Re: PTD was the most-respected of the AUE regulars ...

On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 14:57:29 +0100, Hibou
<vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

Le 28/07/2024 à 10:57, occam a écrit :

On 27/07/2024 18:52, Rich Ulrich wrote:

Peter Moylan wrote:

On 27/07/24 20:32, Steve Hayes wrote:

>
[PTD] would pronounce that something someone else had said was
wrong, when it wasn't and continue to insist on it even when several
people had produced evbidence that it was true.

>
The Australian coat of arms shows a kangaroo and an emu holding a
shield. These two animals have something in common: they cannot walk
backwards. Their anatomy does not allow it.
>
That was PTD's problem. When caught in an error, he was completely
incapable of backing out. His only option was to dig a deeper hole.
>
He's the only person I've encountered with such a severe form of this
disability. Some others came close, but they got out of the impasse by
responding with a non sequitur.

>
Anecdote: The great mathmetician/statistician Karl Pearson was
also the first editor of Biometrika (for 35 years).  He described
what we know as the Pearson chisquared test -- but for a few
years, he insisted that it had 3 degrees of freedom, not 1.  And
he refused to publish the folks who argued (what he finally
conceded) for 1.
>
This is frequent a characteristic of Aspergers Syndrome (which
is a diagnosis no longer in the book; too bad).

 
Whoa!  I'm no expert on Aspergers, but that is a big leap. There are
half a dozen cognitive biases that could equally explain Pearson's
behaviour.  Have a sift:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
 
Just for starters:
 
- Escalation of commitment:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment>
 
- Illusory truth effect:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect>
 
-  Big Ego. As the editor of Biometrika for 35 years, he would certainly
not like to be corrected.

>
Yes, I don't think it's peculiar to Asperger's or autism. People often
adopt positions without exploring them thoroughly, commit themselves,
and then feel obliged to defend that commitment, even when it turns out
they're wrong.
>
It's not easy to admit one is wrong, but it has its advantages. It
brings discussion to a halt, instead of prolonging it embarrassingly,
and one gains Brownie points for valuing the truth.

Consider this combination:  Asserting something that is not true
is LYING.  LYING is very bad, like, a bad sin. So one is careful
in what one asserts.  And one does not want to admit to the
sin of being wrong. This creates a certain internal conflict,
because there is also the notion that a 'sin' should be something
that was intentional; and the original mis-statement is not
something that one regrets.

Bill (stats-resident Aspie) would justify his (very rare) backing
down by asserting that there are two different 'cases' and he
was thinking of the other (and more important, somehow) one.

--
Rich Ulrich