Sceptics are not innovators?

[Francesca R]

The hypothesis: Sceptics require more knowledge than <the average for the population> to make a decision. This means more evidence. Sceptics require more persuasion that something is true, a good idea, economic, trendy, whatever . . . before they take a risk. Sceptics are therefore more likely to be in the "late majority" of adopters of new products, new methods, new ideas, new anything, and less likely to be in the "early majority" or "early adopters" or "innovators".

As such—sceptics can expect to have influence, wealth, recognition and so on . . . that is below average. (Perhaps "below average for their socio-economic benchmark")

For quick reference see the Rogers Diffusion of Innovations theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations). This is concerned with the adoption of new technology.

My hypothesis could also cover discovery, invention, innovation and change generally. Sceptics are less likely to risk an untested business venture (in which expected excess profits are at their largest as are risks). Sceptics would not have bought an iPod / MP3 player in its first six months of release. Sceptics will unlikely be the ones who make a breakthrough discovery of a new drug. Sceptics do not tend to adopt new fashions in a hurry.

Discuss . . .

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think you are confounding philosophical skepticism with hesitation to act. I suspect that, except possibly with major life decisions, skeptics are just as quick to act as anyone else. I see no reason to hesitate buying an iPod or adding shoulder pads to my shirt.

~~ Paul

[sphenisc]

Hmmm...

I doubt it. I'll wait to see what other people think before deciding...

[Francesca R]

I think you are confounding philosophical skepticism with hesitation to act. I suspect that, except possibly with major life decisions, skeptics are just as quick to act as anyone else. I see no reason to hesitate buying an iPod or adding shoulder pads to my shirt.Not so much hesitation to act, but slower reaction due to a need for evidence-gathering and unwillingness to go with "gut feel" or "intuition". If there is an early-mover advantage (there is not necessarily) then the sceptic is less likely to capture it.

[Piscivore]

You have to doubt some part of the status quo before you can improve it, or even consider changing it in the first place.

[Francesca R]

Hmmm...

I doubt it. I'll wait to see what other people think before deciding...LOL :)

[Francesca R]

You have to doubt some part of the status quo before you can improve it, or even consider changing it in the first place.Correct but my angle here is not about the propensity to doubt—but the propensity or speed to act for change on the basis of the doubt.

[Piscivore]

As far as the iPod goes, the claims it makes are relatively modest, and the threshhold of evidence required correspondingly low. A threshold that could be met fairly easily by a ten-minute product demonstration at the Apple Store.

Now if Apple were claiming it cured cancer, then yes, a skeptic might miss out on the extraordinarily slim chance it were true.

Correct but my angle here is not about the propensity to doubt—but the propensity or speed to act for change on the basis of the doubt.

That part addressed the "innovators" part of the OP. :)

[Francesca R]

That part addressed the "innovators" part of the OP. :)A sceptic and a non-sceptic (let's say) are both unhappy with the status quo. Cancer has no cure and they both believe that things would be better if there was one.

The discovery of a cure will involve plenty of experimentation, unsuccessful risks, error, financial loss and so on. Will the sceptic be slower to take these?

Of course the non-sceptic is not guaranteed to find the cure just because she takes more risks sooner in the absence of information. So imagine we have a billion sceptics and a billion non-sceptics all of the same mind about the sub-optimality about there being no cure for cancer. One of these individuals may have a "Eureka" moment. Is that individual more likely to be a non-sceptic?

[Amapola]

I disagree. Skeptics by their nature like to think. Therefore they spend all their time thinking about things, and a lof of them spend all their time thinking about how to make things better. Because they spend so much time thinking, they have already thought about new possibilities. Because they are the sort of people who wonder, "Would that actually work?" they are more likely to try out new things, if only to see for themselves.

I think skeptics are curious, and this leads to experimentation.

[Jocky]

Sceptics would not have bought an iPod / MP3 player in its first six months of release ... Sceptics do not tend to adopt new fashions in a hurry

OK - so those two assertions are true of me, at any rate. However, I don't think that my terminal untrendiness is necessarily related to the fact that I consider critical thinking and the scientific method as being the best approach for understanding the world in which we live.

Sceptics will unlikely be the ones who make a breakthrough discovery of a new drug

Whoa - in between two generalisations about personal purchasing habits, here lurks a very different claim! The essence of it is the old canard that sceptics by definition lack imagination, intuition, an ability to 'think outside the box', whatever you want to call it.

Let's suppose that a sceptic comes up with an idea for a new drug. His/her first reaction would be to test the hypothesis thoroughly, to ensure that the drug performed as expected and did not have side-effects which would render it useless. Perhaps this means that the idea would be slower to see the light of day, or even never get there at all, compared to someone in the same position who just 'trusted their gut' and went with it. But I would contend that the sceptical approach is still the best way to proceed.

There is a flip side to the coin. Someone who requires little or no evidence or knowledge to make intuitive leaps might well make more of them, and come up with them more quickly - but such leaps are a great deal more likely to lead to dead ends, which could be counter-productive. Dead end ideas, when promulgated with great conviction, can mislead people and waste time and resources in the long run.

