Detailed Abstractions

As an update to Wednesday’s post, the idiocy continues, in this case, with Paul Krugman (here via Daily Caller):

When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?

Put me in the latter category. I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign….

 Now it’s obviously impossible to know whether Mr. Krugman was honestly surprised about the horrendous events of this past weekend or not, but it seems hard to believe that anyone who heard about the incident thought, “yep – saw that coming.”

But in the grand scheme, it really doesn’t matter whether he was truly surprised as that’s not his main point.  Before he gets there though, he has to set up the framework (article cont’d):

…And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again….

That’s some prescient vision he has there.  Without any proof, without any examples, without anything at all, he can “see” what was inevitable.  Not sure why he didn’t stop it or call for the possibility as loudly as possible.  It seems like the only moral actions when you “know” violent acts committed against innocent parties is inevitable. 

Additionally, this uncanny ability of his makes one wonder if the people from Miss Cleo’s office has contacted him yet to see if he’s looking for a career change?   Or maybe the CIA would like to test his capabilities?

But I digress, extra-sensory perceptions aside, Mr. Krugman continues framing the argument using a government report (article cont’d):

The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: In April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence….

Which would be interesting to note, if only it were true.  There was and is a DHS report detailing the potential for increased radicalization and recruitment due to a very unique climate, but the report itself begins with this easily comprehendible statement:

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that doemstic righwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.

The report continues as it details what it sees as specific climate variables for which rightwing extremist groups might exploit, but noted, in the 2nd paragraph the threats which concern Mr. Krugman so much, are “largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts“.

But Mr. Krugman sees, so a potential for increased recruitment and radicalization based upon societal factors and an increase in the potential for real harm are now the same.  I doubt that’s true for most objectively viewing the same data, but I don’t think most people think like Mr. Krugman.

Nonetheless, our vaunted author continues.  With an increase in threats (real) and vandalism (possibly real, no studies, no proof offered), Mr. Krugman’s vision sees the obvious results (article cont’d):

One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has….

Who was that guy again? 

It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled.  But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate….

So even though Mr. Krugman believes the shooter is likely insane, the national climate is somehow involved.  Not only involved, but (article cont’d):

…something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence.

His proof?  Increased levels of violence?  Increased crime rates?  Nope.  (more…)

It’s a truism of real leaders since the dawn of time; they find themselves, not from true success and stable times, but rather from adversity and chaos. When faced with those seemingly insurmountable odds, it’s the strongest who remain calm, read the landscape, and discover new answers from which they can seek out continued success.

Though under great stress, we humans tend towards the flight or flight response. True leaders however, can use these difficulties against themselves to provide both motivation and a sense of urgency to gain the ingenuity required for such challenges.

This is understood well in society. Like business leaders who understand innovation can be helped significantly by design constraints (here):

Great designers understand this. Charles Eames says design is all about innovating around constraints. And it’s the constraints – the scarcity – that fires the designer’s creativity. Smart business people “get it” too. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos embraces self-imposed scarcity saying, “One of the only ways to get out of a tight box is to invent your way out.”

They understand that principle of economic scarcity. As do military leaders. Sun Tzu notes in the Art of War:

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

For President Obama, the Tea Party & the Republicans taking back control of the House of Representatives could give him the opportunity to display true deft.

Assuming it does happen as predicted (here via the Philly Inquirer) however, the President is accorded a tough task ahead.

He would now have the body responsible for appropriations bills (all spending bills much start in the House & they are very important. For instance, they can kill health care by simply not funding it….) mainly in place due to running against him. Secondarily, while they don’t wish to be seen as obstructers, their willingness to work with Obama will be small even without their election strategy. Because any bill passed, regardless of how/why, if it turns out to be a good or well liked idea, Obama will naturally take credit to further his chances for re-election in 2012.

& the Democrats know that neither the President nor health care is a selling point for this election, even if they are communicating differently. The facts are that se hasn’t really made many direct candidate speeches, just backyard BBQs in key districts in key states. They are essentially, and correctly, playing against their weakness – his popularity.

