One of the main reasons people tend to fail at analysis, is that they hold certain beliefs which are nothing more than myths.  When myths are readily believed however, evidence that seems to back that myth up is actively sought out and usually exaggerated.

What’s interesting in this case – is that we have two writers, from Naked Capitalism Blog & Alternet somewhat describing confirmation bias, but almost ironically show that their thinking fails from the same biases they wish to highlight.

What did they proffer (whole thing here via Naked Capitalism and here via Alternet)?

They state they are attempting to find out why people’s opinions don’t change even in the face of competing facts.  To do this, they use a study of selected people who believe Saddam was behind 9/11.  Since GWB, the 9/11 commission, and all other sources state this isn’t the case, then trying to understand why someone believes it is a noble goal and the research could potentially help understand human thinking.

Of course both pieces weren’t honestly seeking the answer, so in this case little can be gathered.  The good news however is that studies like this have been done before and we already understand to some degree why people don’t seem rational on certain topics.

First, they start off by implying that investors are not rational and do so by linking to a simple Google search.  Lazy sure, but most studies I’ve seen dealing with rationality of the individual begin with the false assumption there is some common answer to begin which every rational individual would chose.  Humans however define rationality by their values and desires;  therefore, their actions will also be very unique based upon those individual factors.

Leaving that aside, their point was to say, not only are investors irrational, but so are these people for these reasons (Naked Capitalism):

• [1] Many Americans felt an urgent need to seek justification for a war already in progress

• [2] Rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe.

• [3] “For the most part people completely ignore contrary information.”

• [4] “The study demonstrates voters’ ability to develop elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information”

• [5] People get deeply attached to their beliefs, and form emotional attachments that get wrapped up in their personal identity and sense of morality, irrespective of the facts of the matter.

• [6] “We refer to this as ‘inferred justification, because for these voters, the sheer fact that we were engaged in war led to a post-hoc search for a justification for that war.

• [7] “People were basically making up justifications for the fact that we were at war”

• [8] “They wanted to believe in the link [between 9/11 and Iraq] because it helped them make sense of a current reality. So voters’ ability to develop elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information, whether we think that is good or bad for democratic practice, does at least demonstrate an impressive form of creativity.

Their premises basically fall into two types:

1. Those premises that have been proven true about the vast majority of the population in thousands of experiments….
2. & those premises which aren’t necessarily false, but reflect the authors’ thinking as the study and information provided do not lead to the conclusion they readily accept.

Looking at them in this light, we see that 2, 3, & 5 are all easily proven through prior studies and simple observations of current society.  If people didn’t seek out confirming information, Daily Kos, Free Republic, Huffington Post, and many, many other websites would be empty and failing.

For the remaining 5, the study does not bear out their premises.  The study (@ Alternet) demonstrates that even when giving people contrary factual information, many will continue to believe as they do.

However, they only used 49 people and are inferring their reason from justification based upon comments which don’t support their thesis.  The first participant quote they begin with is(via Alternet):

“Well, I bet they say that the commission didn’t have any proof of it,” one subject responded, “but I guess we still can have our opinions and feel that way even though they say that.”

This is a simple reflection of reality, to which the researchers find disturbing.  Why it isn’t disturbing to sane people is that I have yet to know anyone who doesn’t believe somethings which simply aren’t provable or for which factual information to the contrary exists.

To site to easy examples, the number of people who believe the CIA killed Kennedy & those who believe strongly in ancient herbal remedies for which no proof other than anecdotal is ever given.

The second quote the article uses:

Reasoned another: “Saddam, I can’t judge if he did what he’s being accused of, but if Bush thinks he did it, then he did it.”

Is an odd statement to use as it’s semi-meaningless.  When told President Bush stated publicly on a number of occasions that Saddam did not play a role in 9/11 & then that person continues to use that information has other issues than just confirmation bias.   They might honestly be trying to get justification for the war post-war, but I’m not sure by this information.

The third quote they use actually represents their best opportunity for demonstrating that people were rationalizing after the fact:

Others declined to engage the information at all. Most curious to the researchers were the respondents who reasoned that Saddam must have been connected to Sept. 11, because why else would the Bush Administration have gone to war in Iraq?