Homeopathy was the result of such an intuitive leap ... ;)

[Piscivore]

Of course the non-sceptic is not guaranteed to find the cure just because she takes more risks sooner in the absence of information.

And a non-skeptic is going to glom onto the first thing that she thinks makes her "feel" better and stick with that, regardless if it actually does anything. Her research stops there.

[Francesca R]

OK - so those two assertions are true of me, at any rate. However, I don't think that my terminal untrendiness is necessarily related to the fact that I consider critical thinking and the scientific method as being the best approach for understanding the world in which we live.Not even a little? :) Perhaps you conclude rationally that trendiness is a waste of money.

Whoa - in between two generalisations about personal purchasing habits, here lurks a very different claim! The essence of it is the old canard that sceptics by definition lack imagination, intuition, an ability to 'think outside the box', whatever you want to call it.Do they suppress intuition, because they don't think relying on it has merit?

Let's suppose that a sceptic comes up with an idea for a new drug. His/her first reaction would be to test the hypothesis thoroughly, to ensure that the drug performed as expected and did not have side-effects which would render it useless. Perhaps this means that the idea would be slower to see the light of day, or even never get there at all, compared to someone in the same position who just 'trusted their gut' and went with it. But I would contend that the sceptical approach is still the best way to proceed.Why is it better? You have accepted that it may be slower and might not materialise. Those would be counts against the sceptical approach. What are the positives?

There is a flip side to the coin. Someone who requires little or no evidence or knowledge to make intuitive leaps might well make more of them, and come up with them more quickly - but such leaps are a great deal more likely to lead to dead ends, which could be counter-productive. Dead end ideas, when promulgated with great conviction, can mislead people and waste time and resources in the long runI agree with much of that, but if the expected value of risky endeavours and leaps is higher than the known value of not taking them, then the dead ends will be outweighed by the breakthroughs "in the long run".

[Francesca R]

And a non-skeptic is going to glom onto the first thing that she thinks makes her "feel" better and stick with that, regardless if it actually does anything. Her research stops there.You assume that the non-sceptic is motivated by the desire to procure warm fuzzyness or something, rather than by success. Do you need to introduce such a handicap? I was not presuming one.

[Loss Leader]

As such—sceptics can expect to have influence, wealth, recognition and so on . . . that is below average. (Perhaps "below average for their socio-economic benchmark")

Your hypothesis seems to disregard the following two concepts:

1. Skeptics are more likely to be of above-average education and, perhaps, above-average intelligence. This may mean that skeptics are more likely to have above-average incomes. If skeptics have more money (on average) than non-skeptics, then skeptics should have more purchasing power. Thus, even if they are late in adopting new technology, their purchasing power might make up for this.

Although you state "below average for their socio-economic benchmark," they may well be their socio-economic benchmark. Or they may be such a large contingent of that cohort that there is no recognizable difference.

2. Skeptics, being careful buyers (assuming such is true), are more likely than average to buy products that are not crap. Others may rush into technology or fashion choices but they will have only briefly pulled public consciousness away from valuable technology. Skeptics will have improved their purchasing power by not wasting money on junk (so that they have more to spend wisely) and by adopting non-junk earlier than the average consumer (so that they are leading the way in finding quality items).

[Pipirr]

Chance favors the prepared mind
-Louis Pasteur

Putting it simply, and working in plant biology as I do, I think that advances in the field come at the edges of what is known. So the more that I know about a topic, the better judgement I can make about whether it has been tried before, and could be investigated further.

I guess I see innovation happening at the edges. If you don't know where the edges are, you can find yourself rehashing what has already been done, and trying, failing or succeeding at what has already been tried, failed, or successful. And if it has been done before, it isn't an innovation.

[Piscivore]

You assume that the non-sceptic is motivated by the desire to procure warm fuzzyness or something, rather than by success. Do you need to introduce such a handicap? I was not presuming one.

No, I'm saying the non-skeptic is going to stop at the first thing that seems to work, and not doubt or investigate its efficacy. I give you the herbal remedies industry as evidence.

[Francesca R]

No, I'm saying the non-skeptic is going to stop at the first thing that seems to work, and not doubt or investigate its efficacy. I give you the herbal remedies industry as evidence.The herbal remedies industry can also be viewed as a deliberate con trick and it may well be bankrolling sceptics who know that it is built on false claims but appreciate the income. I don't think it's a given that all who promote it believe it. Some do.

Suppose it's sufficiently obvious (after the fact) whether a discovery is a real goody or not, and nobody is going to be deluded about this. The only reason why the non-sceptic will stop trying to find it is if they admit defeat. Same for the sceptic. Who is most likely to find it?

[Francesca R]

Your hypothesis seems to disregard the following two concepts: [ . . .]Yes it does disregard those. If they are correct then you are advancing another hypothesis that claims that these traits compensate (or more than compensate). But what are you saying about what is in the OP hypothesis?

[Piscivore]

The herbal remedies industry can also be viewed as a deliberate con trick
In order for it to be a "con" there has to be a victim- someone who is not "in on it". Are those people skeptics or not?

and it may well be bankrolling sceptics who know that it is built on false claims but appreciate the income.
They do not have to be sceptics to know what they are selling does not work.

