I love easy wins

I was looking before at the book "The spirit level". It is a deeply divisive and influential book, with many people both supporting it and some making some seemingly valid criticisms of it. Right now, I don't want to take a side, I think of equality as a matter of morality; even if the evidence pointed the other way, I'd still want a more equal society. I want instead to consider what was going on in my head when I was looking into the book.

I was initially drawn to this book because of my left leaning. It looked great, evidence to justify my belief. My belief that an equal society is morally good means I want an equal society by any means (obviously within reason). When I find evidence which can achieve these ends, I jump for joy. But as you should be able to see, I am guilty of several fallacies: creating sides in a multifaceted debate, confirmation bias and the is-ought fallacy.

It doesn't end there though, I decided to check out criticism of the book, although I admit I went into war mode. I was looking for criticism so I could strike it down with my towering intellect and clearly correct information. As it happened, I brought only a pointed stick to a gun fight in both senses. My mind crawled away, wounded, cursing the day it ever decided to fight this battle and I gave up. Oh I can't be bothered with this it exclaimed.

And this reminded me of my previous post, I had missed something crucial. Not only do I give myself undue credit, not only am I prone to type one errors and not only that I turn debates into war. But I am also lazy! I like easy wins, unfortunately this was no easy win for my left centred brain. It struck me: I derive pleasure from winning, from being correct and shooting down other arguments, of course I will develop a complex where I avoid hard debates where my views will be challenged. I actually prefer to remain wrong and have a nice side to sit on and throw stones from than be buffeted by other people arguments and really engage with it.

You could call this self-flagellation, an in a way it is, I am pointing out my error in the hope that it will stick in my mind. To reiterate: Reality and morality are distinct and sometimes at odds with each other. The aim is to find the correct answer not for one side to win. I should not seek self affirming arguments. And to add to this: I should seek hard arguments and stop being so bloody lazy.

If you want to take a look at the debate:

A talk from the author summing it up: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

The blog of the book called the spirit level delusion: http://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot.co.uk/
A free pdf critique of the book: http://www.environnement.ens.fr/IMG/file/stages/A%20critical%20reading%20of%20The%20Spirit%20Level_Milos%20Simic-2.pdf

And heed my warnings.

Critical Thinking: Fallacies and Bias

Introduction

You are a good person and correct about pretty much everything. Or so we like to tell ourselves on a daily basis. I'm not being facetious, we literally do. Our inability to correctly critically assess our own views leads to regular and serious social problems, examples include racism, rejection of good scientific theories and debilitation of our political system. Key to become more correct is understanding your own limitations, this is not a discussion of how to persuade people with fancy words or emotive devices, but how to strive to be less flawed. (Note to reader, this is as much an exercise to help me as you).

A fallacy is simply an incorrect argument, and they can come in any shape or size. Often what is meant by "fallacy x" and perhaps a more helpful definition is: an incorrect logical construction or argument which humans often fall into. Bias can mean almost the same in this context, a tendency for humans to think in a certain way which can often lead to incorrect conclusions. Some of these biases may even be obvious, you may palm off the severity of them, saying: "I notice myself doing these all the time and stop myself." Maybe you are a cognitive superman and stop yourself all the time, but I doubt it because you are most probably human. Even if you are exceptional, these biases take a lot of work to find and minimise. You will never be done either, it is a process of continuous improvement, it is both unhelpful and inaccurate to think you will ever finish. Enjoy instead every time you eliminate some bias, becoming a little less wrong.

Fallacies and Bias

In general (there may be exceptions), fallacies and biases stem from a few human traits. Firstly, we view ourselves in an overly positive light and others in a negative light. We dismiss our own flaws, and assume we are correct more than we are. Second, we are overly prone to type 1 errors (false positives). After all, it is better to over-sensitive and avoid a harmless thing than be under-sensitive and ignore a dangerous one. This, apart from making us survive better, means we tend to see patterns in events that aren't there. Another major issue with human reasoning is our tendency to see a discussion as war. We are built to form groups, tight knit groups who believe broadly similar things. This is obvious in politics, where battles which should be about ideas and data become battles about groups and parties (Check out Politics is the Mind-Killer on Less Wrong for more).

Lastly, and a more general point which encapsulates the others: we aren't designed for this. Long, certain logical processes may be accurate but they are slow. It's not all bad, as I said with type one errors, with our limited processing power evolution has provided us with decent heuristics to survive. Heuristics are essentially cutting corners when it comes to finding solutions. They are far more efficient than proper logic, even if not perfect, complete or always correct solutions. In days gone by, when our minds were preoccupied by more basic needs, this was great. In fact it is tautological to say, those who survived to reproduce were better at surviving in that primitive environment. That's great, everyone loves survival. The problem arises when we focus our mind on one problem, our heuristics cloud our vision; offering their needlessly quick and half-arsed ideas, when we have all the time in the world. Evolution is an imperfect process, and contrary to popular belief (due to our knack for type 1 errors) it did not and does not "aim" for a perfect being. In this case, it has produced a being which is not very good at logical deduction, instead one which is good at surviving and reproducing.