However, other reasons exist for this as well which have nothing to do with post-justification.   For instance, I might think Saddam is just worthless and any attempt to liberate the people who suffer through his tyranny is a good idea, but still think that GWB must believe it as that’s the only justification I can see.

In that case, it proves my analytical thinking skills as poor because other justifications certainly exist outside of both 9/11 & WMDs, but it necessarily doesn’t prove post-justification.

Additionally, I could think we went to war with Iraq and believe it’s because GWB believed there to be a link, and still disagree with the war itself.

That might seem like an odd statement, but there are in fact people, a small minority to be sure, but people who firmly believed the Taliban support Bin Laden and Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.  But even with that information, they don’t believe we should’ve gone to war.

Again, that’s a minority view to be sure, but when using it’s existence to disprove the study of 49 people, I believe the weight of my evidence of realistic & feasible alternative theories to the data provided is stronger than theirs.

Regardless of the individual reasons anyone might use to rationalize beliefs for which counter-factual information exists, their data doesn’t support their conclusions that fear & post-justification are major issues.

& with statements like this (via Alternet):

“I do think there’s something to be said about people like Sarah Palin, and even more so Chuck Grassley, supporting this idea of death panels in a national forum,” Hoffman said.

Their biases are easily shown (DA post here sort-of-on death panels).

The simple truth is, the researchers and both articles are failing to reason correctly for the same reason the people they pointed out are failing to reason correctly:  they are seeing evidence which already proves their current world views and beliefs true.

& for whatever this data might show – it certainly isn’t proof of post-justification.  It is only evidence that we all seek out comfort by mitigating the cognitive dissonance (IE – anxiety) which comes from seeing factual information which disagrees with our world view & beliefs.

DA has written about this tendency on Junk Science, Anecdotal evidence in the health care debate & the President & Race.  Additionally, DA has written on echo chambers as they reinforce our thoughts.

With high levels of bipartisan anger, not only affecting elections, but affecting polls on the flagship legislation… er, I mean, the monstrous health care bill which no understands as well (here via WaPo):

…A CNN poll last week found that only 25 percent of Americans want Congress to pass a health-care bill similar to the one it has been working on for the past year, while 73 percent say Congress should either start from scratch or not pass health-care legislation at all (other polls show support for the bill in the low 40s). …

The White House is once again, on a media blitz to prove the administrations’ efficacy and job one is selling the idea the simulus worked.  While they have seemed keen enough to not discuss actual housing or job numbers, but instead spend time on nebulous items such as “saved jobs“, they are nonetheless telling us with great frequency what the stimulus did for us.

Vice President Joe Biden (here via ABC News):

Vice President Joe Biden said today that it is “taking a while” for the nation’s economy to “get out of this ditch” but credited the Obama Administration’s stimulus legislation, enacted one year ago, for laying a foundation for long-term economic growth. …

As well as President Obama himself (here via USA Today):

President Obama credits the one-year-old economic stimulus legislation with staving off a second depression …

The President even sent high level officials all over the country to prove the stimulus worked.  In one case, they used construction for residential housing to spotlight the great work the stimulus package has done for Cincinnati (here via Cincinnati.com).

With unemployment numbers continuing to rise (UE Rate for January 2010 10.6%)

& defaults on existing mortgages doing the same (here via Reuters):

…More than 8 percent of homeowners were behind 30 days or more on their mortgage loans, up 4.4 percent from December 2009 and 21 percent from last January…

& just like the last media blitz the White House went on to prove the stimulus was working (here via DA), they have spent approximately 34% of the money they claimed to need originally (here via ProPublica).  Combining the money spent and tax cuts approved listed on Recovery.gov they find:

…the government has now moved at least $272 billion into the economy, or 34 percent of the total amount approved by Congress last February….

So there you have it.  Successful stimulus program is now defined as a jobless, homeless, shaky recovery, for which the majority of the money requested has yet to have been spent.