I don't think it's a given that all who promote it believe it. Some do.
Indeed. But that's not really relevant. The point is, that the non-skeptic will not find out if it works or not if he already thinks it does. This does not lead to innovation.

Suppose it's sufficiently obvious (after the fact) whether a discovery is a real goody or not, and nobody is going to be deluded about this.
That's a big, and entirely false, suppostition. As long as we are discussing fantasy, can I have a time machine built into a flying car?

The only reason why the non-sceptic will stop trying to find it is if they admit defeat. Same for the sceptic. Who is most likely to find it?
In fantasyland, or in reality?

[Loss Leader]

Yes it does disregard those. If they are correct then you are advancing another hypothesis that claims that these traits compensate (or more than compensate). But what are you saying about what is in the OP hypothesis?

I was saying that the hypothesis is incomplete. As a picture of the skeptic's influence, positive aspects must be included along with negative ones.

I'm not sure how you'd measure any of this, though. Is there a sociological/economic instrument that measures a demographic's effectiveness in the market?

[Horatius]

Why is it better? You have accepted that it may be slower and might not materialise. Those would be counts against the sceptical approach. What are the positives?

I agree with much of that, but if the expected value of risky endeavours and leaps is higher than the known value of not taking them, then the dead ends will be outweighed by the breakthroughs "in the long run".

While the skeptic may be slower to try a new cure (this is unproven, but let's assume it for argument's sake), they will also be slower to try a new "cure" that actually makes things worse.

Consider a cure for cancer. You have two drugs available, one that will cure you and one that will kill you. Right at the start, you have no info to go on at all. The skeptic will insist on finding or creating some evidence (through research) before committing to a choice of one over the other. A non-skeptic will just pop one of the two into his mouth, and see what happens. When he either gets better, or keels over and dies, the skeptic then has some info on which to base a better decision.

So while the non-skeptic may be cured marginally faster, there's also a non-trivial chance that they might die sooner as well. That's the positive gain for skeptics.

The balance of too fast vs. too slow would depend on the particular details of the case. Ulitmately, each skeptic must define for themselves what level of evidence is needed to convince them.

[Piscivore]

Look at it this way: A skeptic and a non-skeptic get off the same bus in Vegas. They are equally new to town and equally uneducated about gambling. The non-skeptic immediatly runs out and puts down as many bets as fast as possible on every game in the house, regardless of odds.

The skeptic on the other hand watches several of the games, reads a few books, talks to a few people. He places a few bets on games that have better odds.

Who is going to lose the least amount of money, and who has the better chance of breaking even?

Wasting resources faster is not a benefit, in any scenario.

[Francesca R]

That's a big, and entirely false, suppostition. As long as we are discussing fantasy, can I have a time machine built into a flying car?Really? I don't think so. But never mind about discoveries then.

What about a risky business venture instead?. After the fact, it is obvious (and factual) if it takes off or not. Some will, some won't. I suggest that the sceptic does not take the risk as willingly as the non-sceptic. So there will be more non-sceptics that lose their shirts and more that make it rich.

The distribution of future outcomes from risky business ventures is highly skewed. Most of them lose everything. Relatively few of them make an absolute fortune. But their overall aggregate expected value is positive (or else capitalism fails to increase the stock of assets and wealth, right?)

So the non-sceptics will be the billionaires. Make sense?

Actually from this I see that the skewed distribution of wealth means that the sceptics will not be below average in terms of assets. Just under-represented at the top (and the bottom) of the distribution. I think I was wrong about that in the OP, but it may still uphold the claim that they are less innovative

[drkitten]

What about a risky business venture instead?. After the fact, it is obvious (and factual) if it takes off or not. Some will, some won't. I suggest that the sceptic does not take the risk as willingly as the non-sceptic. So there will be more non-sceptics that lose their shirts and more that make it rich.

Skeptical does not mean risk-averse. I will, for example, happily play at any standard roulette wheel that pays 40:1 for a single number match, and I'll bet heavily. Although the play is "risky," the odds are in my favor. Just because I'm skeptical doesn't mean that I'm innumerate.

In many regards, skeptics can be among the most innovative because they don't take accepted on trust. Some examples of this might be the discovery of H. pylori, the bacterium that is now believed to cause (most) ulcers. It had been accepted wisdom in the medical community for generations that ulcers were caused by stress, until some skeptic decided to look critically at the evidence. Another skeptic (discussed on another thread) decided to check and see if " Anfinsen's principle" was really true, or just generally accepted.

Thinking "outside the box" is actually something of a skeptical touchstone. And, of course, it's one of the hallmarks of innovative thinking. I suspect I could make a case that skeptics are more innovative than average.

[Piscivore]

What about a risky business venture instead?. After the fact, it is obvious (and factual) if it takes off or not. Some will, some won't.
You seem to think that not "taking off" = "total failure". Some risky businesses that don't "take off" will still break even or see modest profits. Some will fail, but not bankrupt their investors.

I suggest that the sceptic does not take the risk as willingly as the non-sceptic.
That's your conclusion, you don't get to use it as a premise.

So there will be more non-sceptics that lose their shirts and more that make it rich.
See above.