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is a tendency for people to find evidence that agrees with their hypotheses. We don't like the feeling of being wrong or the effort of having to think to change our opinion (I'm speaking from experience). So as a coping device, we either avoid, suppress or deride such evidence. This can express itself in all kinds of ways. One example is when we seek out friends who agree with us, I'm not judging this practice as wrong, we all need down time (check out is-ought fallacy). Nevertheless, we should be aware of it, because sometimes it can lead us to another fallacy: the false-consensus effect (there are many other ways this can arise). We can also avoid conflicting evidence by only reading news-sources that agree with us. In the same regard we can be over-critical of people who disagree with us, (a little more of this later) or automatically put up barriers if we think they might. You may feel yourself do this, try reading two conflicting newspapers and feel yourself glide over one opinion but ridicule another. Of course, it is time consuming to do this, to question evidence you agree with and entertain evidence you don't (maybe you can see why we evolved this bias). I am by no means saying all evidence is equal, one important conclusion of Bayes theorem is that we take into account prior observations, but naturally we aren't sensitive enough (hence the bias). Don't waste your time seriously appraising evidence of the boogie-man, but do occasionally ask yourself, "is it my level of trust for this evidence reasonable or am I unfairly ignoring it/giving it undue credit?" And be willing to change your hypothesis in the light of sufficient evidence.

Attribution bias

Wikipedia sums this bias up very well with a story:

"For example, when a driver cuts us off, we are more likely to attribute blame to the reckless driver (e.g., “What a jerk!”), rather than situational circumstances (e.g., “Maybe they were in a rush and didn’t notice me")."

The situation acts in reverse when it is us cutting up the other driver, and although the bias is a little broader than this (and is very much worthy of a further read) it stems from a simple idea: we want to portray ourselves as positively as possible. To counteract this bias, remember that everyone else is like you.

Cultural bias

We see evidence through the lens of our current theories, we saw that in the confirmation bias. However, many of there theories are first formed and learnt from our culture. By culture I mean in the broadest possible definition, including the culture of your friend groups, the culture of humanity, the culture of your educational establishment etc. Perhaps it would be better to refer to it as environmental bias, what are the people around you saying? Again, this is a bias of magnitude not type, don't throw out everything your culture tells you; our ability to absorb and pass on huge amounts of culture is one of the few things which separates us from other primates. Remember that nothing is sacred, no idea above reproach. The fact that religion practically runs in families should serve as a stark reminder to question received knowledge. Cultural bias can be much more subtle, one interesting example is the obsession of western nations to enforce democracy on countries with authoritarian rule. However, we are surprised when the country votes for a despotic leader again, "they are silly", we exclaim, "why would you not want a secular and liberal democracy?!" Culture is powerful and paints everything you think: question the accepted norm.

Ingroup-outgroup formation and bias

This is a particularly toxic bias: we love to make sides, seek to widen gaps and reduce proper argumentation to throwing shit around. What do I mean?

We need no encouragement to produce sides, as the robbers cave experiment suggests. I would highly recommend reading it, but to quickly sum it up: two isolated groups were formed, and upon discovering each other, started a constantly escalating war which also standardised behaviour within the groups. See also, the two sided debating chambers of the House of Commons and the Cambridge union. But what is wrong with a bit of back and forth in a debate as long as we don't fight?

Firstly, issues are rarely two sided or even three sided, the best solution (and remember that is our goal) is somewhere on a many dimensional map of the solutions (x amount of this and y amount of this... etc). Reality and people are complicated, and so are the solutions to our problems, I don't want a choice between only two. Furthermore, I and you need no encouragement to conform to a binary choice. That isn't all of it though, our tendency to take sides often leads to poor argumentation. We provide our own side concessions and don't question, all the while demonising and criticising the enemy. We see the discussion as a war, where our side needs to win. To question your side is betrayal and making concessions is losing vital ground. This serves only to widen the gaps as insults become personal, make our own views more ardent and produce a more stark binary. Choices are rarely binary so don't take sides, you are trying to find the truth not win a war.

In politics these effects are blown up and their effects are too terrible to fathom, I would recommend reading politics is the mind-killer.

Ad Hominem

A famous politician once concluded "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?". He was stupid => his policies were stupid => we should do the opposite.

