Trump vs. Amazon

Now that Trump is bashing Amazon, the Internet company may face hard times. My suggestion is that they invest in Trump, buy up his countless  loans and consolidate them. That should greatly improve the company's prospects while simplifying Trump's foreign policy. 

Why Reason Doesn't Work

What follows from an old New Yorker article:

If reason is designed to generate sound judgments, then it’s hard to conceive of a more serious design flaw than confirmation bias. Imagine, Mercier and Sperber suggest, a mouse that thinks the way we do. Such a mouse, “bent on confirming its belief that there are no cats around,” would soon be dinner. To the extent that confirmation bias leads people to dismiss evidence of new or underappreciated threats—the human equivalent of the cat around the corner—it’s a trait that should have been selected against. The fact that both we and it survive, Mercier and Sperber argue, proves that it must have some adaptive function, and that function, they maintain, is related to our “hypersociability.Mercier and Sperber prefer the term “myside bias.” Humans, they point out, aren’t randomly credulous. Presented with someone else’s argument, we’re quite adept at spotting the weaknesses. Almost invariably, the positions we’re blind about are our own.A recent experiment performed by Mercier and some European colleagues neatly demonstrates this asymmetry. Participants were asked to answer a series of simple reasoning problems. They were then asked to explain their responses, and were given a chance to modify them if they identified mistakes. The majority were satisfied with their original choices; fewer than fifteen per cent changed their minds in step two.

In step three, participants were shown one of the same problems, along with their answer and the answer of another participant, who’d come to a different conclusion. Once again, they were given the chance to change their responses. But a trick had been played: the answers presented to them as someone else’s were actually their own, and vice versa. About half the participants realized what was going on. Among the other half, suddenly people became a lot more critical. Nearly sixty per cent now rejected the responses that they’d earlier been satisfied with.

“Thanks again for coming—I usually find these office parties rather awkward.”

This lopsidedness, according to Mercier and Sperber, reflects the task that reason evolved to perform, which is to prevent us from getting screwed by the other members of our group. Living in small bands of hunter-gatherers, our ancestors were primarily concerned with their social standing, and with making sure that they weren’t the ones risking their lives on the hunt while others loafed around in the cave. There was little advantage in reasoning clearly, while much was to be gained from winning arguments.

Among the many, many issues our forebears didn’t worry about were the deterrent effects of capital punishment and the ideal attributes of a firefighter. Nor did they have to contend with fabricated studies, or fake news, or Twitter. It’s no wonder, then, that today reason often seems to fail us. As Mercier and Sperber write, “This is one of many cases in which the environment changed too quickly for natural selection to catch up.”

Steven Sloman, a professor at Brown, and Philip Fernbach, a professor at the University of Colorado, are also cognitive scientists. They, too, believe sociability is the key to how the human mind functions or, perhaps more pertinently, malfunctions. They begin their book, “The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone” (Riverhead), with a look at toilets.

Virtually everyone in the United States, and indeed throughout the developed world, is familiar with toilets. A typical flush toilet has a ceramic bowl filled with water. When the handle is depressed, or the button pushed, the water—and everything that’s been deposited in it—gets sucked into a pipe and from there into the sewage system. But how does this actually happen?

In a study conducted at Yale, graduate students were asked to rate their understanding of everyday devices, including toilets, zippers, and cylinder locks. They were then asked to write detailed, step-by-step explanations of how the devices work, and to rate their understanding again. Apparently, the effort revealed to the students their own ignorance, because their self-assessments dropped. (Toilets, it turns out, are more complicated than they appear.)

Sloman and Fernbach see this effect, which they call the “illusion of explanatory depth,” just about everywhere. People believe that they know way more than they actually do. What allows us to persist in this belief is other people. In the case of my toilet, someone else designed it so that I can operate it easily. This is something humans are very good at. We’ve been relying on one another’s expertise ever since we figured out how to hunt together, which was probably a key development in our evolutionary history. So well do we collaborate, Sloman and Fernbach argue, that we can hardly tell where our own understanding ends and others’ begins.

“One implication of the naturalness with which we divide cognitive labor,” they write, is that there’s “no sharp boundary between one person’s ideas and knowledge” and “those of other members” of the group.