The distribution of future outcomes from risky business ventures is highly skewed. Most of them lose everything. Relatively few of them make an absolute fortune.
But these are not the only two possible outcomes.

But their overall aggregate expected value is positive (or else capitalism fails to increase the stock of assets and wealth, right?)
Now you are cutting out the vast majority of capitalist activity that is based on less risky- almost stable even- business ventures.

So the non-sceptics will be the billionaires. Make sense?
No, not even slightly. All your premises are flawed.

Actually from this I see that the skewed distribution of wealth means that the sceptics will not be below average in terms of assets. Just under-represented at the top (and the bottom) of the distribution.
That can be researched. How many of the world's richest people are unskeptical in their business dealings? I think it is a pretty safe bet that they are very careful with their money.

I think I was wrong about that in the OP, but it may still uphold the claim that they are less innovative
How?

[Francesca R]

Skeptical does not mean risk-averse. I will, for example, happily play at any standard roulette wheel that pays 40:1 for a single number match, and I'll bet heavily. Although the play is "risky," the odds are in my favor. Just because I'm skeptical doesn't mean that I'm innumerate.Would you bet big on a single spin? Playing that kind of roulette is not very risky at all if you get to bet on a large number of spins. Risk seeking behaviour in many endeavours involves dealing with incomplete information where the probabilities cannot be mathematically assessed—at least—not quickly. Moreover the risky opportunity may be denied to one who takes too long considering the probability (and rejects "gut feel") because someone more risk tolerant has already taken it. My assertion is that a sceptic is more risk averse. (And of course I am keenly interested in counter arguments to this because—considering myself to be a sceptic—I don't want the assertion to be true)

In many regards, skeptics can be among the most innovative because they don't take accepted on trust. Some examples of this might be the discovery of H. pylori, the bacterium that is now believed to cause (most) ulcers. It had been accepted wisdom in the medical community for generations that ulcers were caused by stress, until some skeptic decided to look critically at the evidence. Another skeptic (discussed on another thread) decided to check and see if " Anfinsen's principle" was really true, or just generally accepted.Thanks for the evidence.

Thinking "outside the box" is actually something of a skeptical touchstone. And, of course, it's one of the hallmarks of innovative thinking. I suspect I could make a case that skeptics are more innovative than average.As above—I would like to hear more of the case

[Francesca R]

You seem to think that not "taking off" = "total failure". Some risky businesses that don't "take off" will still break even or see modest profits. Some will fail, but not bankrupt their investors.Agreed—I was simplifying for ease of illustration. That there is a continuum of outcomes doesn't derail my arguments though, as far as I can see.

That's your conclusion, you don't get to use it as a premise.
It's my assertion. I can't prove it. Do you think it is false? Why?

Now you are cutting out the vast majority of capitalist activity that is based on less risky- almost stable even- business ventures.I was using simplification again for ease of description. But I think that just the positive and negative tails also have a positive expected value (taken together).

The reason for this is that if you compare an "entrepreneurial" economy with one that is less friendly to taking risks, and is more of a planned "production line", then the entrepreneurial one will grow faster. [Do you accept this or do you need evidence? I assume agreement which may be wrong of me.] That means that the addition of the tails (big profits and bankruptcies) contributes positively to the economy—the combination of successes and failures of risky projects is a positive

No, not even slightly. All your premises are flawed.Please say how.

That can be researched. How many of the world's richest people are unskeptical in their business dealings? I think it is a pretty safe bet that they are very careful with their money.I'm not sure. Maybe they've taken bigger risks to get there. I haven't researched it. Have you?

How?More risk averse.

[Piscivore]

Agreed—I was simplifying for ease of illustration. That there is a continuum of outcomes doesn't derail my arguments though, as far as I can see.
A speculator that gambles and hits a modest return rather than a big one may very well stop there. A speculator that gambles and loses small might become a little more risk-adverse.

Not that really has any bearing on whether they are skeptical or not, but it does seem to me to countermand your assertion that "The only reason why the non-skeptic will stop trying to find it [the billion dollar business idea] is if they admit defeat."

It's my assertion. I can't prove it. Do you think it is false? Why?
We've been discussing that.

I was using simplification again for ease of description. But I think that just the positive and negative tails also have a positive expected value (taken together).
Fair enough. Do you have evidence?

The reason for this is that if you compare an "entrepreneurial" economy with one that is less friendly to taking risks, and is more of a planned "production line", then the entrepreneurial one will grow faster. [Do you accept this or do you need evidence? I assume agreement which may be wrong of me.] That means that the addition of the tails (big profits and bankruptcies) contributes positively to the economy—the combination of successes and failures of risky projects is a positive
Perhaps I misread "or else capitalism fails to increase the stock of assets and wealth" as "will not grow at all".

Please say how.
I thought I had. Let me explicate:
"Sceptics require more knowledge than <the average for the population> to make a decision. This means more evidence."
There seems to be an unstated assumption that acquiring this evidence is excessivly expensive, in time or other resources, as opposed to not acquiring it. This is not always the case.

"Sceptics require more persuasion that something is true, a good idea, economic, trendy, whatever . . . before they take a risk."
This assumes that the degree of skepticism is uniform in all persons that so consider themselves, and also that skepticism in regards to extraordinary claims wouls be applied equally to basic, mundane claims.