Not a bad strategy in the short term, but I think people have heard him speak enough and any celebrity (yes, while the President is certainly more important and more powerful than any normal celebrity, s/he is still a celebrity) runs the risk of over saturation.

Irregardless, with Obama, the question is can he live inside those constraints?

What we know is given a new landscape, the answer for tomorrow’s question will not be the same answer as today’s. I think if he can push himself with a sense of urgency, surveys the landscape to see what he has and what he can accomplish with what he has. Then uses both the sense of urgency and strategic thinking by changing his game plan when the field of battle changes…. well, then we’ll see a real leader who may live up to his Nobel Peace Prize (here).

Or said more succinctly, it’s a crappy state of affairs you might find yourself in Mr. President, but challenges is how leaders prove themselves.

Honestly, I don’t think he’ll be able to do it. I think he’s too insecure (here) about himself and his handlers seem to know little more than an approval ratings drop equals time for Obama to give more speeches. & I don’t honestly think that’s likely to change…. but predictions are better left to Ms. Cleo.

What is likely however is the people around him understand exactly this point.  They do know it. The question is whether their emotions towards their beliefs (see: Confirmation Bias here & here) combined with the difficulty of telling a President who gives great speeches to shut up. Not to mention game theory predicts leaders to surround themselves with “yes men”.

All of that makes significant and required change seem unlikely, but I’d never count out someone who made it to the Presidency, nor, the team that helped him get there.

So Mr. President, here’s your chance.

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.

Sometimes a more interesting way to find out how people truly view the world, is not to have them tell you where they stand on certain issues.  Another informative way to analyze someone’s critical thinking skills is how reflexive they are to disbelieve facts that counter their world view or agree with facts which confirms their world view.

Seeing their reactions to overly simplified answers which not only confirms their world view, but also their ego, you can use it to analyze that person’s tendency towards confirmation bias.

Before going further, a general disclaimer:  we all, every human falls for confirmation bias.  We want an ordered world and want to understand things and want to be right.  So patterns of random events become, after the fact of course, a series of events who destiny is their present state.

However, for those claiming to know more, claiming to impart important information to the masses, the truth as they see it – for those people, confirmation bias shouldn’t be as obvious.

For our example of people who lack critical thinking skills this time, we have Marcella Mroczkowski, a self described lawyer, activist, and Huffington Post Citizen Journalist.

Now I know – looking for critical thinking on a site like the Huffington Post is much more difficult than finding the proverbial needle in a haystack, but I still thinks it’s useful to remind us all of the tendency.

In her February 9th piece titled Why Americans Must Defeat the Right’s Culture of Hate: Understanding the Science And History of Demonizing Hate gives you a pretty good idea of her logical consistency, but for some reason, I read further.   To save you the trouble, I’ll summarize:

Using one poll, which she claims proves a large, but minority, percentage of Republicans are prone to believe things like Obama isn’t a natural citizen.  From there, she lumps the birther movement in with those who believe Barack is a socialist.  Tie that to the freedom-increasing destruction of the Fairness Doctrine, or in her parlance, the end of untainted free press and equality and an increase in corporate slavery.

Tie that to talk radio, through it, use nominal facts like people tend to get more fanatic during recessions and hate is a primal emotion.

Jump from there to leaders who can exploit man’s primal tendency to hate others through dehumanzing, such as Hitler!

& viola – people who don’t believe like Marcella are not just Republicans, but hate filled Republicans who are being exploited by Hitler’s reincarnation.

So with that said, I think objectively we can say that if this sample is her normal standards, then Ms. Mroczkowski’s skills in critical thinking are demonstrably lacking. We can also say, again, assuming this piece of hers is representative of her other writing & analysis, but with that assumption, she’s also a little full of herself.  Narcissistic even.

I mean even I try to assume the role of her – try to think, a liberal would agree – what do they see worth agreeing to?  Her non-familiarity with logic becomes apparent, as even if I agree with all her logical leaps, to believe the underlying assumption that her beliefs are perfectly right and her opponents are evil and full of hate is just too perfect to be believed by any nominally objective person.

