| PeterH | v1.6.0Oct 27th 2021 | (+32/-16) Fix broken link (Peter Hurford blog post was republished under a different title) | ||
| plex | v1.5.0Aug 17th 2021 | (+270/-104) made intro paragraph more clear and intuitive, added link to object level | ||
| tarvaina | v1.4.0Jul 29th 2021 | |||
| Yoav Ravid | v1.3.0Feb 9th 2021 | (+16/-133) | ||
| Ruby | v1.2.0Oct 1st 2020 | (+1760) | ||
| Ruby | v1.1.0Apr 17th 2020 | (+381/-1826) | ||
| Grognor | v0.0.19Mar 12th 2012 | (+172) | ||
| Zack_M_Davis | v0.0.18Nov 16th 2009 | (-27) byline removal | ||
| PeerInfinity | v0.0.17Sep 28th 2009 | (+65/-65) | ||
| Vladimir_Nesov | v0.0.16Sep 20th 2009 | (+24) /* See also */ |
The Inferential Distancedistance between Person A and Person B on a given subjecttwo people with respect to an item of knowledge is the numberamount of steps or concepts a person needs to share before they can successfully communicate the object level point. This can be thought of inference required for Aas the missing foundation or building block concepts needed to reach B's conclusion. think clearly about a specific thing.
Explaining the evidence for the theory of evolution to a physicist would be easy; even if the physicist didn't already know about evolution, they would understand the concepts of evidence, Occam's razor, naturalistic explanations, and the general orderly nature of the universe. Explaining the evidence for the theory of evolution to someone without a science background would be much harder. Before even mentioning the specific evidence for evolution, you would have to explain the concept of evidence, why some kinds of evidence are more valuable than others, what does and doesn't count as evidence, and so on. This would be unlikely to work during a short conversation.
There is a short inferential distance between you and the physicist; there is a very long inferential distance between you and the person without any science background. Many members of Less Wrong believe that expecting short inferential distances is a classic error. It is also a very difficult problem to solve, since most people will feel offended if you explicitly say that there is too great an inferential distance between you to explain a theory properly. Some people have attempted to explain this through evolutionary psychology: in the ancestral environment, there was minimal difference in knowledge between people, and therefore no need to worry about inferential distances.
The Inferential Distance distance between Person A and Person B on a given subject is a gap between the background knowledge and epistemologynumber of a person tryingsteps of inference required for A to explain an idea, and the background knowledge and epistemology of the person trying to understand it.reach B's conclusion.
For example, explaining theIn evidence for the theory of evolution to a physicist would be easy; even if the physicist didn't already know about evolution, they would understand the concepts of evidence, Occam's razorExpecting Short Inferential Distances, naturalistic explanations, and the general orderly nature of the universe. Explaining the evidence for the theory of evolution to someone without a science background would be much harder. Before even mentioning the specific evidence for evolution,Eliezer Yudkowsky posits that humans systematically underestimate inferential distances.
And if you
would have tothink you can explain the concept ofevidence, why“systematically underestimated inferential distances” briefly, in just a few words, I’ve got somekinds of evidence are more valuable than others, what does and doesn't count as evidence, and so on. This would be unlikely to work during a short conversation.
There is a short inferential distance betweensad news for youand the physicist; there is a very long inferential distance between you and the person without any science background. Many members of Less Wrong believe that expecting short inferential distances is a classic error. It is also a very difficult problem to solve, since most people will feeloffendedif you explicitly say that there is too great an inferential distance between you to explain a theory properly. Some people have attempted to explain this throughevolutionary psychology: in the ancestral environment, there was minimal difference in knowledge between people, and therefore no need to worry about inferential distances.
Blog posts
Illusion of Transparency: Why No One Understands You- . . . – Expecting Short Inferential Distances
Double Illusion of Transparency
External links
The Sad Truth of Inferential Distanceby Peter HurfordHow all human communication fails, except by accident, or a commentary of Wiio's laws
See also
The Sad Truth ofWhy It's Hard to Explain Things: Inferential Distance by Peter Hurford