"Sceptics are therefore more likely to be in the "late majority" of adopters of new products, new methods, new ideas, new anything, and less likely to be in the "early majority" or "early adopters" or "innovators"."
Here you lump "innovators" and "early adopters" into one category, when clearly the people who produce new and different ideas or products and those that first "buy" them are different people altogether.

"As such—sceptics can expect to have influence, wealth, recognition and so on . . . that is below average."
This is a speculation that can very easily be researched for factuality, and as such seems to show that your hypothesis puts the cart before the horse.

I'm not sure. Maybe they've taken bigger risks to get there. I haven't researched it. Have you?
No, but then I didn't say "...I see that the skewed distribution of wealth means that the sceptics will [be]... under-represented at the top (and the bottom) of the distribution."
Why speculate? Look it up.

More risk averse.
The way I see it someone who knows what the odds are is going to be less risk adverse than a person who doesn't. As for those that don't care what the odds are, that's not a kind of risk tolerance I find to be a good strategy. It's like making your own bungie cord without measuring the cliff or your cord.

[Francesca R]

A speculator that gambles and hits a modest return rather than a big one may very well stop there. A speculator that gambles and loses small might become a little more risk-adverse.

Not that really has any bearing on whether they are skeptical or not, but it does seem to me to countermand your assertion that "The only reason why the non-skeptic will stop trying to find it [the billion dollar business idea] is if they admit defeat."
Those scenarios are (i) reaching your equilibrium level of reward/risk and stopping and (ii) blowing your risk budget. The former is not admitting defeat but the second is. So OK—a sceptic or non-sceptic may settle for a modest win because they may become more risk averse given a realised gain (a common finding in behavioural finance). I might add that it is relatively rare to become more risk averse given a realised loss. Usually the reverse happens, as in "I'll quit when I'm back to even; I'll give it one last shot". It is possible that a sceptic may be less susceptible to the trait of becoming more risk tolerant in the domain of losses, because it is not rational.

Fair enough. Do you have evidence?Nope—just the reasoning that followed.

There seems to be an unstated assumption that acquiring this evidence is excessivly expensive, in time or other resources, as opposed to not acquiring it. This is not always the case.In general I am assuming that there is a cost to acquiring evidence: time, money, hassle. There will be exceptions, yes.

This assumes that the degree of skepticism is uniform in all persons that so consider themselves, and also that skepticism in regards to extraordinary claims wouls be applied equally to basic, mundane claims.I'm not trying to say "in all cases X is true to an identical degree". I am postulating patterns of behaviour and considering their effects.

Here you lump "innovators" and "early adopters" into one category, when clearly the people who produce new and different ideas or products and those that first "buy" them are different people altogether.These labels are coined in the diffusion of innovations theory and are arbitrary compartmentalisations of a continuous scale (along which the intensity of this "innovation factor" grades from high to low). I am asserting that sceptics are underrepresented at the high end.

You seem to be opposed to generalised assertions or deductions because they will not cover all cases, as if that renders them devoid of any information. The deduction may be wrong, but it is valid to generalise in order to draw general inferences.

This is a speculation that can very easily be researched for factuality, and as such seems to show that your hypothesis puts the cart before the horse.Plenty of theorising does this and such theories can of course be disproved by evidence, and then proponents can adjust theories to explain away evidence, and so on. I have not researched evidence in this case and freely admit that

Why speculate? Look it up.Perhaps I will. Putting it up for discussion was my first choice.

[Wolfman]

Skeptics would also be more likely to challenge the status quo; to think that "just because this works, it doesn't mean there is not another/better way to do it".

One of the most necessary traits of an innovator is a willing to question and challenge the way things are now.

A simple example -- Leonardo DaVinci was one of the greatest skeptics of his time. He questioned anything and everything. He explored numerous different fields because he did not trust that "what others had taught was true" (and, in many cases, he found that what others taught had, in fact, been false).

Yet could anyone reasonably argue that DaVinci was not a great innovator and inventor? Yes, he often took a great deal of time in finalizing his conclusions; but that time only served to further validate and support his conclusions, and the work he did based on those conclusions.

[MRC_Hans]

A
Of course the non-sceptic is not guaranteed to find the cure just because she takes more risks sooner in the absence of information. So imagine we have a billion sceptics and a billion non-sceptics all of the same mind about the sub-optimality about there being no cure for cancer. One of these individuals may have a "Eureka" moment. Is that individual more likely to be a non-sceptic?

No. The non-skeptic may produce more ideas in a brainstorming session (I notice that I cannot resist applying some evauation to ideas before I submit them), but in the end, the skeptic is working in a more rational manner and will reach goals in a more efficient way.

"Innovation" is not defined as "getting many ideas". Innovation is finding and applying new ideas. Some even add "in a profitable way".

You billion people experiment is already running at full speed: Of the billion people living in industrialized countries, what is the ratio of skeptics, compared to that of the billion(s) living in developing countries? And where is there most innovation? Where is the cure for cancer most likely to be invented?

