Explaining Evidence Denial as Motivated Pragmatically Rational Epistemic Irrationality

This paper introduces a model for evidence denial that explains this behavior as a manifestation of rationality and it is based on the contention that social values (measurable as utilities) often underwrite these sorts of responses. Moreover, it is contended that the value associated with group membership in particular can override epistemic reason when the expected utility of a belief or belief system is great. However, it is also true that it appears to be the case that it is still possible for such unreasonable believers to reverse this sort of dogmatism and to change their beliefs in a way that is epistemically rational. The conjecture made here is that we should expect this to happen only when the expected utility of the beliefs in question dips below a threshold where the utility value of continued dogmatism and the associated group membership is no longer sufficient to motivate defusing the counter-evidence that tells against such epistemically irrational beliefs

More-or-less elicitation (MOLE): reducing bias in range estimation and forecasting

Biases like overconfidence and anchoring affect values elicited from people in predictable ways – due to people’s inherent cognitive processes. The More-Or-Less Elicitation (MOLE) process takes insights from how biases affect people’s decisions to design an elicitation process to mitigate or eliminate bias. MOLE relies on four, key insights: 1) uncertainty regarding the location of estimates means people can be unwilling to exclude values they would not specifically include; 2) repeated estimates can be averaged to produce a better, final estimate; 3) people are better at relative than absolute judgements; and, 4) consideration of multiple values prevents anchoring on a particular number. MOLE achieves these by having people repeatedly choose between options presented to them by the computerised tool rather than making estimates directly, and constructing a range logically consistent with (i.e., not ruled out by) the person’s choices in the background. Herein, MOLE is compared, across four experiments, with eight elicitation processes – all requiring direct estimation of values – and is shown to greatly reduce overconfidence in estimated ranges and to generate best guesses that are more accurate than directly estimated equivalents. This is demonstrated across three domains – in perceptual and epistemic uncertainty and in a forecasting task.Matthew B. Welsh, Steve H. Beg