• Proving once again that fascism isn’t just a word, Italy (here via Economist) gave three Google executives six-month suspended sentences for “allowing a clip of an autistic boy being bullied to be viewed on Google Video, which the judge said broke Italy’s privacy laws. “

Just to clarify, I’m not pro-autistic-bullying and would think a civil trial isn’t out of the question, but jail?

• Fannie Mae needs more cash, but just 15 billion… from the taxpayer of course (here via RTTN News).   Seems like people might not agree with this (here via WSJ):

The Obama administration’s decision to cover an unlimited amount of losses at the mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the next three years stirred controversy over the holiday….

Probably why the decision was made over the holidays.

• Crazy fundamentalists blame the Golden Girls for homosexuality (here via ChristWire).

• Democrats & President Obama, all firmly against the Patriot Act after signing it, vote to  prevent all measures from lapsing (here via Wired) for the next full year.

• Harvard intellectual tells us why allowing corporations to spend money on politics is bad (here):

…To understand why, it is important to focus on the individuals who make decisions for companies. When corporations decide which politicians to support, what kind of messages to send, and which political outcomes to seek, their general investors are not consulted. Rather, such decisions are likely to reflect the preferences and objectives of the insiders who manage the companies, ostensibly on shareholders’ behalf….

A little interlude for a thought experiment.  Change which politicians to support and which political outcomes to seek to which charities to support and which cultural outcomes to seek.  Or try reality and change it to, which lobbyists to support and which regulatory outcomes to seek.  But of course, he defines the problem for us:

…And politicians that benefit from corporate spending and access to corporate resources will have an interest in serving the insiders’ preferences and objectives….

Which presupposes politicians already don’t have this interest, presumes it will get much worse, and last, but not least; for spending to have any affect at all, voters have to be swayed to vote against their interests.

It seems the default assumption of every perceived risk these days is simply this:  there can never be too many laws when trying to protect people from themselves.

• CalTech researchers say the brain is wired for equality (here):

…Specifically, the team found that the reward centers in the human brain respond more strongly when a poor person receives a financial reward than when a rich person does. The surprising thing? This activity pattern holds true even if the brain being looked at is in the rich person’s head, rather than the poor person’s….

Oddly enough, the Freakanomics blog posted this with little comment (here) proving environmental factors such as working for the NY Times can affect even innovative economists.  I’ll admit there might be more, but from what they’ve shown, the results do not necessarily say anything about equality at all.  A perfectly reasonable answer is one of need: a rich person doesn’t need a windfall as much as a poor person.

CalTech’s reasoning:

…It’s long been known that we humans don’t like inequality, especially when it comes to money. Tell two people working the same job that their salaries are different, and there’s going to be trouble…

Conflating the thinking that comes with social status and worth when compared to colleagues and equality of results.  It could be in a lot of cases, the person making less might think they work harder and deserve more, not equal.

• & finally, via the Hill.  Did Nanci Pelosi really say that

…”They’ve had plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard,” she said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning. “Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint.”…

According to many reports from recent “economist” we are on are way.  Starting with the “Sage” Warren Buffet (here via Calculated Risk) arguing that supply has dropped below demand, which effectively will balance out the system:

…Our country has wisely selected the third option, which means that within a year or so residential housing problems should largely be behind us…

The NY Times  (here):

After a plunge lasting three years, houses have finally become cheap enough to lure buyers. That, in turn, is stabilizing prices, generating hope that the real estate market is beginning to recover….

& Our trusted Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake (here via CNBC):

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told lawmakers Tuesday he expects the downtroddenU.S. housing sector to improve by the end of the year, a senator who participated in the closed-door meeting said….

At first, this might seem like some sort of an agreement, however there is one stark difference.  Mr. Buffet spoke in February 2010, the NY Times piece is from July 2009, & Mr. Bernake spoke in February 2008.

The timing of the statements is instructive, as each was based upon changes in supply and demand.  The problem all had in their given time frames appears to be the same – you simply can’t count on economic activity trending when the growth was due to temporary incentives from the federal government.