Hans

[Francesca R]

Skeptics would also be more likely to challenge the status quo; to think that "just because this works, it doesn't mean there is not another/better way to do it".Perhaps this is true (Piscivore made the same argument in post 5). My answer was that if there is equal inclination to doubt the status quo, then a sceptic will be slower to make a challenge.

[MRC_Hans]

Perhaps this is true (Piscivore made the same argument in post 5). My answer was that if there is equal inclination to doubt the status quo, then a sceptic will be slower to make a challenge.Even in your "what if" scenario (which is rather unlikely), the skeptic has an advantage: Like with innovation, it is not making the challenge that counts, it is succeeding. The skeptic may take more time to think up the challenge, but it will be more efficient.

Hans

[Francesca R]

the skeptic is working in a more rational manner and will reach goals in a more efficient way.This is true for goals that can be reached most effectively via rational choice strategies. One difficulty with this is the impracticality of using rational choice to conceive new ideas, because of the amount of unknown information, the volume of calculations you would need to do and the subjectivity of rating different outcomes. It can become so unwieldy that it has to be shelved in favour of heuristic decision making and/or speculation. Those who have greater difficulty in letting go of rational choice will be slower in this regard.

"Innovation" is not defined as "getting many ideas". Innovation is finding and applying new ideas. Some even add "in a profitable way".Agreed. I think of innovation as solving problems, including problems that other people did not realise were problems (because they did not realise there was a solution they would prefer).

You billion people experiment is already running at full speed: Of the billion people living in industrialized countries, what is the ratio of skeptics, compared to that of the billion(s) living in developing countries? And where is there most innovation? Where is the cure for cancer most likely to be invented?Probably the developed world. But will it be a sceptic that finds it?

[ingoa]

Doooo....

Silly OP.

How many priests or woos have got a Nobel prize?

End of discussion... :catfight: :p

[MRC_Hans]

This is true for goals that can be reached most effectively via rational choice strategies.

Which goals are not reached most effectively via rational choice strategies?


One difficulty with this is the impracticality of using rational choice to conceive new ideas,

You don't. You conceive new ideas by intuition, fantasy, and other, basically non-rational methods. You choose between the conceived ideas using rational methods.

Those who have greater difficulty in letting go of rational choice will be slower in this regard.

What makes you think that because skeptics prefer rational choice, they have difficulty letting go of it, where appropriate?

Probably the developed world. But will it be a sceptic that finds it?

Which kind of people are scientists, researchers, engineers?

Hans

[Francesca R]

Which goals are not reached most effectively via rational choice strategies?Ones where time is limited, data is missing or ambiguous, stakes are high, can be such goals. A classic example is the goal of rescuing people from a burning building. Gary Klein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_A._Klein) has written extensively about this and extends it beyond that narrow type of goal.

You don't. You conceive new ideas by intuition, fantasy, and other, basically non-rational methods. You choose between the conceived ideas using rational methods.You can use what Klein calls naturalistic decision making for both.

What makes you think that because skeptics prefer rational choice, they have difficulty letting go of it, where appropriate?Your response, which carries an implication that it is always the most effective, is an indicator of this—but it's an open question. I think I am reluctant to let go of it.

Which kind of people are scientists, researchers, engineers?Probably both sceptics and non-sceptics. I realise that I have nowhere defined "non-sceptic". I wasn't referring to religious people per-se—but loosely "those who have a lower tendency to rational critical thinking".

(Having read Klein I consider him to have a highly-tuned sceptical nature).

[Piscivore]

In general I am assuming that there is a cost to acquiring evidence: time, money, hassle. There will be exceptions, yes.

I said "excessive" cost. The threshold of evidence that people need to be removed from a burning building is very low. The threshold of evidence than a cure for cancer needs to be found is pretty low. The threshold of evidence that shark's bladders will cure it is high for a skeptic, low for a non-skeptic. On the surface, this looks like it will take longer for the skeptic, but only if you overlook the huge costs to the non-skeptic- duplication of effort, false positives, and the vastly wider scope of potential "solutions".

[Roboramma]

Would you bet big on a single spin? I might. But what's your point? Are you suggesting that skeptics are unlikely to undertake risky behavior, or that if they only have one chance ever of undertaking a risk, that they're unlikely to take it?
Playing that kind of roulette is not very risky at all if you get to bet on a large number of spins. Risk seeking behaviour in many endeavours involves dealing with incomplete information where the probabilities cannot be mathematically assessed—at least—not quickly. So? A skeptic can be just as aware of the possible benefits as anyone else - and thus just as willing to take advantage of them. Incomplete information doesn't mean no information - and we can still base our decisions on what information we do have.
Moreover the risky opportunity may be denied to one who takes too long considering the probability (and rejects "gut feel") because someone more risk tolerant has already taken it. Being aware of this, the skeptic, just like anyone else, can say to himself, "I'd better make up my mind quickly or lose this opportunity all-together."
My assertion is that a sceptic is more risk averse. Yes, but you haven't given any evidence to back up this assertion. Maybe you can offer a concrete example of a situation in which you think a skeptic would be less willing to take a risk than the average person, and in which this would lead him/her to be less likely to be sucessful?