This borderlessness, or, if you prefer, confusion, is also crucial to what we consider progress. As people invented new tools for new ways of living, they simultaneously created new realms of ignorance; if everyone had insisted on, say, mastering the principles of metalworking before picking up a knife, the Bronze Age wouldn’t have amounted to much. When it comes to new technologies, incomplete understanding is empowering.

Where it gets us into trouble, according to Sloman and Fernbach, is in the political domain. It’s one thing for me to flush a toilet without knowing how it operates, and another for me to favor (or oppose) an immigration ban without knowing what I’m talking about. Sloman and Fernbach cite a survey conducted in 2014, not long after Russia annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Respondents were asked how they thought the U.S. should react, and also whether they could identify Ukraine on a map. The farther off base they were about the geography, the more likely they were to favor military intervention. (Respondents were so unsure of Ukraine’s location that the median guess was wrong by eighteen hundred miles, roughly the distance from Kiev to Madrid.)

Surveys on many other issues have yielded similarly dismaying results. “As a rule, strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding,” Sloman and Fernbach write. And here our dependence on other minds reinforces the problem. If your position on, say, the Affordable Care Act is baseless and I rely on it, then my opinion is also baseless. When I talk to Tom and he decides he agrees with me, his opinion is also baseless, but now that the three of us concur we feel that much more smug about our views. If we all now dismiss as unconvincing any information that contradicts our opinion, you get, well, the Trump Administration.

“This is how a community of knowledge can become dangerous,” Sloman and Fernbach observe. The two have performed their own version of the toilet experiment, substituting public policy for household gadgets. In a study conducted in 2012, they asked people for their stance on questions like: Should there be a single-payer health-care system? Or merit-based pay for teachers? Participants were asked to rate their positions depending on how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the proposals. Next, they were instructed to explain, in as much detail as they could, the impacts of implementing each one. Most people at this point ran into trouble. Asked once again to rate their views, they ratcheted down the intensity, so that they either agreed or disagreed less vehemently.

Sloman and Fernbach see in this result a little candle for a dark world. If we—or our friends or the pundits on CNN—spent less time pontificating and more trying to work through the implications of policy proposals, we’d realize how clueless we are and moderate our views. This, they write, “may be the only form of thinking that will shatter the illusion of explanatory depth and change people’s attitudes.”

One way to look at science is as a system that corrects for people’s natural inclinations. In a well-run laboratory, there’s no room for myside bias; the results have to be reproducible in other laboratories, by researchers who have no motive to confirm them. And this, it could be argued, is why the system has proved so successful. At any given moment, a field may be dominated by squabbles, but, in the end, the methodology prevails. Science moves forward, even as we remain stuck in place.

In “Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us” (Oxford), Jack Gorman, a psychiatrist, and his daughter, Sara Gorman, a public-health specialist, probe the gap between what science tells us and what we tell ourselves. Their concern is with those persistent beliefs which are not just demonstrably false but also potentially deadly, like the conviction that vaccines are hazardous. Of course, what’s hazardous is not being vaccinated; that’s why vaccines were created in the first place. “Immunization is one of the triumphs of modern medicine,” the Gormans note. But no matter how many scientific studies conclude that vaccines are safe, and that there’s no link between immunizations and autism, anti-vaxxers remain unmoved. (They can now count on their side—sort of—Donald Trump, who has said that, although he and his wife had their son, Barron, vaccinated, they refused to do so on the timetable recommended by pediatricians.)

The Gormans, too, argue that ways of thinking that now seem self-destructive must at some point have been adaptive. And they, too, dedicate many pages to confirmation bias, which, they claim, has a physiological component. They cite research suggesting that people experience genuine pleasure—a rush of dopamine—when processing information that supports their beliefs. “It feels good to ‘stick to our guns’ even if we are wrong,” they observe.

The Gormans don’t just want to catalogue the ways we go wrong; they want to correct for them. There must be some way, they maintain, to convince people that vaccines are good for kids, and handguns are dangerous. (Another widespread but statistically insupportable belief they’d like to discredit is that owning a gun makes you safer.) But here they encounter the very problems they have enumerated. Providing people with accurate information doesn’t seem to help; they simply discount it. Appealing to their emotions may work better, but doing so is obviously antithetical to the goal of promoting sound science. “The challenge that remains,” they write toward the end of their book, “is to figure out how to address the tendencies that lead to false scientific belief.”