I mean seriously – when the snake oil is packaged and marketed that it will grow your hair while shrinking your waistline and increasing your cognitive abilities – critical adults are naturally and rightfully and forcefully skeptical.

Or as others have said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence… or at least should for those pretending to provide “truthful” claims.

The interesting thing however is the polling data itself.  The data she uses to springboard her attempts to conflate Republicans and their mouth pieces with evil hate speech, is completely flawed.   First, it comes from Daily Kos, which should be an obvious sign to anyone approaching or attempting to approach objectivity.  They have an obvious bias and a quick check on their facts demonstrates it.

With simple math, we can take DailyKos’s own figures, 2008 voting records, and see if the percentages of respondents coincide with the actual percentages in the last election.

So in those states they label the NE, in the 2008 Presidential election, a total of 28,836,059 were cast for President, roughly 40% for McCain, or 11,458,616.

Those 11 million votes for McCain in that region, were out of the 59,948,240 votes cast for him nationally.  So the 11 million represents 19% of the total republican vote.  Not exactly a perfect measure of the percentage of Republicans living in the NorthEast, but likely more accurate than DailyKos’s attempts to minimize that part of country’s respondents to only 11%.  & my numbers were also two years ago – I think one can objectively say the Democrats aren’t doing as well as they could be and are in less favor now that prior to the election.

Regardless, they not only undervalue the opinions of those Republicans in the NE, but they also exaggerate the weight of the south, giving them 42% of the weight of the poll questions, whereas using the same basic analysis, those same states only made up 36% of the total Republican vote cast for McCain.

There are other signs in there as well, but ones I didn’t feel like researching… but to the eye, I’m not sure if 89% should be white or that 56% should be men, though I’ll admit both might be possible.  Using a full 70% of respondents aged 45 and up however, defies logic.  A cursory glance shows voter registration for that age group making up a little less than 50% of all registered voters and while I’ll be more than happy to concede the idea that the makeup of the Republican party isn’t a complete demographic mirror of the national population, I’m pretty sure we can safely say the 70% is exaggerated as well.

With all the inconsistencies, it’s hard to even subscribe to a benign notion such as incompetence.  It appears much more likely that they moved the numbers around until they could get results which showed what they wanted.

Of course to normal people, hearing or reading “A poll from the Daily Kos showed….” could be followed by “the Earth is round” and be right to be skeptical.

Using that poll as evidence of something however is another story entirely.  Here again, I’d like to think this is an innocent mistake, but I think hiding the poll through another link (she linked to Huffington Post site which discuss the poll, which linked to the poll), picking only two questions out of the litany asked and acted as if the rest of it was overwhelmingly convincing of her basic point, then logically stumbling about to equate Republicans with hateful, primitive thinkers who are just following Hitler’s rise to power…. well, that might say more about her motives than even her reflexive belief.

The problem is that only slightly off people like me will dig around for all those numbers to prove or disprove our assumptions.  & that percentage of people currently testing their assumptions versus those voting… well, let’s just say it’s probably pretty small.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that mind you – our marketplace of ideas is full of different people with different opinions and tripe like this will always be seen by objective people for the hollow and shallow self-confirmation it truly is.

The only real sad part is some people, probably more than I want to admit to, will read and blindingly believe.  Not because they don’t have an extra hour to research voting numbers and compare then to polling – they will believe it for the same reason it was written – it will confirm something for which they already believe.  Republicans are primitive & evil.

Yep, using a big dose of self-delusion for courage, they will believe completely in such a hateful point, without even noticing the hateful point is being stated in an article decrying hate.

Weeks ago in a discussion with some colleagues, someone posed an interesting question:  “Do talk shows like Oprah’s have any real negative impacts?”

At first thought, I thought no.  Her ideas are mostly superficial and without critical thought, but is she really changing minds?  What we do know is that most of the people who watch these shows, or any other talk/political show, are generally seeking out information for which their beliefs already align.  Our tendency as humans is to do this – to seek out others who are similar in thought and background – to keep us comfortable with our thoughts & beliefs.