As with Cash-for-Clunkers (here), Cash-for-Appliances (here), and recent tax breaks and money for lending, Cash-for-Homes will fail as well.  A temporary relief program will only provide temporary relief and is already showing signs of weakness.  From WaPo (here):

…Even as the housing market shows signs of improvement, including in new data released Tuesday, economists warn that it could take up to a decade for many homeowners to regain equity in their homes, while some people in the hardest-hit regions of the country may not see a recovery during their lifetime. …

CNBC (here):

The recent slump in housing is making some analysts uneasy about a recovery that many thought sustainable just a couple months ago and comes at a time when the Federal Reserve is nearing the end of a critical, year-long program to support the mortgage market….

& Time (here):

For a while there, it seemed the housing market had made the turn to recovery. Housing sales were up in nearly every month in 2009. But today it looks like real estate is headed back down again…

Delaying the inevitable will just make the pain worse.

In an email discussion with a very interesting new friend, an idea I’ve heard before came up:  Libertarianism is sort-of childish; a Utopian dream that’s nice in theory, but not practical in reality.

It might be trivial to write at this point, but I of course disagreed.  To be fair, I believe this is completely true on foreign policy.  Libertarianism seems like a domestic political philosophy only, but more on that in the future.

On the childish part – in some ways I can see why that perception exists as well.  I’ve jokingly said before the reason libertarianism has a bad name, is because of libertarians.  The cultural norm in libertarian thinkers who draw large numbers of readers seems to be to take one basic principle and stretch it to infinity.

For instance – it’s your property, you can do with as you please.  So you can put a brothel next door to an elementary school and the only recourse should be neighbors buying the lot to out price the brothel.

To many, including me, this is stupid.  The point in giving as many freedom to others as possible, simply can not include a dissolution of society itself by subjecting populations to things they don’t want.  Also, I think they already have this type of vision in local government using SOME zoning laws.

Additionally though, libertarians do believe in contracts.  So if a bunch of people bought tons of land, they could sell those plots with any caveat they want – even religious requirement.  By buying the lot, you are signing the contract and therefore willingly entering into that agreement with those constraints.

While I firmly believe this is possible, legal, and potentially preferable, it seems like that’s a community/town.  Their issue however with government control is one of the use of force, but I think that’s due to too much centralization.  Studies have shown, more decentralization, IE – more local control, leads to better outcomes (here).  What this would mean, if we were to ever take it seriously, is that while New York might maintain 18 million people for the economic possibilities that provides, government spending and programs should be on a much smaller level.

Please note – this doesn’t mean that no federal government should exist or that taxes should only exist on a very local level, just to say that smaller communities providing for their own fire, police, education, etc, etc, etc works better than 3 million people trying the same thing.  The idea is a state tax or federal tax would be required for things such as national defense, but the majority of expenditures should be directed more locally by a mayor or city manager at a much smaller level.

So it’s not that I believe the community should completely dissipate, it’s that I firmly believe that when the government gets involved, it actually distorts the system to the point where people simply don’t take care of themselves…. or their neighbors.   I think this is backed up by basic human behaviors and thinking as well as all of our uniquely “urban” problems.

One of the human conditions which helps this continue is that of group think.  By safely removing yourself far away from the negative results the government produces with its Wars on poverty, terrorism, obesity…. kids?  People can insulate themselves in larger communities due to increased anonymity by blaming society at large, instead of assuming any direct responsibility.

Listen carefully when people argue about police abuse, or crappy government inefficiencies with social spending, or politician’s lack of values…. they place blame it lots of places, but never on themselves and usually, oddly enough, never on the voters either.

Going further, the government exploits our fears with the media willing accomplices (Politics of Fear) into giving up more control to the government and thereby reinforcing the notion that the government is the answer, when it fact it’s people.

For instance.. violent crime is down a great deal since 1990 (uptick recently, but very small and declining again), but the reporting of crime has increased on average around 500%.  Thanks to multiple 24 hour news shows, combined with a finite amount of news, sensational stories about very rare events influences people’s fears about those events.

