Detailed Abstractions

Yesterday, DA posted an article on the Economist’s debate over language (here) with the following [emphasis added]:

Irregardless, she goes forward to talk about more interesting research, including ethnic bias, gender specific nouns, and even points to a study which attempts to show Hebrew-Arabic bilinguals speakers seem to show more favorable attitudes towards Jews when tested in Hebrew than Arabic.  (I find that claim dubious, but without more access to the research, I’ll leave that point for now.)

My initial concerns with this research were how it was conducted and what assumptions were made.  After some searching, I’m unable to retrieve the actual study, but did find some underlying issues worth nothing.

The study Ms. Boroditsky cites above, used a test known as Implicit Association Test (IAT) (here via Association for Psychological Science – APS):

The study used a computer test known as the Implicit Association Test, which is often used to study bias….

The question at hand then, is whether IAT can actually show true bias.  The way it works (APS continued):

…Words flash on the computer screen, and subjects have to categorize them by pressing two keys on the keyboard as quickly as possible. It’s a nearly automatic task, with no time to think about the answers. The trick is, the subjects are classifying two different kinds of words: words describing positive and negative traits and, in this case, names – Arab names like Ahmed and Samir and Jewish names like Avi and Ronen. For example, they might be told to press “M” when they saw an Arab name or a word with a good meaning, or “X” when they saw a Jewish name and a word with a bad meaning. In this example, if people automatically associate “good” words with Arabs and “bad” with Jews, they’ll be able to do the classifications faster than if their automatic association between the words is the other way around. In different sections of the test, different sets of words are paired….

 The idea being that a quick test might help to show hidden biases, even for those who are actively attempting to prevent such displays.

Intuitively however, this test seems unlikely to prove bias for a few reasons. 

The first of which is our knowledge that human’s subconscious isn’t conscious.  By its very definition, we don’t know what it is and we still have little idea of how, or even whether, these hidden thoughts interact with our conscious mind or thinking.

The second is our knowledge of overall human development.   Take a child raised and consistently indoctrinated with racist ideals.  While not simple, some of these children do grow up and by themselves learn the truth:  hating others based upon their race, religion, or other superficial factors, is not just stupid, but also marks one of the lowest or immoral thoughts.

But take this person… Any guesses on how this person might do on this test, even if they now live a life of a non-biased person?  Speculation  for sure; but I think ultimately logical.

Which dovetails to the third basic critique, brought to us by basic ideas in critical thinking. 

Nominally, one of the things a critical thinker must do in order to minimize bad decisions, is to understand their own biases.

& in this case, I don’t mean to limit this to racial biases brought about through family or societal pressures, but consider the word bias as more encompassing to include any consistent mode of thinking which negatively affects decisions.

From that point of view, the biases one should look for in critical thinking outside personal life, (more…)

This week @ the Economist’s debate series, they are discussing another interesting topic.  Starring Lera Boroditsky, Assistant Professor of Psychology @ Stanford University arguing pro and Mark Liberman, Distinguished Professor in Linguistics @ University of Pennsylvania, arguing against  (whole thing here):

This house believes that the language we speak shapes how we think.

Still in the first round of of the debate, the pros have a large majority with a full 75% of people agreeing.  This seems self evident and may lead some to question why debate this particular topic with so much agreement.

The answer:  the nuances of the argument itself.   Indeed, while Mr. Lieberman’s job is to argue against the proposition, he starts his opening arguments by agreeing with the basic premise:

Properly interpreted, the proposition is true: the language we speak shapes how we think….

& of course goes directly into his disagreement:

…But the way we think also shapes the language we speak, and the way we live shapes both language and thought. When we encounter or create new ideas, we can usually describe them with new combinations of old words. And if not, we easily adapt or borrow or create the new words or phrases we need. As Edward Sapir once put it, “We may say that a language is so constructed that no matter what any speaker of it may desire to communicate … the language is prepared to do his work.”….

He goes on to define this key difference in interpretation.  While he nominally agrees with the idea, society has been inundated with ideas which simply aren’t true.  With discussions, articles, and not very well done research telling us all about the number of words Eskimos have for snow, whether the Apache had a word for “lie”, and even popular culture through the likes of Ayn Rand.

The crux of the issue however, is that most of these stories are either exaggerations of the truth or just completely false.  Like the Hopi Eskimos, having apparently somewhere between 5 & hundreds of words for snow depending upon the source, might have specific words to identify different types of snow that other cultures don’t have.

But whether they have specific words for such things as hard iced snow, or falling snow, or wet snow, it’s not as if other languages can’t use two word phrases with adjectives and nouns to get to the same point.

Taken this way, it seems as though having more words for snow than other societies doesn’t say those other societies are somehow less equipped to speak about snow, but instead gives us some insight into what is important to the Hopi.

& then there’s the other side as well, presented by Ms. Boroditsky, which starts:

Exciting empirical advances over the past decade have at last provided us with scientific answers about how languages shape thinking. Importantly, while some of the influences of language on thought are remarkable, there is nothing strange about them, they are just a normal function of how human brains work. Let’s start with the basics of perception, mathematics and navigation, and end with the sex of toasters, social judgments and prejudice….