However, I don’t watch Oprah so I’m not familiar  with the consistency of her programming.  From that conversation I went to see what exactly Oprah does after book clubs and working out and found her anti-science stance can and does indeed harm others.

In a great article detailed by Newsweek, they demonstrated Oprah’s movement into the pseudo-medical realm with shows providing powerful anecdotes, while ignoring true scientific study to the contrary (whole thing here).  With the sub-headline of Wish Away Cancer! Get A Lunchtime Face-Lift! Eradicate Autism! Turn Back The Clock! Thin Your Thighs! Cure Menopause! Harness Positive Energy! Erase Wrinkles! Banish Obesity! Live Your Best Life Ever!, the document Oprah’s true harm to her audience.  First Suzanne Somers:

…Each morning, the 62-year-old actress and self-help author rubs a potent estrogen cream into the skin on her arm. She smears progesterone on her other arm two weeks a month.

…According to Somers, the hormones, which are synthesized from plants instead of the usual mare’s urine (disgusting but true), are all natural and, unlike conventional hormones, virtually risk-free (not even close to true, but we’ll get to that in a minute).

Next come the pills. She swallows 60 vitamins and other preparations every day….

…In addition, she wears “nanotechnology patches” to help her sleep, lose weight and promote “overall detoxification.” If she drinks wine, she goes to her doctor to rejuvenate her liver with an intravenous drip of vitamin C. If she’s exposed to cigarette smoke, she has her blood chemically cleaned with chelation therapy. In the time that’s left over, she eats right and exercises, and relieves stress by standing on her head. Somers makes astounding claims about the ability of hormones to treat almost anything that ails the female body. She believes they block disease and will double her life span. “I know I look like some kind of freak and fanatic,” she said. “But I want to be there until I’m 110, and I’m going to do what I have to do to get there.”…

For Oprah’s part, she did allow some doctors into the discussion, but severely limited their ability to affect the discussion:

That was apparently good enough for Oprah. “Many people write Suzanne off as a quackadoo,” she said. “But she just might be a pioneer.” Oprah acknowledged that Somers’s claims “have been met with relentless criticism” from doctors. Several times during the show she gave physicians an opportunity to dispute what Somers was saying. But it wasn’t quite a fair fight. The doctors who raised these concerns were seated down in the audience and had to wait to be called on. Somers sat onstage next to Oprah, who defended her from attack. “Suzanne swears by bioidenticals and refuses to keep quiet. She’ll take on anyone, including any doctor who questions her.”…

As with many of Oprah’s crusades, the anti-science crusade wasn’t just about hormone treatments which are proven harmful, but to give Jenny McCarthy a voice to go after vaccines, which are truly helpful:

…In 2007, Oprah invited Jenny McCarthy, the Playboy model and actress, to describe her struggle to find help for her young son. When he was 2½, Evan suffered a series of seizures. A neurologist told McCarthy he was autistic. “So what do you think triggered the autism?” Oprah asked McCarthy. “I know you have a theory.”

McCarthy is certain that her son contracted autism from the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination he received as a baby. She told Oprah that the morning he went in for his checkup, her instincts told her not to allow the doctor to give him the vaccine. “I said to the doctor, I have a very bad feeling about this shot. This is the autism shot, isn’t it? And he said no, that is ridiculous; it is a mother’s desperate attempt to blame something on autism. And he swore at me.” The nurse gave Evan the shot. “And not soon thereafter,” McCarthy said, “boom, soul gone from his eyes.”…

Again, she’s follows the same modus operandi, lots of targeted emotional and anecdotal discussions (read: propaganda), followed up with very little in the way of scientific evidence:

…But back on the Oprah show, McCarthy’s charges went virtually unchallenged. Oprah praised McCarthy’s bravery and plugged her book, but did not invite a physician or scientist to explain to her audience the many studies that contradict the vaccines-autism link. Instead, Oprah read a brief statement from the Centers for Disease Control saying there was no science to prove a connection and that the government was continuing to study the problem. But McCarthy got the last word. “My science is named Evan, and he’s at home. That’s my science.”…

The question I think all this raises, is have we gone to a point where civility is seen as more important that truths.  You see, I think most of us would have a hard time going against Ms. McCarthy.  Due to her tragic circumstances, we can easily see in ourselves the need to find the answer which others can’t seem to find.  We want things to make sense, in a world with more randomness that we are willing to admit.