We humans aren’t that good at evaluating risk as it is, without doing so in a very methodical way, but with the government’s various wars on everything: AIDs, H1N1, Poverty, Terrorism, Obesity, Smoking, Drugs, Cancer…. kids?  All with the media willingly pushing these sensationalized news stories, people have exaggerated fears towards rare events and minimal fears towards much more likely catastrophic events (great video here ~20 minutes).

Add to this, a general lack of skepticism and critical thinking, most people never take the time to see if their fears, concerns, or core set of understanding of the world is accurate.  I believe this is due to a lack of appropriate priorities for most people, but more on that later.*

Looking at society, you can see the fear we have in our neighbors.  For example, in lots of neighborhoods in lots of places, people will more quickly call the cops on a loud neighbor than just walk over and ask politely.  We go to court when cutting down a tree that crosses property lines, we call the cops when we think the neighbor has too many dogs, we…. we just call the cops because people are scared of their neighbors.  & not because they know about the bunker with a year’s worth of rations and ammunition, but because we continue to allow our human frailty in risk assessment to be exploited by those only seeking more power.

Additionally, we willingly take away rights from others.  The most consistent comment from friends, colleagues, strangers who accidentally started a conversation with me…. but for those I did talk to around carry conceal laws during a vote in MO had, by definition of a binary question, one of two answers. Yes or No

The interesting part of the nos was almost all used the same basic reasoning when talking to me:  “You’re fine. It wouldn’t bother me a bit if you carried a gun, you were in the military and trained.  I just don’t know about everyone else.”  Other than showing a lack of knowledge of how little an electronic technician trains on weapons, I think it shows our general distrust of others.

Not surprisingly, even when confronted with the stats that prove FL, TX, and other states did not turn into the Wild West (not that the West was truly all that “wild”) where horn honks during rush hour turned into shootouts between soccer moms & insurance salesmen, were all safely ignored.

I guess the cognitive dissonance was too much to handle because stats like those in FL & TX demonstrate that our 99.9% of our neighbors who might get a carry conceal permit are not planning to emulate Rambo on the morning commute did nothing to waver the opponents.

With all that being said – I’m proffering the idea that in an odd, perverse, but easily understandable way, government involvement, even in very charitable actions, can actually reduce our incentive to live together peacefully and take responsibility for our communities.

*On the lack of priorities, I don’t believe all people should run out and research everything I know because I think everyone should read what I read.  I think the very first rule in critical thinking that all trying to be honest analysts have to understand is that like all other humans, even those trained and educated in analysis, will still have the same frailties in their thinking process.  Potentially less pronounced, but never completely mitigated.

Therefore, when writing that peoples’ priorities seem to be off, I think our failure isn’t with not reading what I read – but in being a well rounded person by honestly reflecting and actively deciding their core values.

As a corollary to that – I believe society is teaching people right now that this is a good thing. Valueless employees ask fewer questions and do more as their told without contemplating reality and what the decision’s effects most likely are. & Even if they do contemplate and know it’s wrong, they do it anyway. Therefore people who don’t make waves, get promoted. Those who ask pertinent questions, even if necessary and correct, get ostracized.

This is not only true of our business leaders, Bernie Madoff, Enron, MCI, but our politicians as well.  Unethical leaders leading secret lives, even the corrupt politicians among us, seem to get a reprieve from the voters… so long as you’re on their side and they’re not mean.

Additionally the leadership selection process seems perverted for the same reasons the leaders aren’t what we should expect.  Someone who is arbitrary, but polite and educated, is someone a lot of people like.   In a deep seeded wish to reduce not only any discomfort we might experience, but for civility’s sake try to prevent others’ discomfort, society has conflated the ideas of social skills with leadership to the detriment of society as a whole.

On the whole, it seems our desire for civility has the unintended consequence of making us less civil and more prone to failure.

Sorry for the respite….

• Two great articles in Reason’s February issue:  One by staff science writer, Ron Bailey discussing health care (here), which starts with something everyone should know who’s interested in high price of medical care:

According to the conventional wisdom, the United States faces a massive medical bill thanks to our use of pricey new treatments and equipment. “About half of all growth in health care spending in the past several decades was associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in technology,” a 2008 Congressional Budget Office report declared….

