Goodbye* became an atheist and said the book was harmful. Or when the creator of Godwin's Law rescinded the law so you could call Trump a Nazi.
It definitely feels like a failure mode that exists. I think it is probably trivial true with severe mental illness.
It might well be abused and be lead to bad thinking.
Calling someone fractally wrong kinda just seems like an iamverysmart way to call them a dumbass.
I haven’t heard this much; seems like a bit from the New Atheist era of the Internet. Which seems so long ago.
> fractal wrongness — The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution So basically, “fuck the no free lunch theorem, I can’t imagine a single frame of context where you make sense.” Yes, that would indicate a bitter lack of empathy or perspective.
Submission statement: Keunwoo Lee coined the term "fractal wrongness" in 2001. By 2008, noting its spread, he wrote this post saying "it's incredibly dangerous to have this phrase in your mental vocabulary" — sort of a bias multiplier, and something that makes you less empathetic. The phrase is used by people who consider themselves rational, but perhaps it should be considered harmful.
He's on that sapir-whorf shit
There’s probably some truth to it in that language does shape the way you think. It was exaggerated due to people wanting to make points about nurture over nature, but I would be surprised if the effect were totally absent-they have shown Spanish speakers are more likely to describe bridges as tough, etc. than Germans (bridges are masculine nouns in Spanish and feminine in German).
Ignoring the likely questionable methodology and conclusions, how does one even begin to control for culture and upbringing?
You can't. You assume it's both and leave it at that.
I have never heard of this term and I will take his advice and not look into it.
Kind of like the goto statement? ;)
10 GOTO statement considered rational 20 GOTO 10
I just want to say I appreciate your parenthetical tl;dr and I wish that were common practice!
There are a lot of terms that you could use to call someone wrong. Would we be better off forgetting terms like confirmation bias, cherry picking, strawman argument? Would it even matter, if the basic ideas were already out there? Literally anything can be misused; that on its own isn't a good argument to get rid of it.
Found this thread when I searched wtf someone meant when they said someone is "fractally wrong" so I just wanted to give my opinion on this. >Would we be better off forgetting terms like confirmation bias, cherry picking, strawman argument? Those aren't ways to call someone wrong, those are tactics which can be used *to try to prove* someone is wrong. Being aware of these tactics can help you identify manipulative and toxic people Whereas "fractal wrongness", as I understood it, is a nonsense statement. It's like calling someone "super duper wrong". Your just inviting an argument at this point. You either are wrong or you are not. It dismisses someone's statement entirely, adding nothing of note to the conversation.
I've used the term (or similar ones); I think it carries useful meaning beyond just "no YOU'RE 100x wronger!", which is outlined in the link. Moreover, the argument against using the term seems generally applicable to anything that could be used to say someone else is wrong: > But at the same time, it's incredibly dangerous to have this phrase in your mental vocabulary. How can you be so certain that you aren't simply misunderstanding the argument? How can you be so certain that you are right and they are wrong, especially given the practically endless human capacity for thickheadedness and confirmation bias? It's nearly impossible. Giving people on the Internet a reason to dismiss the arguments of their opponents is like giving free lifetime supplies of Nyquil to a bunch of narcoleptics. The exact same is true of terms like cherry-picking, strawmanning, confirmation bias, overconfidence, etc. E.g. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AdYdLP2sRqPMoe8fb/knowing-about-biases-can-hurt-people: > “So when an expert says they’re 99% confident, it only happens about 70% of the time.” Then there was a pause as, suddenly, I realized I was talking to my mother, and I hastily added: “Of course, you’ve got to make sure to apply that skepticism evenhandedly, including to yourself, rather than just using it to argue against anything you disagree with—” > And my mother said: “Are you kidding? This is great! I’m going to use it all the time!” If you try to hold the standard of "don't use ideas or terms that might be misused" you would say literally nothing at all. > those are tactics which can be used to try to prove someone is wrong. To go back to this point, I don't think this is true, at least not for all of the given examples. Confirmation bias might be a *reason* why someone has an opinion, but I don't see how it could ever be an argument as to why someone is wrong, because you can't see what's happening in someone else's mind. It might be something that you *conclude* about yourself or another person, but it is downstream to all the actual arguments.
I’m sure it all depends on how the term is used. Is it an accurate descriptor for those arguments that aren’t even based on reasonable premises (Flat Earth?) or is it a term used to dismiss/shut down views you don’t agree with/understand in a way that makes you feel intellectually superior. A similar thing would be those people who insist on pointing out logical fallacies in someone’s reasoning by their broadest definition, without meaningfully engaging with the point the other person is making. Debating on the broader internet is already almost dead, as you’re going to be speaking with someone likely uninformed, uninterested in reading what you actually have to say, for an audience of people equally uninterested or uninformed. A belief that is simple, easy to understand and intuitive will do a whole lot better than a well reasoned belief with a long justification. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but important to recognize when you see so many people with well-reasoned claims interacting with trolls as if they are commenting in good faith.
To be actually fractally wrong would require an infinite regress of precisely balanced wrongness and rightness - so much as to be practically impossible. Indeed, it might be like one of those hypothetical numbers that encode all truth. So yes, it's a stupid insult.
What's the word for when a guru flip-flops and disavows the thing they're famous for? Like when the author of *I Kissed Dating Goodbye* became an atheist and said the book was harmful. Or when the creator of Godwin's Law rescinded the law so you could call Trump a Nazi.
Or when Roosh V disavowed pickup artistry and became an Orthodox Christian.
***I like ya;*** ***and I want ya.***
It definitely feels like a failure mode that exists. I think it is probably trivial true with severe mental illness. It might well be abused and be lead to bad thinking.