But should this civility prevent us from saying what’s true?  You might have strong beliefs about something, and you might even be able to bring self-serving anecdotal evidence to bear, but none of that matters.  In the long run, Ms. McCarthy’s beliefs are not only irrelevant, but should be generally dismissed as they come from an uneducated (on her topic of choice anyway) and grief stricken celebrity.

Instead of reason winning out however, the power of celebrity, combined with the power of wanting more concrete answers to life’s questions the crusade against life saving vaccinations continues forward.  From Wired:

To hear his enemies talk, you might think Paul Offit is the most hated man in America. A pediatrician in Philadelphia, he is the coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine that could save tens of thousands of lives every year. Yet environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. slams Offit as a “biostitute” who whores for the pharmaceutical industry. Actor Jim Carrey calls him a profiteer and distills the doctor’s attitude toward childhood vaccination down to this chilling mantra: “Grab ‘em and stab ‘em.” Recently, Carrey and his girlfriend, Jenny McCarthy, went on CNN’s Larry King Live and singled out Offit’s vaccine, RotaTeq, as one of many unnecessary vaccines, all administered, they said, for just one reason: “Greed.”

…So what has this award-winning 58-year-old scientist done to elicit such venom? He boldly states — in speeches, in journal articles, and in his 2008 book Autism’s False Prophets — that vaccines do not cause autism or autoimmune disease or any of the other chronic conditions that have been blamed on them. He supports this assertion with meticulous evidence. And he calls to account those who promote bogus treatments for autism — treatments that he says not only don’t work but often cause harm….

When reality demonstrates that many people ignore scientific evidence and their facts are replaced with celebrity hubris and propaganda, it should be a sign that all of us should take the time to understand where our true beliefs emanate.

Because please know, while many might read this and think, “that’s not me”, they mean that in a narrow sense as this is part of the human condition which we all share.  Only the truly arrogant among us can believe they can escape the human condition.

For those brave souls willing to go beyond our tendencies, I suggest we should all truly question our deepest beliefs in the face of new or competing information.  Anything less does a disservice to you, your family, and society at large.

This has been written about all over the place and discussed ad infinitum, most of it conjecture based on prior opinions or potential political gain/loss.

& of course, since most humans seem to have this weird thing where our focus can move from the important to the seemingly mundane, we’re not discussing the SCOTUS nominee committee vote,  the pending health care bill, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russian’s & Germany’s resurgence in Europe, or any of the other things that should weigh on our thoughts.

Nope – the number one story seems to be about President Obama and the Gates situation.

Nothing can tell us more about race relations in the US than our own President injecting race along side a Harvard professor, Jesse Jackson, and others.

As most have figured out, it was a mistake for Mr. Obama to disucss a situation with which he was obviously unfamiliar.  The only exceptions of course, from those who believe Mr. Obama can do no wrong (here, here, etc, etc)  & those who use race to judge most other things (see confirmation bias).

What do we know?

Gates has said he returned from an overseas trip, found the door jammed, and that he and his driver attempted to force it open. Gates went through the back door and was inside the house on the phone with the property’s management company when police arrived.

Police said he flew into a verbal rage after Sgt. James Crowley, who is white, asked him to show identification to prove he should be in the home. Police say Gates accused Crowley of racial bias, refused to calm down and was arrested. The charge was dropped Tuesday, but Gates has demanded an apology, calling his arrest a case of racial profiling.

Gates, 58, maintains he turned over identification when asked to do so by the police. He said Crowley arrested him after the professor followed him to the porch, repeatedly demanding the sergeant’s name and badge number because he was unhappy over his treatment.

Crowley has refused to apologize, saying he followed protocol.

As is clear through the discrepancy of stories, either the police are colluding to lie, or Mr. Gates is lying.