Don’t be fooled however, some of our more interesting intellectuals think this is reason enough to retard medical advance:

…This is familiar territory for [bio-ethicist Daniel] Callahan, who for decades has advocated reining in medical innovation to reduce health care costs. He also favors limiting the life-extending treatments that older people receive, on the grounds that most of them will “have lived a full and fruitful biographical life prior to age 70.”….

Who like most people that wish to control every thing in your life, including how you’ll die – refuses to take his own medicine:

…Interestingly, Callahan, age 79, underwent a life-saving seven-hour heart procedure in August that cost upward of $100,000….

So out “bio-ethicist” wants to tell your grandmother tough crap, while he does as he pleases.  I’m guessing his title was self-anointed as this is a one-way trip to genocide…. all genocidal societies started with this premise – the young, but very sick & the old, they are burdens on us… what a disgrace as a human being.

But going forward… the second article, written by staff writer Radley Balko… generally disliked because all his articles contain bad news about law enforcement abuses angering most readers and this case is no different.   Read about LE & justice system abuses when they are allowed to seize assets they believe were used in a crime or bought with criminal proceeds (here).  One more thing the state is actively doing to subvert true freedom.

• PysBlog has a good post on reasons we desire and try for conformity (here).

• The IRS, one of the most hated government agencies, is now allowed to bring armed guards into your home if they find you a possible threat (here).  The Christian Science Monitor seems to think this is warranted due to anti-government violence, but tries to prove it with numbers that are likely on par with the rest of society:

…The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), which oversees the IRS, handles an average of 918 threats made against IRS employees every year, according to the agency. Between 2001 and 2008, court cases resulting from those threats have resulted in 195 convictions, according to TIGTA….

Even if out of all the hundreds of thousands of people who worked for the IRS between those 7 years, it seems like this is overkill.  Having said that, I also have no faith in their numbers at all.  Months ago we were told to stay away from 10% unemployment, we have to spend money.  We spent, we’re at 10% (here).

Additionally, organizations like MADD routinely exaggerate their findings.  For instance, in their version of “alcohol related accidents” – if you had too much to drink and just want to sleep it off and someone, completely sober, runs into your parked car – that’s an alcohol related accident.

I’m not saying he’s lying, I’m just saying that in my personal experience while studying, believing a government agency is telling the full and accurate truth, especially when that truth gets them extra funding, is highly unlikely.

• Lastly, an oldy but a goody.  My 13 year old daughter heard this on an economics talk I was watching, told one of her friends parents about it & they refused to believe.  You might refuse as well…. but remember, we are all entitled to our opinions, but not our facts (here).  Basic thesis:  Seat belt laws did not reduce driver fatalities significantly, because it increased the number of overall accidents and worse still, it has resulted in more deaths of pedestrians.  Proving once again, that almost all governments laws intending to prevent some result, do more harm than good.

For  a little over a week now, political writers everywhere are telling us how the WH is going to aggressively work to change the narrative over health care & the stimulus.  This all began with a mea culpa from John Podesta last week when he admitted they [Democrats] have lost the narrative (here @ Politico):

John Podesta, the president of the Center for American Progress who led Barack Obama’s presidential transition, acknowledges the White House has been unable to successfully drive the debate on health care reform.

“They lost the narrative,” Podesta told the Financial Times. “They lost the perspective of how all of the activity they were engaged in was knit together.”…

This was followed up by pundits everywhere showing the signs of the WH’s pursuit of changing the current narrative (here @ WaPo):

…White House officials are retooling the administration’s communications strategy to produce faster responses to political adversaries, a more disciplined focus on President Obama’s call for “change” in Washington and an increasingly selective use of the president’s time…

[Dan Pfieffer Communications Director] “In 2010, the president will constantly be doing high-profile things to be the person driving the narrative.”

Continuing the Post reports something I think should be more controversial:

Senior White House aides described the changes as an aggressive response, aimed at producing fresh momentum for the president’s faltering agenda and regaining the advantage ahead of the congressional midterm elections in November.