[Wolfman]

Perhaps this is true (Piscivore made the same argument in post 5). My answer was that if there is equal inclination to doubt the status quo, then a sceptic will be slower to make a challenge.
Again, I use the example of Leonardo DaVinci. He lived in an age when many were challenging the status quo; but he stood as one of the greatest skeptics of his day.

Yes, there were numerous people who came out with ideas and theories far faster than Leonardo did. In many cases, they were wrong, or incomplete. Today, we remember almost none of them.

Leonardo, on the other hand, was such a skeptic that he not only didn't trust what others had observed, he even doubted his own observations, and tested them over and over again to be sure of his conclusions. The process was slower, granted; but once established, far more rapid progress was possible because it was based on a solid foundation of proof. Leonardo was able to take his scientific investigations much farther than anyone else at his time specifically because of that foundation he laid down.

In the end, I don't think that an argument can be made one way or the other. Great advances and discoveries have been made by skeptics. Great advances and discoveries have been made by non-skeptics. If you are already headed in the right direction, then skepticism could slow you down. But if you're headed in the wrong direction (which, in science, happens as often as not), skepticism could prevent you wasting time on an ultimately futile task.

A final point -- to contrast another famous figure. Just think of how much more Sir Isaac Newton might have accomplished if he'd been more of a skeptic, and not gotten sidetracked by delving into the supernatural.

[Roboramma]

The hypothesis: Sceptics require more knowledge than <the average for the population> to make a decision. This means more evidence. Sceptics require more persuasion that something is true, a good idea, economic, trendy, whatever . . . before they take a risk. Sceptics are therefore more likely to be in the "late majority" of adopters of new products, new methods, new ideas, new anything, and less likely to be in the "early majority" or "early adopters" or "innovators".


Skeptics may be less willing than the average to credit an idea that has little backing, but most such ideas will turn out to be false. If you show a skeptic and a non-skeptic 100 ideas, 99 of which are false, the skeptic is far more likely to pick out the true one.

If the ideas are possible business ventures, and each has enough time and money to go with only one of them, the skeptic is more likely to pick out the viable one than is the non-skeptic.

If the ideas are possible fields of scientific study, again, the skeptic is more likely to choose the fields that will bear fruit than is the non-skeptic.
Now, it's true that maybe the idea that appears least likely to be true based on current evidence is the one out of 100 that is true. In that case, the non-skeptic has an advantage. But note that this case is the least likely case to be true! In the vast majority of cases, when it comes to deciding how to spend finite resources, the skeptic is more likely to make the best decisions.

Note that this has nothing to do with inovation. The skeptic is just as capable of seeing the value of innovaiton as anyone else. Skepticism doesn't say, "Never try something that's unlikely." When it comes to taking risks what it can do is tell us how likely or unlikely something is - at least based on the information we have available. Now at least we have something to base our decisions on. And of course when information is incomplete our judgement will not be perfect - but the non-skeptics will be no better off. In fact they will be worse off, because they use the information that is available less efficiently.

[Wowbagger]

This all depends on the level of expertise the individual has in a field.

As a software developer, I can detect almost intuitively, whether or not a new computer technology is going to succeed, as soon as I hear about it, because I've been in the business long enough to "know" these things.

I am sure medical doctors and researchers can do the same in their specialist fields, for the most part (although medical folks would still do the necessary testing, anyway, I hope).

And, lots of people who are not skeptical have trouble adopting "new fangled" technologies.

So, skepticism has nothing to do with ability to innovate or adopt innovative products. Such factors are more dependant on the person's individual knowledge.

Of course, people who are not, at all, skeptical are more likely to be suckered into fraudulent or inefficient products, but that is a different issue.

[Francesca R]

I said "excessive" cost. The threshold of evidence that people need to be removed from a burning building is very low. The threshold of evidence than a cure for cancer needs to be found is pretty low.It is the threshold of evidence that: "choice A will successfully rescue the people from the building whereas choices B-D will more likely lead to the firefighter perishing" or: "research path 1 will lead to a cancer cure better than paths 2-99".

I agree that identifying that the goal is worthy (rescue, cancer cure) is not something that needs much evidence gathering, but that's beside the point.

[NiallM]

Scpeticism has led to teh disciplines inherent in Science: replicability of experiments, analysis of results, publication for peer-review. As such, scepticism has led to teh development of a much more rigourous field which has made correspondingly more developments because of the disciplines imposed by an audience which is sceptical by default.

If anything, scepticism has ensured rigorous recording, strict adherence to standards, greater understanding of the science that lies beneath observed phenomona. It has therefore served to increase the pace of technology by deepening our understanding of the world and allowing observed processes to applied to multiple fields.

[Francesca R]

I might. But what's your point? Are you suggesting that skeptics are unlikely to undertake risky behavior, or that if they only have one chance ever of undertaking a risk, that they're unlikely to take it?Point = betting on a single spin on drkitten's 40:1 roulette wheel is risky—but betting on 10,000 spins at those odds (as long as you have sufficient capital to stay in the game) is not risky. The latter is a racing certainty of winning.

So? A skeptic can be just as aware of the possible benefits as anyone else - and thus just as willing to take advantage of them. Incomplete information doesn't mean no information - and we can still base our decisions on what information we do have.