Depending upon several factors in your personal life, most people will likely lean towards a “belief” decision on who’s lying (not a rational one). This decision will be based on our experiences with both race and police, as well as our current world view.

If one expects cops to act in racist ways because they believe in institutional racism, they will see this as further proof they are correct.

If one has had direct negative type contact with police, they will likely be more than willing to believe the cops are lying.

The question we must ask ourselves if what is the most likely answer (Occam’s Razor)?

Is it more likely that officer Crowley, a decorated officer who trains others in racial profiling:

Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley, the cop at the center of a firestorm over the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., has taught a racial profiling class at the Lowell Police Academy for five years….

Who enjoys the benefit of having an eye witness, a fellow cop to be sure, but since race apparently matters:

A black police officer who was at Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s home when the black Harvard scholar was arrested says he fully supports how his white fellow officer handled the situation.

Sgt. Leon Lashley says Gates was probably tired and surprised when Sgt. James Crowley demanded identification from him as officers investigated a report of a burglary. Lashley says Gates’ reaction to Crowley was “a little bit stranger than it should have been.”

Asked if Gates should have been arrested, Lashley said supported Crowley “100 percent.”…

Or, one other person, the Harvard professor Mr. Gates.

It seems logical to give two people’s story more weight than that of one person without additional evidence to prove otherwise, but most people will decide based upon miscellaneous factors described above.

Another non-event blow-up due to our irrational racial biases.

As I’m sure everyone is aware, Obama is going to speak tonight on his health care plan and the current economic crisis.

I’m not sure about the public at large, but in the span of less than a year in office, I’m starting to feel the number of prime time Presidential addresses to the country has gone overboard.

However, the strategic decision that’s being made by Obama and his staff is completely understandable.

When you have a President that is such a gifted communicator, then you want nothing more for him to be in his natural habitat.  They just need to understand that in their arrogance of belief in the leader they continue to push, there will be a saturation point when he is out there too much.

Just like the Soities paradox, we don’t know which grain of sand will make a heap; we also don’t know when/if Obama will become over saturated.  What history does indicate, is that if his handlers don’t become more humble about their leader, over saturation will happen.

Having said that, the really nauseating piece of this so far was aleak about the speech itself.  From the UPI:

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told The New York Times Obama intends to use the news conference as a “six-month report card,” to talk about “how we rescued the economy from the worst recession” and the legislative agenda moving forward, including health care and energy legislation.

The arrogance it takes to announce publicly that the TARP money positively impacted the economy is breath taking. To state they rescued the economy from the worst recession ever is simply a lie.

As written here earlier,  the administration announced loudly and proudly that without acting right now and passing more stimulus, we are in deep trouble.

Using charts and graphs, they warned – without stimulus money, the unemployment rate might go as high as 10%, but with it, will stay below 8%.

Of course, with hindsight, we know the current unemployment rate is verging on 10%, specifically 9.4% today with the additional billions spent.

They warned us that allowing GM to declare bankruptcy would be disastrous.  Now we are almost two full months from that exact thing happening and yet, somehow, the sky has managed to not fall.

So based on historical evidence, in just the very beginning of this presidency, every time they’ve spoken about economic issues, they’ve turned out to be wrong.

Yet, they will go ahead, full force this evening, and loudly proclaim something they can’t possibly prove.  That is that the country is better off than had they not spent future generations’ money.

They can’t prove it, just as I can’t prove them wrong.  Logically, neither I nor the most intelligent economist in the world can prove what might have happened under a different hypothetical situation.

However, people should be smart enough to see that those telling you they did the right thing, have been more wrong than right.

Over at Statistical Modeling, Casual Interference, and Social Science blog, there’s a blog post discussing the VP’s marketing techniques sent via email to help pass the administration’s health care reform (here):

———- Forwarded message ———- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:06:43 -0400 From: Vice President Joe Biden Subject: You’ve got to read these

A few weeks ago, President Obama asked you to share your personal story about how the health care crisis has affected you and the ones you love. Hundreds of thousands of stories poured in from every corner of the country. The President and I have read through many of them ourselves — and now I’m encouraging you to do so as well.