I believe that’s an admission that the main reason they plan to change the topic at large and how that topic is described is for the mid-term-elections.  You’d think they could feign some empathy and argue that the policies are for the people, but instead they only discuss power.

But I digress… the main thing I think is important to see in all this discussion about narratives is two-fold.  They are coming out and honestly saying, the only reason we lost “the conversation” is because we didn’t sell it well enough.

& to be fair – it might well be true.  There are seemingly many more citizens willing to vote based on the narrative than they are willing to critically analyze the facts, therefore changing the way something is being sold will have some success.

But seriously – just because you have the opportunity to take candy from a baby, doesn’t mean that you should.  Meaning, if you can honestly argue that changing the narrative will push people to change their minds, you’re honestly arguing that winning is more about propaganda than ideas & facts.  & just like taking candy from a baby, just because you might be able to exploit people through emotional appeals, doesn’t mean you should do so.

What is more worrisome however, is the lack of reaction by people.  They read these things and mostly argue based on their political beliefs more than anything else.  & they do so, all without asking: what’s the difference between a narrative and the right policy?

Yes, what is worrisome is not only that people are ignoring this question, and thereby agree through silence, but that many of them may not even understand the difference.

In a very interesting post @ The Decision Science News, notes that:

There are those who consider the field of Judgment and Decision Making to be much like the field of Social Psychology, and others who find them as similar as vodka and water.

How can we, as the French say, préciser la différence?…

Using word analysis from two recent conferences, one from the SJDM (Scientific Journal of Decision Making) & the other done at the conference of SPSP (Society for Personality & Social Psychology) and noted the differences.

Now many should be able to logically recognize there are likely significant differences as well as assess some of the differences, all just with the names only.   These appear to be vastly different undertakings, but I think one can see in society behavior that seems to agree with the premise that many believe this to be closely related fields.

As one might suspect, the most used SPSP words were emotional and included using these words fairly often ups and downs, positives and negatives, attitudes, personalities & the SJDM words?  Choice, risk, future, uncertainty.

The full analysis easily digested and well worth the look.  After showing the most used words, using the scale of how many times each word was used per 1000 words, they plot both conferences words against each other.  IE – they show SJDM’s most used words and how many times those words were used by SPSP and vice versa.

The two commentators add weight to DSN’s premise that many are confused as both asked, “Why can’t it be both?”  Which might certainly be a noble thought, but ultimately wrong and dangerous when making critical decisions.

To begin, a disclaimer:  my intention is not to prove that emotions are evil.  Emotions are very important to our humanity, our culture, and our life.  Additionally, some decisions should include emotions, and not just in the mate selection process, but also just when buying a car or an engagement ring.  Money constraints might limit your choices, but you still don’t want to buy something you believe isn’t you.

What I see however in society is the desire of the posters, to make the best decisions possible, while still maintaining some nebulous idea of positivity, no matter what.

& again to be fair, this is itself a necessary goal if you are making group decisions consistently interacting with the same people.  However, it can never be an end in itself, and that seems to be where we are today.

You can see this in our leadership, both in business management as well as local, state, and federal government.  Their constant flip-flops belie any notion that a core set of beliefs is needed.  At times, these people seem to almost be arbitrarily making decisions.  For business, you can see this in constantly changing priorities as public winds shift.

All of this – is an anathema to critical thinking and analysis.  In a completely theoretical sense, using a specific slice of time, there is always a “best” decision.  This decision sometimes happens, but many times not only do groups fail to get the best decision, but seem to do just the opposite.   And this is true for many consistent reasons such as dealing with group dynamics and personalities.

Two recent examples @ Reason.com’s Blog by Tim Cavanaugh demonstrate not only shockingly bad decisions, but that those decisions have defenders.

Read here about a kid whose parents are suing the school district, because as owner of one of the 1900 laptops given to students, they didn’t seem to be aware that the school can at anytime remotely activate the built-in webcam and mic and secretly watch whatever it sees.  As the FBI investigates, the District Superintendent is still defending the policy as they cancel it.