She moves from there to highlight interesting research in terms of various societies, such as those with more words for colors of those who do not have words for left & right.  In the later example, they use more cardinal-type language to define position (such as north-east).   This seems to have given them a better sense of direction than cultures where left & right are used.

Going forward, she also talks about math and number language:

For example, some languages do not have exact number words (there may be words for “few” or “many” but none for “seven” or “sixteen”). Speakers of such languages generally are not able to keep track of exact quantities—they cannot count. Without being able to count, you are unlikely to be doing algebra, solving differential equations…

Which is true in a large sense, but isn’t true in the technical one.  We actually know quite a bit with respects to the evolution in math language and its use and necessity in understanding math functions above simple counting. 

So humans had a need to start counting things.  This need brought us new language to describe various amounts.  Over time, with the advent of more and more commerce, this math language became written, and for the west, this was in Roman Numerals.

Of course anyone with experience with Roman Numerals can attest pretty easily to how difficult it would be to multiply or divide, but even that is just the starting point.

The true power of math and math thinking didn’t really happen until we stumbled upon two mythical number concepts, zero and infinity.

Take that beginning and look forward a few thousand years, and we routinely run math calculations on numbers which have no real language associated with them and numbers which can’t even be understood by humans (IE it’s hard to understand what a billion, billion stars really means, when you have no concept of what a billion of anything looks like, regardless of having a “word” for it ).

Irregardless, she goes forward to talk about more interesting research, including ethnic bias, gender specific nouns, and even points to a study which attempts to show Hebrew-Arabic bilinguals speakers seem to show more favorable attitudes towards Jews when tested in Hebrew than Arabic.  (I find that claim dubious, but without more access to the research, I’ll leave that point for now.)

& while the 75% vote tally on the pro side is unlikely to change drastically, with rebuttals, expert comments, & closing statements still to come; it should be very informative in the end.

Unintended consequences.  An often used phrase for almost every piece of legislation pushed our politicians.  Whether it’s McCain-Feingold’s chilling effect on free political speech or whether bailing out banks which are “too big to fail” has actually decreased our long term viability instead of supporting it; the term seems to connote any consequence which wasn’t expressly mentioned by proponents of the bill.

Technically, that’s correct.  The definition of unintended consequences does not require the consequences to be unforeseen, though in common language we generally use the base meaning of “intention”.   Therefore the phrase has come to mean those consequences which were neither  intended nor unforeseen.

I submit however, that we should start changing our language and call known consequences intended consequences, because like the citizens in the face of the law our politicians should be held to the same standard: ignorance is not a defense.

Regardless of the human failing that pushes people to believe they, or their elected leaders, can ultimately control behavior which is already constrained by the marketplace, acting as if the results weren’t readily understood is disingenuous.

Looking more closely @ McCain-Feingold effects, we see the chilling of free-speech (here), where citizens can’t create a documentary on their beliefs about Hillary Clinton without it being subject to regulation:

…The case before the court, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, originated over whether a 2008 feature-length movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton could be classified as an “electioneering communication” subject to regulation.

The FEC contended it was, and that its sponsor, a conservative advocacy group called Citizens United, was barred from promoting the film. While nonprofits can be exempt from campaign-finance regulations if they limit their fund-raising to donations from individuals, Citizens United fell under McCain-Feingold because it accepts business contributions….

Now.  I haven’t seen the movie nor do I care to, but when individuals get together to use their own money, their own resources, to produce their own political speech, the government has absolutely no right to be involved.  In the marketplace of political ideas, that whole “congress shall make no law” thingy, seemed pretty straight forward.

Regardless of your reading of the 1st Amendment, some will contend this is an unintended consequence.  I contend it was a known consequence and therefore must have been intended.

I will even go further and say this was like a consequence well enough known by politicians who voted for the bill, that they had incentive to pass restrictions on others as this would help them secure the current balance of power.

Using banks too big to fail (here):

…Increased concentration is vexing for regulators. Because systemically important firms can borrow more cheaply thanks to implicit state backing, small and medium-sized banks struggle to compete. A recent Fed study put big banks’ funding advantage at more than 30 basis points. That leads to another possible problem: indiscipline. Private firms with a low cost of funds and the taxpayer behind them are prone to recklessness: just look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. America’s leading banks were too big to fail before the crisis. Now they are bigger still….

This was not only easy to foresee, but libertarians, conservatives, small business groups, think tanks, economists, literally, tens of thousands of people wrote and discussed that this is exactly what would happen.

Once you’ve effectively told the market that they will not be responsible for their failures, you’ve written them a blank check to become much more reckless than they would have otherwise.

Not only this, but that action, more reckless businesses, will have it’s own well understood consequence.  The banks will continue to make stupid decisions due to a perceived lack of risk.  As long as people allow it, the government will continue to bail them out until it becomes just too expensive.  Then during that emergency, we will see much greater regulation and control of the financial industry which might include a government takeover.

As Hayek stated and history has shown:

‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.

Maybe it’s time to start holding our politicians & leaders accountable for the known consequences & not just the stated ones.