Ad Hominem is a decent heuristic, stupid person says stupid things, a bad tree bears bad fruit. But it isn't a valid method of refuting a specific argument. The truth of statement is entirely separated from the person saying it. If you have enough time, there is no need even to consider who is saying it. Simple statements about whether one thing implies another require no context. With all the time and resources in the world, more complex claims could be tested with your own evidence and all logical steps could be checked. Realistically though, it is useful to have context and possible motivations if it is a particularly complex argument. It is useful to know where someone is coming from to watch out for specific flaws, but remember when you do it. In your mind, you must separate the person and the idea. (To link it to the previous bias, bear in mind a discussion is not a battle between two people or even ideologies or cultures, the truth is unconcerned with the frame and participants of the debate.)

I feel I must defend poor George Bush, in my example I remarked at his grammatical slip. On this basis and on his mannerisms, you may conclude that George Bush was stupid, maybe he was. I don't care to be honest, good grammar and spelling are probably only weakly correlated with intelligence, or at least weaker than you think. Even if it was, it wouldn't be the point, the truth could appear badly spelt on the side of a railway track or uttered by a pompous fool and it would still be true.

An extension of this fallacy is the tendency to reject wholesale the views of the stupid or the evil. I don't think I can explain this any better than Eliezer Yudkowsky, see Reversed stupidity is not Intelligence.
The stupid and evil occasionally get it right.

Is-ought fallacy

The is-ought fallacy is the movement between statements of reality and statements of ethics without suitable justification. How things are (is) and how things ought to be are separate questions. We see a specific type a lot, when people appeal to nature; flogging food with all "natural flavours" and accusing homosexuality of being unnatural and therefore wrong. It's not that either statement must therefore be wrong, it just requires justification (you'll probably struggle more with the latter statement, I hope).

The connection between reality and morality should be reasoned and not simply implied.

Conclusion

These are literally a tiny sample, check out List of cognitive biases on wikipedia (less wrong also has some very good articles on such things). I have attempted to pick particularly common ones, but this is of course shaped by my experience and personal biases. Perhaps you would have picked different ones, but that's not the point, I just wanted to point out to you (and me) how often and how badly wrong we are. The answer to "why?" might be from our culture and genes, but don't blame your ancestors too much, wondering whether we are in the matrix isn't very helpful when a tiger is bearing down at you. If your ancestor had been having an existential crisis at that point, you may not be here to read this (maybe you wish s/he had). Corner cutting heuristics are much quicker, but take your time and don't skip the logical steps, there's often no need. If a decision is important enough to take your time about it, keep the logical steps short to avoid falling in such holes.

Critical Thinking: What and why?

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is what all thinking should be. The process of critical thinking is to sceptically assess an argument, checking that the conclusion and any implications along the way are justified. By definition, it is the method of making argumentation as correct as possible. Inwardly, it is spotting errors in your beliefs and arguments and correcting them. Outwardly, it is spotting flaws with what people say, not with the purpose degrading or insulting them, but in an effort to make the statement correct.

Why bother with it? 

The truth matters! Say we have a decision to make, about the welfare of people or a strategy to achieve something, there is a most effective solution. In order to find that solution, correct argumentation is required along with relevant evidence. Critical thinking is appraising the solutions, finding flaws in the logic, attempting to find that solution. In general, humans are very poor at this, we are not built for proper critical thinking. To add to this, we are also even more terrible at accepting where we are wrong. Critical thinking is quite possibly the most important process to learn. It is learning how to find the truth. For this reason, we shouldn't just grudgingly accept that we must study it. We have to wholeheartedly embrace it as a method, enjoying finding truth in the process. Our aim is make critical thinking a mind set, our default mode of thinking.

"The habits of mind that characterize a person strongly disposed toward critical thinking include a desire to follow reason and evidence wherever they may lead, a systematic approach to problem solving, inquisitiveness, even-handedness, and confidence in reasoning."

For further reading on critical thinking, see wikipedia. For a much better explanation of pretty much the whole of rationality, check out Less Wrong.

quote from The National Assessment of College Student Learning: Identification of the Skills to be Taught, Learned, and Assessed, NCES 94–286, US Dept of Education, Addison Greenwod (Ed), Sal Carrallo (PI).


This post is dedicated to Yasmin Slattery :D

Ambiguity and Faith

Let's assume God is reasonable, what do I mean by this? I mean he abides by basic logical rules and if he wants us to believe in him, has left enough evidence or enough a priori facts to convince a reasonable person he exists. I think this is reasonable, and feels almost like the minimum he could do. Of course, this already is a little flawed: if someone is of low intelligence, how can they be expected to work this out (therefore God discriminates based on intelligence)? Especially if they are surrounded by "evil-doers" (whatever that means). But I digress, lets continue this simple point to some kind of conclusion.

One example of a common argument for a God is the cosmological argument. This says

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. A causal loop cannot exist.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

I don't want to delve particularly deeply on the points, for much better philosophers than I have already been there. I merely want to highlight that there exists areas of ambiguity.