& here as well, about a man named Terry Hoskins, who took a bunch of money from banks for a business which ultimately failed, used his private home as collateral, then when the bank went to foreclosure as freely agreed upon by Mr. Hoskins; he balked, then destroyed the home.  This is an event that should and will likely land Mr. Hoskins in jail on fraud.  He promised the bank the property, didn’t like the terms, the removed their ability to recoup.  The oddest thing isn’t a common thief in existence, it’s the fact he has supporters including local media.

From here all I can do is speculate as to why anyone would defend allowing the school district to spy on kids at home or hail as a hero a deadbeat who destroys property just to spite those who have ultimate rights to it because he didn’t pay his debt.

I say speculate, because more local analysis of the debates and media spots would be needed to know, but I think the school district is likely an extreme case of group think.  Likely exacerbated by administration pressures of some sort.  The debtor’s defenders however are more likely not only falling into group think, but projecting their anger on the current economic situation to this criminal’s seemingly anti-authoritarian behavior.

But regardless what the reasons for their failure in thinking, I think objectively we can say that those defending either action are wrong.  For the school – while states everywhere are sending kids to jail for child pornography because one 17 year old sends photos to another 17 year old – how would they ever believe that having the ability of spying into kids rooms wouldn’t increase the potential of breaking those laws themselves?  Do they not know that unreasonable search and seizure?

It’s really hard to believe that someone didn’t know about these things, just more likely the objections were either dismissed or never heard, due to emotionally imposed, nonexistent constraints.  While worrying about all these complex social issues, they failed to focus on exactly what they were doing through critical thought.

& this is where I think the idea of narratives working, the inability of people to understand true critical thinking requires removal of emotion, and people hailing bad decisions all stem from the same basic idea:  we so fear being uncomfortable or making others uncomfortable that we have weakened as a society in making the right decisions.

I’m not exactly sure when this cultural shift happened, but if we want to move forward in the best possible way we can; we must understand that sometimes people will be upset when they are challenged on beliefs for which there lies no logical foundation.  Additionally, sometimes telling people “negative” things, is in fact the best help you can give.  Your best friend might not like to hear if they are failing to meet up with their responsibilities, but they might need it.

I can dream though, right?  Dream that maybe, just maybe at a time in the future…. when the next administration is working to adjust the narrative and effecting elections through White House communication, the majority of people will simply ask, “Why the hell do I care about your narrative?  How about giving me the details of your proposals and I’ll decide on that?”

One day….

• Never before seen aerial photos of 9/11

I think they show much more in terms of scope than most pictures I’ve seen so far @ UK Telegraph.  Side note:  It should not have required FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) to release these.

• Interesting research in solar cells @ Scientific American, “researchers [led by Harry A. Atwater] at Caltech say they’ve designed a device that gets comparable solar absorption while using just one percent of the silicon per unit area that current solar cells need.”

• Despite calls for greater transparency as recent as the State of the Union speech, the Feds still refuse FOIA requests to show how stimulus money was spent.  @ The Conglomerate Now some may say the Fed isn’t the Whitehouse, but the law that was passed by both houses & signed by the President is the law in which the Feds are standing behind.  If this isn’t challenged successfully in court, then any government action could be completely hidden from the citizens just by pushing the leg work to an executive agency.

• Krugman…. proving once again the Nobel Peace Prize is worth far less than imagined. Author Tim Cavanaugh via Reason.com

• Short, 5 minute video discussing school choice versus governmental monopolies.  Isabel Santa via Cato.org

• John Stossel on our politicians using European social spending as the leading example (here), “Europe does have a bigger “social safety net.”  But the gain comes with pain: Europe’s higher taxes and bigger government lead to slower job growth and higher unemployment. Politicians always claim that the safety-net will be limited to “necessities for the truly needy,” but such government programs always grow.”

• Greg Mackinaw show how President Obama’s agenda, grossly misnamed “A New Era of Responsibility”, will saddle US citizens with continuing and ever increasing deficits.  This is according to the administration very own numbers.  via NY Times proving once again that when a politician names a bill, the probability of the bill doing the exact opposite of its authors’ claims is directly proportional to how much the title of said bill attempts to imply those same claims.