iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 02/06/2025

The terror attack in Boulder, CO should provoke reflection. When you obsess relentlessly about Israel, when you march in support of Hamas and relay their propaganda without filter or critical reflection, you spread hatred and violence against Jews.

180

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 30/05/2025

Confirmation bias isn't about being stubborn—it's about information processing efficiency gone wrong. Your brain conserves energy by seeking confirming evidence and avoiding the hard work of updating beliefs.

010

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 30/05/2025

Bayesian updating is like being a good detective: Every piece of evidence should move your confidence needle, but how much depends on how surprising that evidence would be under different theories.

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 29/05/2025

Nash equilibrium: The point where everyone's strategy is optimal given what everyone else is doing. Nobody can improve by changing alone. It's not the best outcome—just the stable one.

020

Reposted by Luisa Groher

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 28/05/2025

Just published a deep dive into how political debates online go sideways and how we talk past each other using common rhetorical tricks: Ignoratio Elenchi: A Snarky Comment, A History Lesson, and A Globalized Intifada open.substack.com/pub/unreason...

open.substack.com

Ignoratio Elenchi: A Snarky Comment, A History Lesson, and A Globalized Intifada

Hello!

011

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 29/05/2025

Why Bayesian reasoning matters: It's the mathematical foundation for learning from experience. Without it, you're either too stubborn (ignoring evidence) or too flighty (overreacting to noise).

020

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 28/05/2025

The key Bayesian insight: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because they start with low prior probability. UFOs need stronger proof than traffic jams for the same reason.

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 28/05/2025

open.substack.com

Ignoratio Elenchi: A Snarky Comment, A History Lesson, and A Globalized Intifada

Hello!

011

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 28/05/2025

Anchoring bias: The first number you hear dramatically influences all subsequent judgments. Skilled negotiators know this—they throw out an extreme first offer to move the entire discussion.

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 27/05/2025

Bayes' theorem shows why first impressions matter so much—they become your prior. But it also shows exactly how much new evidence should change those impressions. Both intuitions, now with math.

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 27/05/2025

Loss aversion means people feel losses twice as intensely as equivalent gains. This is why "you'll save $100" is less motivating than "you'll lose $100 if you don't act." Same math, different psychology.

010

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 27/05/2025

A Bayesian approach to expertise: Trust people more in domains where they've been consistently right before, especially when they've made surprising predictions that came true. Track records are priors.

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 26/05/2025

The prisoner's dilemma isn't just a thought experiment—it explains why individually rational choices often lead to collectively terrible outcomes. Climate change, traffic jams, social media addiction.

010

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 23/05/2025

Great reasoners treat beliefs as tools, not treasures. A belief's value lies in its predictive power and utility, not in how long you've held it or how good it makes you feel.

010

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 23/05/2025

The conjunction fallacy: People often think specific conditions are more likely than general ones. A detailed scenario feels more plausible, but each additional detail makes it mathematically less probable.

010

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 22/05/2025

Skin in the game improves reasoning. People think differently when they bear the consequences of being wrong. Ask: what does this person lose if they're mistaken?

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 22/05/2025

The heartbreaking murder of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim should provoke reflection. When you obsess relentlessly about Israel, when you relay all of Hamas's propaganda without filter, without critical reflection, you spread hatred of Jews.

030

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 22/05/2025

Good thinking requires distinguishing between what's possible, what's plausible, and what's probable. These are different standards requiring different levels of evidence.

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 21/05/2025

Utilize the "pre-mortem": Before implementing a plan, imagine it has failed and ask "what went wrong?" This exposes blind spots your optimism conceals.

031

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 21/05/2025

Bad reasoning thrives on ambiguity. When definitions are unclear, almost any argument can seem plausible. Define your terms before debating them.

032

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 20/05/2025

The outside view beats the inside view: When predicting outcomes, look at the base rates of similar cases rather than the unique features that make your case "different."

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 20/05/2025

Most policy debates suffer from the "compared to what?" problem. Critiquing a solution is easy; proposing a better alternative with fewer downsides is hard.

010

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 19/05/2025

Good reasoning requires steel-manning, not straw-manning: Argue against the strongest possible version of your opponent's position, not the weakest.

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 19/05/2025

When someone makes an extraordinary claim, extraordinary evidence isn't just nice—it's necessary. The burden of proof scales with the implausibility of the assertion.

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 16/05/2025

ad reasoning thrives on ambiguity. When definitions are unclear, almost any argument can seem plausible. Define your terms before debating them.

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 16/05/2025

Good reasoning requires steel-manning, not straw-manning: Argue against the strongest possible version of your opponent's position, not the weakest.

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 15/05/2025

Most policy debates suffer from the "compared to what?" problem. Critiquing a solution is easy; proposing a better alternative with fewer downsides is hard.

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 15/05/2025

The few remaining hostages in Gaza are young men - braver than brave - who went out to protect their friends, families, strangers, and community. The right thing to do, the critical thing to do, is to achieve their release. Everything else is noise.

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 15/05/2025

Develop the habit of reasoning from first principles rather than by analogy. Ask "what do we know is true?" rather than "what does this remind me of?"

010

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 14/05/2025

When someone makes an extraordinary claim, extraordinary evidence isn't just nice—it's necessary. The burden of proof scales with the implausibility of the assertion.

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 14/05/2025

Apply Occam's Razor with care: The simplest explanation is often right—but "simple" means making the fewest assumptions, not the explanation that's easiest to understand.

011

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 13/05/2025

Reasoning requires epistemic humility: understanding the limits of your knowledge. The three most underused phrases in public discourse: "I don't know," "I was wrong," and "I need more information."

010

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 13/05/2025

Reasoning by analogy is powerful but treacherous. Always ask: In what essential ways does my analogy break down? What crucial differences am I glossing over?

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 12/05/2025

Correlation and causation are different, but correlation plus mechanism equals evidence. Look for both patterns AND explanations.

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 12/05/2025

The map is not the territory. Models simplify reality by design—they're useful precisely because they exclude information. But never mistake your model for reality itself.

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 11/05/2025

Reasoning requires calibrating confidence. If you predict events with "90% certainty" but are right only 70% of the time, your confidence is miscalibrated and your reasoning flawed.

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 11/05/2025

Good reasoning means maintaining proportionality: Do your emotional reactions match the actual stakes? Are you applying equal scrutiny to claims you like and dislike?

010

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 11/05/2025

The best thinkers I know spend more time defining the problem than solving it. Most reasoning errors happen before analysis even begins.

010

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 10/05/2025

The best sign someone is reasoning well? They can articulate the strongest arguments against their own position without flinching.

063

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 10/05/2025

Bayesian reasoning isn't just a fancy technique—it's upgrading your entire thinking process. You start with prior beliefs, encounter new evidence, and update proportionally. That's how rational minds work.

010

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 10/05/2025

The Ideological Turing Test: Can you state your opponent's position so well they'd agree with your characterization? If not, you don't truly understand what you're arguing against.

040

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 09/05/2025

Model thinking requires separating initial actions from intermediate effects and final consequences. Most political discourse stops at the first level, missing crucial downstream impacts.

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 08/05/2025

Ask: "What evidence would change my mind on this topic?" If your answer is "nothing," you're not reasoning—you're rationalizing.

020

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 08/05/2025

In the attention economy, outrage is currency. Learn to spot when someone is manufacturing controversy to mine your attention rather than seek truth.

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 07/05/2025

Prediction markets force people to put their money where their mouth is. They're not perfect, but they're a better gauge of genuine belief than hot takes and posturing.

000

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 07/05/2025

Most political arguments aren't about facts but competing values. Recognize when you're having a values disagreement masquerading as a factual one.

010

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 06/05/2025

Beware confusing visibility with importance. The most visible threats aren't always the most significant ones. The most dangerous developments often happen outside our immediate view.

122

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 06/05/2025

The core of Bayesian thinking: P(H|E) = P(E|H) × P(H) / P(E). In plain English: The probability of your hypothesis given new evidence depends on how likely that evidence would be if your hypothesis were true.

010

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 06/05/2025

Strong opinions should be proportional to strong evidence. The louder someone shouts, the more proof you should demand.

031

Luisa Groher @luisagroher.bsky.social · 05/05/2025

The Streetlight Effect: We focus on threats we can easily measure while ignoring dangers operating in the shadows. What we can't easily count still exists—and may be more dangerous.

020