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.

Homework #3: Advertisement

Homework #3 is due at the beginning of class on Thursday, December 6th. 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.

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:

Hearsay, You Say?

-via GraphJam

Mr. Crispino heard it through the purple monkey dishwasher:

More to Forget

Here's more on the less of memory:

• Here's an overview on the way our memory is faulty by psychologist Gary Marcus. He's written a book called Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind.
• Even strong "flashbulb memories" like what you were doing on 9/11 are not very accurate.
• One leading expert on memory is psychologist Elizabeth Loftus (she's mentioned in our textbook, and we talked about her in class). Here is a pair of articles that summarize her research on false memories, and here's a video of her presenting on it.
• Here's an article on the unreliability of eyewitness identification.
• Here's an article that suggests many jurors seem to prefer eyewitness testimony over forensic evidence.  Given how unreliable our memories are, that's pretty scary.  Here's a quote:
  

  "Despite all our scientific know-how, jurors weighing life and death decisions still crave what Leone calls the 'human element:' the act of watching another person testify and deciding if they’re telling the truth.
  

  
  "As these witnesses enter the courtroom, a hush often falls on the gallery. Jurors — bored by days of dry testimony given by well-rehearsed experts — lean forward in their seats, pens at the ready to take notes about what the eyewitness has to say. They have seen this moment on television, too, and it’s usually really, really interesting."

Paper Guideline

Due Date: the beginning of class on Tuesday, December 11th, 2012

Worth: 10% of final grade

Length/Format: Papers must be typed, and must be between 400-800 words long. Provide a word count on the first page of the paper. (Most programs like Microsoft Word & WordPerfect have automatic word counts.)

Assignment:
1) Pick an article from a newspaper, magazine, or journal in which an author presents an argument for a particular position.There are some links to potential articles below.  I recommend choosing from those articles, though you are also free to choose an article on any topic you want.

PRO TIP: It’s easier to write this paper on an article with a BAD argument. Try finding a poorly-reasoned article!

If you don’t chose from the articles on the blog, you must show Sean your article by Tuesday, December 4th for approval. The main requirement is that the article present an argument. One place to look for such articles is the Opinion page of a newspaper. Here is a list of possible articles. I strongly recommend using one of these articles, since many (the first 8 in particular) contain bad arguments:

1. Down With Facebook!: it's soooo lame
2. Is Facebook Making Us Lonely? generational I'M-SPECIAL-ism
3. Do Fish Feel Pain?: "it's a tricky issue, so I'll go with my gut"
4. In the Basement of the Ivory Tower: are some people just not meant for college?
5. Study Says Social Conservatives Are Dumb: but that doesn't mean they're wrong
6. A New Argument Against Gay Marriage: hetero marriage is unique & indispensable
7. Ben Stein's Confession for the Holidays: taking sides on the war on christmas
8. Get Over Ferris Bueller: it's an overrated movie
   
   
9. You Don't Deserve Your Salary: no one does
10. The Financial Crisis Killed Libertarianism: if it wasn't dead to begin with
11. How'd Economists Get It So Wrong?: Krugman says the least wrong was Keynes
12. An Open Letter to Krugman: get to know your field
13. Consider the Lobster: David Foster Wallace ponders animal ethics
14. Are Dolphins People?: an ocean full of sea-people
15. The Dark Art of Interrogation: Bowden says torture is necessary
16. The Idle Life is Worth Living: in praise of laziness
17. Should I Become a Professional Philosopher?: maybe not (update)
18. Blackburn Defends Philosophy: it beats being employed

Here’s a list of some other good sources:

• The New Yorker
• Slate
• New York Review of Books
• London Review of Books
• Times Literary Supplement
• Boston Review
• Atlantic Monthly
• The New Republic
• The Weekly Standard
• The Nation
• Reason
• Dissent
• First Things
• Mother Jones
• National Journal
• The New Criterion
• Wilson Quarterly
• The Philosophers' Magazine

(for even more sources, check out the left-hand column of Arts & Letters Daily)

2) In the essay, first briefly explain the article’s argument in your own words. What’s the position that the author is arguing for? What are the reasons the author offers as evidence for her or his conclusion? What type of argument does the author provide? In other words, provide a brief summary of the argument.
NOTE: This part of your paper shouldn’t be very long. I recommend making this only one paragraph of your paper.

3) In the essay, then evaluate the article’s argument. Overall, is this a good or bad argument? Why or why not? Systematically evaluate the argument:

• Check each premise: is each premise true? Are any false? Questionable? (Do research if you have to in order to determine whether the premises are true.)
• Then check the structure of the argument. Do the premises provide enough support for the conclusion?
• Does the argument contain any fallacies? If so, which one(s)? Exactly how does the argument commit it/them?

If you are criticizing the article’s argument, be sure to consider potential responses that the author might offer, and explain why these responses don’t work. If you are defending the article’s argument, be sure to consider and respond to objections.
NOTE: This should be the main part of your paper. Focus most of your paper on evaluating the argument.

4) If your paper is not on one of the articles linked to on the course blog, attach a copy of the article to your paper when you hand it in. (Save trees! Print it on few pages!)

Filling in Memory

Here's a section (pages 78-80) from psychologist Dan Gilbert's great book Stumbling on Happiness about how memory works:



The preview cuts off at the bottom of page 80. Here's the rest from that section:

"...reading the words you saw. But in this case, your brain was tricked by the fact that the gist word--the key word, the essential word--was not actually on the list. When your brain rewove the tapestry of your experience, it mistakenly included a word that was implied by the gist but that had not actually appeared, just as volunteers in the previous study mistakenly included a stop sign that was implied by the question they had been asked but that had not actually appeared in the slides they saw.

"This experiment has ben done dozens of times with dozens of different word lists, and these studies have revealed two surprising findings. First, people do not vaguely recall seeing the gist word and they do not simply guess that they saw the gist word. Rather, they vividly remember seeing it and they feel completely confident that it appeared. Second, this phenomenon happens even when people are warned about it beforehand. Knowing that a researcher is trying to trick you into falsely recalling the appearance of a gist word does not stop that false recollection from happening."

Too many words, Sean! Can't you just put up a video? You better make it funny, too!

Fine. Here's Dan Gilbert on The Colbert Report:

Misidentification

Here's an excellent, short video explanation of the unreliability of memory that ends with a dog licking peanut butter off a guy's face:


And here's a more serious video (that we watched in class) on the tragedy of misidentifying a suspect:

Direct Experience

Here are the two videos we watched in class. First, watch this:


Next, watch this:


Finally, here's an article on this issue. Still trust your direct experience?

Deoderant Norms

If you don't buy these products, you're being unnatural: