Wished Pots Never Boil

Here is a hodgepodge of links on some psychological impediments we're discussing recently:

• If you're a fan of The Secret, you should beware that it's basic message is wishful thinking run amok.
• Courtroom judges have pretty serious biases: they're more lenient earlier in the day and right after a break. Scary!!!!
• Teachers have biases, too: we're self-serving and play favorites.
• Why don't we give more aid to those in need? Psychological impediments are at least partly to blame.
• Why do we believe medical myths (like "vitamin C cures the common cold," or "you should drink 8 glasses of water a day")? Psychological impediments, of course!
• Wikipedia has a great list of common misconceptions.

Most Published Science is False

Beware: as the flowchart above suggests, most published scientific research is probably false. Seriously, there's a pretty big decline effect problem in science.

This is why you should trust meta-analyses (scientific surveys of all the related studies on a particular issue) over any individual study. You should also trust settled science (the stuff you'd find in a textbook) more than any new scientific research. And you should be especially wary of any science explained on the news. 

The Smart Bias

Oddly, the I'M-SPECIAL-ism bias seems to increase the more intelligent you are. Studies suggest that the smarter and more experienced you are, the more overconfident you're likely to become. In particular, we seem to believe that our intelligence makes us immune to biases. But that's just not true! The philosopher Nigel Warburton puts it nicely:

“Many of us would like to believe that intellect banishes prejudice. Sadly, this is itself a prejudice.”

No, You're Not

One of my favorite topics is I'M-SPECIAL-ism. Psychological research has repeatedly shown that most Americans overestimate their own abilities. This is one of the biggest hurdles to proper reasoning: the natural tendency to think that I'm more unique--smarter, or more powerful, or prettier, or whatever--than I really am.

A blog I like is Overcoming Bias. Their mission statement is sublimely anti-I'M-SPECIAL-ist:

"How can we better believe what is true? While it is of course useful to seek and study relevant information, our minds are full of natural tendencies to bias our beliefs via overconfidence, wishful thinking, and so on. Worse, our minds seem to have a natural tendency to convince us that we are aware of and have adequately corrected for such biases, when we have done no such thing."

This may sound insulting, but one of the goals of this class is getting us to recognize that we're not as smart as we think we are. All of us. You. Me! That one. You again. Me again!

So I hope you'll join the campaign to end I'M-SPECIAL-ism.

Jock Math

Statistics in sports is all the rage lately.  Here are some links on the topic.

• Statistical analysis can justify counterintuitive decisions, like going for it instead of punting on 4th down... though don't expect the fans to buy that fancy math learnin'.
• There are a lot of odd statistical myths about what happens on the day of the Super Bowl that deserve to be debunked.
  
• "Realistic Announcer Shouting How Kevin Durant Making His Last 4 Shots Has No Bearing On Whether He Will Make Next Shot"
• "Cornell Drains Fun Out Of Cinderella Run By Explaining How On A Long Enough Timeline The Improbable Becomes Probable"

And here are some nice audio and video on statistical reasoning:

• That radio show I love recently devoted an entire episode to probability:
  
  
• That other radio show I love ran a great 2-part series on the screening for diseases called "You Are Pre-Diseased":
  
  Listen to Part 1
  Listen to Part 2
• Here's a cool visualization of the president's promise to cut $100 million from the U.S. budget:

The Importance of Being Stochastic

Statistical reasoning is incredibly important. The vast majority of advancements in human knowledge (all sciences, social sciences, medicine, engineering...) is the result of using some kind of math. If I had to recommend one other course that could improve your ability to learn in general, it'd be Statistics.

Anyway, here is a bunch of links:

• Most of us are pretty bad at statistical reasoning.
• Here's a review of a decent book (The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives) on our tendency to misinterpret randomness as if it's an intentional pattern.
• Controversial claim alert! This ability to see patterns where there are none may explain why so many of us believe in god (see section 5 in particular).
• It also may explain why we think small schools do a better job at educating students. They probably don't.
• What was that infinite monkey typewriter thing we were talking about in class?
• What's up with that recent recommendation that routine screenings for breast cancer should wait until your 50s rather than 40s? Math helps explain it.