Read these powerful, personal stories from people in your area and around the country:

http://healthcare.barackobama.com/stories

And after you do, please forward this note on to as many people as you can.

For folks who don’t yet understand why health care reform is such an urgent priority, these stories make the case far better than any statistics ever could.

What’s interesting to note, is that this kind of thinking, pushing anecdotes instead of solid science, should rightfully seem irrational to most people.  However, the truth is the more people to follow Mr. Biden’s advice, the more adherents to his beliefs on health care reform he is likely to have.

He is basically exploiting a known human weakness in critical thinking.  A consistent issue all humans have to deal with is an inability to compare any one thing to all things possible.  That is, we have a poor ability to see things in a rational statistical manor.  For instance, we are scared of things that are statistically improbable, while at the same time we can have heightened sensitivities about things that are highly improbable.

We do this by making any comparisons against what we know or have seen, instead of comparing things against what’s possible.  This was demonstrated in the book Freakamonics, wherein the authors discuss the difference in the fear of parents possibly sending their children to other homes where guns might exist (1 in 1 million chance of death), juxtaposed against the indifference most parents have with sending their children to homes with pools (1 in 11,000).

When’s the last time you saw a news item on recent pool deaths?  When’s the last time you saw a news item about gun violence?

This is also demonstrated when polling people with questions about how many deaths they think are caused by various possibilities.  The consistently overestimate the number of deaths on causes which are very infrequent, but on TV more often (swine flu), and underestimate the number of deaths on causes which are much more frequent, yet never on TV (asthma).

This helps explain why polls currently show things such as; 45% of respondents are somewhat or very satisfied with the current health care system, yet 80% of respondents are somewhat or very satisfied with their personal health care.

This thinking also helps explain why all sort of new, completely unproven vitamins, homeopathic remedies, special healing diets, detoxes, and the rest continue to have solid adherents, but absolutely no proven track record or even any attempt to come up with a testable hypothesis.

The truly awful thing is that this thinking has not only invaded seriously complex debates such as health care, but also scientific thinking, such as grant funding from the National Institutes of Health:

I was on an NIH panel a couple of years ago with about 25 other scientists…

The highlight–or, I should say, lowlight–was when we were reviewing a proposal involving the study of the carcinogenic effects of hookah (water pipe) smoking. I asked if this was really such a big deal, and one of the panel members told me that smoking tobacco through a hookah is something like 10 times worse than smoking a cigarette. If so, the public health consequences could be pretty serious, even if not so many people did it. I said this sounded like a reasonable point to me. Then this guy across the table from me spoke up and said that he knew somebody who was 80 years old, had been smoking with a hookah all his life and was none the worse from it. At this point, I blew up. I couldn’t believe that the “my elderly aunt smokes and she didn’t get cancer” argument could be brought up at an NIH panel!

So in a real sense, if you could get people to read hundreds of anecdotes, you can effectively change someone’s comparative model if they aren’t deliberate in their thinking.

I think we need to be reminded or one of my favorite speeches by the esteemed physicist Richard Feynman, titled Cargo Cult Science In it, he addresses science majors that while ethics classes aren’t an express part of a normal science education, they should all learn that the cumulative effect of their science education should be the ability and responsibility to ignore pseudoscience.  They should see through their many classes that utilize the scientific principles of analysis, that science should always be a vehicle in which we strive to find the truth.

You combine the fact that humans use internal anecdotal evidence when making most of their comparisons, with pressure from cognitive dissonance helping people to fall for confirmation biases; it seems intuitive that serious and well meaning people can end up believing all sorts of things that simply aren’t provable in any real sense.

Of course understanding this is only the first step – admitting the problem.  We should next expect better out of our government and our elected representatives.  We should expect more from news organizations and TV personalities who wish to push an agenda.  We should expect more out of researchers and any organization that publishes things labeled as “science”.

In the end though, we should really expect more out of ourselves.  We should always be vigilant in seeking the truth through the obfuscation of effective propaganda which plays on our weaknesses.