Being aware of this, the skeptic, just like anyone else, can say to himself, "I'd better make up my mind quickly or lose this opportunity all-together."Yes. (You are doing an OK job of persuading me)

[IXP]

My hypothesis could also cover discovery, invention, innovation and change generally. Sceptics are less likely to risk an untested business venture (in which expected excess profits are at their largest as are risks). [/FONT]

Discuss . . .

Gosh, then I think they should revoke my patents and refund all the money I lost on my failed business venture.

IXP

[marting]

The entrepreneurial world is filled with success - and failure. Taking two iconic examples of the extremes, Microsoft and the Joe Newman Machine, which one would a skeptic be most likely to have invested in?

Failures happen all the time with investments that skeptics make but overall successes outweigh the failures. Woos make money too, mostly from "taking in" more investors.

[Lynx2174]

Pretty much all of the situations here aren't really relevant to the actual practice of skeptecism, but rather to the personality traits of the person in the situation. Risk adversity isn't tied to skepticism, nor is creativity. Now it would be interesting to see how a sample of skeptics ranks in such categories, but the difference between individuals within the groups surely differs more than the average difference between the groups themselves.

So... um, what I'm saying is that we lack the data to know at this time. Which kind of sounds like your point. damn.

Now I, for one am rather sorely behind the technology (and fashion, for shame) curve, but It's more of a combination of apathy and having zero income. If I was the kind of person who really liked having music everywhere, or the sort who really liked gadgets, I would buy an Ipod. These traits have nothing to do with skepticism. I have no reason to be skeptical of Ipods- They play music. I stand reasonably assured that they can do this, and do it well. I don't think skepticism is what makes me wait until things get cheaper. Sure I won't get an xbox 360 until 2009, but it took roughly thirteen and a half billion years to get here, I can wait another two.

Many skeptics have a deep interest in the applied sciences, and would thus be prone to buying every neat new gadget that comes out. Now I'm an EE student, and I at least like to look over every new gadget, but I don't have the funds or reason to pick up *anything*.

[TheChadd]

2. Skeptics, being careful buyers (assuming such is true), are more likely than average to buy products that are not crap. Others may rush into technology or fashion choices but they will have only briefly pulled public consciousness away from valuable technology. Skeptics will have improved their purchasing power by not wasting money on junk (so that they have more to spend wisely) and by adopting non-junk earlier than the average consumer (so that they are leading the way in finding quality items).

This IMO destroyed your concept. Certainly skeptics will get in on new technology/good ideas, the only difference will be that they'll screen out the bad ones.

[Schneibster]

Ones where time is limited, data is missing or ambiguous, stakes are high, can be such goals. A classic example is the goal of rescuing people from a burning building. Which is most efficiently done by firemen, who have experience dealing with struggling victims and burning buildings.

I think your premises are flawed; and I think Hans has pointed to the fatal absence of clothing. Where are all the innovations coming from undeveloped countries where the proportion of non-skeptics to skeptics MUST be much higher?

Let's try this another way: the smarter one is, the more one thinks. The more one thinks, the more likely one is to be skeptical. So smart people are more likely to be skeptical. On another train of reasoning, the smarter one is, the more one thinks. And the more one thinks, the more likely one is to come up with a new idea. So smart people are more likely to invent things. But if smart people are also skeptical, then your proposal that skeptical people don't invent things falls apart; reasoning strictly from the obvious characteristics of smart people.

[Ivor the Engineer]

2. Skeptics, being careful buyers (assuming such is true), are more likely than average to buy products that are not crap. Others may rush into technology or fashion choices but they will have only briefly pulled public consciousness away from valuable technology. Skeptics will have improved their purchasing power by not wasting money on junk (so that they have more to spend wisely) and by adopting non-junk earlier than the average consumer (so that they are leading the way in finding quality items).

So did more sceptics buy Betamax rather than VHS?

[EternalSceptic]

The hypothesis: Sceptics require more knowledge than <the average for the population> to make a decision. This means more evidence. Sceptics require more persuasion that something is true, a good idea, economic, trendy, whatever . . . before they take a risk. Sceptics are therefore more likely to be in the &quot;late majority&quot; of adopters of new products, new methods, new ideas, new anything, and less likely to be in the &quot;early majority&quot; or &quot;early adopters&quot; or &quot;innovators&quot;.

As such—sceptics can expect to have influence, wealth, recognition and so on . . . that is below average. (Perhaps &quot;below average for their socio-economic benchmark&quot;)

This is concerned with the adoption of new technology. </p>
My hypothesis could also cover discovery, invention, innovation and change generally. Sceptics are less likely to risk an untested business venture (in which expected excess profits are at their largest as are risks). Sceptics would not have bought an iPod / MP3 player in its first six months of release. Sceptics will unlikely be the ones who make a breakthrough discovery of a new drug. Sceptics do not tend to adopt new fashions in a hurry.

Discuss . . .



I disagree. To be innovative, you need new ideas. To bring things forward you must be sceptical in the process of evaluating these ideas, otherwise there is considerable danger that you end up in Woo-Woo-Land. Just my $0.02

[Schneibster]

So did more sceptics buy Betamax rather than VHS?LOL, of course they did, did no good at all, we got VHS.