“The Enigma of Reason,” “The Knowledge Illusion,” and “Denying to the Grave” were all written before the November election. And yet they anticipate Kellyanne Conway and the rise of “alternative facts.” These days, it can feel as if the entire country has been given over to a vast psychological experiment being run either by no one or by Steve Bannon. Rational agents would be able to think their way to a solution. But, on this matter, the literature is not reassuring. ♦

This article appears in the print edition of the February 27, 2017, issue, with the headline “That’s What You Think.”

• Elizabeth Kolbert has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1999. She won the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction for “The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History.”
  Read more »

Michael Cohen

Today we were told by Michael Cohen's attorney that Michael Cohen arranged the payment to silence Stormy Daniels without Spanky Trump's knowledge. And Spanky never signed the document, so the document is a contract between Daniels and someone who did not know the contract existed. 

I understand nothing about what makes a contract legally enforceable, but maybe both parties have to know it exists. In that case Spanky might want to hire a new fixer.

Repeal the Second Amendment

Right now you can't run for political office and win if you argue that we should repeal the Second Amendment. Nevertheless, we should begin to discuss repeal. In time repeal is going to win.

The Founders thought it would be a good thing if White males had muskets and could quickly form into local militias. The Founders thought militias might work better than a standing army, which turned out to be wrong. That's why we have an army today.

Worse, the original militias were a lot like the militias who back the Bundy family. They were, basically, an enforcement arm for White supremacy. Militias existed to keep slaves in chains, recapture indentured servants, kill Indians and take away Indian land. 

We no longer use militias, and we should replace the Second Amendment with one more suited to our current reality. 

(And, no, the National Guard is not a militia. It's a state army.)

Barry

If you like offbeat sit-coms, you might look at BARRY on HBO, the story of a hit-man who takes a class in acting.

The Walk against Guns 2

According to our local newspaper, THE CORPORATE DEMOCRAT, the high school sophomore who turned out to be the best speaker at our anti-gun rally in Santa Rosa, is named Jonah Gottlieb, and he's from Credo High in Rohnert Park, a public charter school. Credo High is a small school (138 students) with above average academic scores. 

I don't know what Credo's mission is, but I did guess from the start that Gottlieb was not attending a regular public school. I support the regular schools, but children develop faster when they get individual attention. That's more apt to occur in small schools.

Gottlieb told the thousands in attendance that if someone says that what will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, he's trying to sell two guns. 

That observation is central to the gun debate. 

Out for a Walk

This is a good day for a walk. I know where a bunch of people will be gathering at 10, here at Courthouse Square in Santa Rosa. Going to stretch my legs. I will add to this, say how it goes.

George Will Tries But Screws Up

I seldom pay attention to rightwing commentators except for David Frum, but on occasion I read George Will, who made factual mistakes in his latest column. He wrote that in 2012, Democrats “instituted a primary system under which the top two vote-getters for any office are on the November ballot, even if both are from the same party.” (Some call this system a jungle primary.) Will claimed that the system handicaps Democrats.

Will thinks the Democrats handicapped themselves. 

In fact the change happened in 2010, not 2012, and its main backers were Arnold Schwartzenegger, Dan Schnur and Abel Maldonado, Republicans. For the most part professional politicians from both parties opposed the change. It made re-election less certain. 

As a result of this measure (which I didn’t vote for at the time, my error), the Democrats soon achieved supermajorities in California. (This was helped considerably by a provision that turned redistricting over to an independent commission.) So Will is wrong on most counts, which is not unusual. George Will seems serious and honest to me; but, as one of his university professors, John Kenneth Galbraith, once said, Will was a “B” student.

(Next day: Will published an excellent column on the lunacy of making a war-mad infidel, John Bolton, a member of the government.)

The Police

I’m critical of a system that apparently trains police officers to shoot children like Andy Lopez, but I’ve taught many officers I respected. Yesterday I read about an officer in Maryland who heard shots fired in a high school and immediately ran toward danger. That was the job. The shooter is dead. We don’t know yet if the student shot himself or was shot by the officer. I want to keep this incident in mind—it’s why we pay police officers substantial salaries and offer early retirement.