Change We Mistakenly Believe In

Here's a common example of confirmation bias and selective memory most of us have experienced: do you think we should stick with our first instinct when answering a test question? Most of us think we should. After all, so many of us remember lots of times where we initially circled the right answer, only to cross it out and choose another.

The problem with this is that research suggests that our first instincts are no more reliable than our second-guessing. Why does the myth persist? Well, we're more likely to remember the times we second-guessed and got it wrong than the times we second-guessed and got it right. Switching away from the right answer is just so frustrating that it's a more memorable event. So if I got back the following test...

...I'd probably only notice that I changed #6 and #7 to the wrong answer. I'd be much less likely to notice that I changed #1 and #3 to the right answer.

The Conspiracy Bug

Here's an article on a 9/11 conspiracy physicist that brings up a number of issues we're discussing in class (specifically appealing to authority and confirmation bias). I've quoted an excerpt of the relevant section on the lone-wolf semi-expert (physicist) versus the overwhelming consensus of more relevant experts (structural engineers):

While there are a handful of Web sites that seek to debunk the claims of Mr. Jones and others in the movement, most mainstream scientists, in fact, have not seen fit to engage them.

"There's nothing to debunk," says Zdenek P. Bazant, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern University and the author of the first peer-reviewed paper on the World Trade Center collapses.

"It's a non-issue," says Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder, a lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology's study of the collapses.

Ross B. Corotis, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a member of the editorial board at the journal Structural Safety, says that most engineers are pretty settled on what happened at the World Trade Center. "There's not really disagreement as to what happened for 99 percent of the details," he says.

And one more excerpt on reasons to be skeptical of conspiracy theories in general:

One of the most common intuitive problems people have with conspiracy theories is that they require positing such complicated webs of secret actions. If the twin towers fell in a carefully orchestrated demolition shortly after being hit by planes, who set the charges? Who did the planning? And how could hundreds, if not thousands of people complicit in the murder of their own countrymen keep quiet? Usually, Occam's razor intervenes.

Another common problem with conspiracy theories is that they tend to impute cartoonish motives to "them" — the elites who operate in the shadows. The end result often feels like a heavily plotted movie whose characters do not ring true.

Then there are other cognitive Do Not Enter signs: When history ceases to resemble a train of conflicts and ambiguities and becomes instead a series of disinformation campaigns, you sense that a basic self-correcting mechanism of thought has been disabled. A bridge is out, and paranoia yawns below.

Rationalizing Away from the Truth

A big worry that the confirmation and disconfirmation biases raise is the difficulty of figuring out what counts as successful, open-minded reasoning, versus what amounts to after-the-fact rationalization of preexisting beliefs. Here are some links on our tendency to rationalize rather than reason:

• Recent moral psychology suggests that we often simply rationalize our snap moral judgments. (Or worse: we actually undercut our snap judgments to defend whatever we want to do.)
• The great public radio show Radio Lab devoted an entire show to the psychology of our moral decision-making:
  
  
• Humans' judge-first, rationalize-later approach stems in part from the two competing decision-making styles inside our heads.
• For more on the dual aspects of our minds, I strongly recommend reading one of the best philosophy papers of 2008: "Alief and Belief" by Tamar Gendler.
  
• Here's a video dialogue between Gendler and her colleague (psychologist Paul Bloom) on her work:

Homework #3: Advertising

Homework #3 is due at the beginning of class on Monday, December 2nd. Your assignment is to choose an ad (on TV or from a magazine or wherever) and evaluate it from a logic & reasoning perspective.

• First, very briefly explain the argument that the ad offers to sell its product.
• Then, list and explain the mistakes in reasoning that the ad commits.
• Then, list and explain the psychological ploys the ad uses (what psychological impediments does the ad try to exploit?).
• Attach (if it's from a newspaper or magazine) or briefly explain the ad.