• Our facts about causation is based on a posteriori knowledge, making 2 and 3 somewhat ambiguous. Some physicists have suggested that time does funny things near the start of the universe, allowing for a chain of infinite causation.
• 4 Concludes that an infinite, non-contingent "being" exists. However, it gives no indication as to what the being is like. It may not even be sentient. If you did want to conclude it was intelligent and conscious, then it may be a God who doesn't interfere, or does interfere but doesn't give two shits about our eternal welfare. It's certainly far from certain that its the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (or any other).

For many others, check out the Wikipedia or if you don't like Wikipedia, I'm sure there are many other good resources out there. The point is, even if you think I am incorrect about these counter-positions, you must concede there is at least some ambiguity (i.e. it is entirely reasonable, from the evidence, to conclude there is no God). Then, because of the ambiguity of this argument (and of many others I don't have time to list), it is unreasonable (see definition of reasonable at top) of god to expect us to make that choice. The arbitrariness and ambiguity behind the decision makes it uncharacteristic of a reasonable God.

A common defence is that cynical people who require conclusive evidence and that take the position that logically we should start off as an agnostic, are denying God. Somehow, this cynicism or reluctance to have faith without evidence is a bad quality. Conversely, faith is rewarded and considered a good quality. Despite, logically being an inferior way of making decisions. This contradicts my premise, suggesting that such a God is unreasonable. Maybe God exists and is unreasonable, although if that is the case, then God help us all.

Favourite Quotes

This will seem an eclectic mix of quotes, and it is. It isn't supposed to be greater than the sum of its parts, its just a load of quotes I thought were good at the time. It should also be remembered that quotes are often poor examples of good logic. Rather they are succinct and beautiful expressions of said logic.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

Although it can be seen as pompous to quote Aristotle or other Greek philosophers, you would miss out on some great wisdom. This quote nicely sums up the level of open-mindedness we need, an ability to listen to ideas and critically appraise them without accepting them.

"Don't let your morals get in the way of doing what's right." Isaac Asimov (as Salvor Hardin)
"If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul." Isaac Asimov
Isaac Asimov uses the wise Salvor Hardin as his mouthpiece to succinctly express the danger of blindly sticking to dogma. The second quote also partially expresses the same sentiment, along with Asimov's personal belief.
"[the puddle remarks] This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" Douglas Adam
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" Douglas Adams
Douglas Adams produces a pithy rebuttal to the Anthropic principal and sums up Occam's Razor.

"The fact if your own existence is the most astonishing fact you will ever have to confront. Don't you dare ever get used to it. Don't you dare ever say that life is boring, monotonous or joyless. One obvious way to express this is the improbability of your own personal existence." Richard Dawkins

A reminder for us that our biology and evolution is indeed beautiful and should not be dismissed as mundane. (On a related note I would recommend reading Mundane Magic)

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower." Karl Marx
Often the phrase in italics is plucked out of this this quote, but without context it ignores much of what Karl Marx what attempting to say. Whether or not you agree with Marx on this is another question.

"They whip out their sharpies and take away and add apostrophes from public signs and shake their heads at prepositions which end sentences and mutter at split infinitives and miss spellings but do they bubble and froth and slobber and cream with joy at language. Do they ever let the tripping of the tips of the tops of their tongues against the tops of the teeth transport them to giddy euphoric bliss. Do they ever yoke impossible words together for the sound-sex of it. Do they use language to seduce, charm, excite please, affirm and tickle those they talk to? Do they? I doubt it." Stephen Fry
Stephen Fry criticising the tendency for grammar nazis to insist on language purity while missing out on the flexible and beautiful, but messy, qualities of language.
"I see these rappers that say things like 'no homo' and such;It always seems maybe the lady doth protest too much..." Scroobius Pip

"If your faith can move mountains, then it should be able to withstand critism " Ruben2287 (reddit)

Response to Should we care that smart women aren't having kids?

Posted on Should we care that smart women aren't having kids?

How is this a conundrum? Our idea of intelligence (high level problem solving) is disconnected from reproductive instinct; it would be more peculiar if they were connected. Children cost a huge amount of resources and temporarily decrease happiness, it's no surprise that women who are better at long term decision making are more likely to be uncomfortable at the idea. Furthermore, if someone is intelligent it is likely that they find computationally difficult tasks (like research or demanding jobs) more rewarding. Perhaps then, it is more likely that this urge will trump that of reproduction.

We have a tendency to anthropomorphise the evolutionary process and animal urges, simply put in this case, it is not always evolutionarily advantageous to be more intelligent. Intelligence might make you better at surviving but less likely to reproduce. We conflate survival of an individual to survival of the group, when the two can be disconnected.

I do agree entirely with you conclusion: as a society, if we want a more intelligent population, then we must provide support for intelligent and reluctant mothers. That's even ignoring the ethical side of it, where most would agree that women should be given greater freedom to have children and follow a career they enjoy.