Additional Thoughts

​

Sorry -- I have not posted in a while, because I've been writing two additional chapters for the book, as well as working on a couple of evolution of human reasoning submissions to upcoming academic meetings. As of August 18, the book is now for sale on Amazon and multiple other websites.  I'll be back writing on this blog soon.

​

October 17, 2022:  Additional thought regarding this editorial in the Harvard Crimson, Harvard University's student newspaper, regarding a poll showing that 82% of Harvard faculty identify as liberal or very liberal, while 1% identify as conservative or very conservative.  (Read the Harvard editorial first!)

 

          A recent editorial in the Harvard Crimson cited a poll revealing that 82% of Harvard’s faculty identify as liberal or very liberal, while 1% identify as conservative or very conservative.  That suggests … um … there are approximately 82 times more liberals than conservatives on Harvard’s faculty.

          Before reading the rest of this Additional Thought, you should read the editorial, in which the editorial board offers strong support for this ideological skew.  

          The editorial is quite eye-opening regarding the ways in which the highly intelligent and the highly educated think about politics.  While it may seem that I am picking on liberals / progressives, it only seems that way because the members of the Crimson’s editorial board are liberal / progressive.  The Science of Epistemic Rationality – the science of how we form our beliefs, and whether our beliefs are true – suggests highly intelligent and highly educated conservatives, just like the rest of us, tend to form their political beliefs the same way (heuristically).

          My default assumption is that the students who make up the editorial board of the Crimson are all quite bright; the editorial therefore offers strong support for the contention that Intelligence ≠ (Epistemic) Rationality.

          The editorial also offers strong support for the contention I make in my book that while the highly intelligent and highly educated do have some advantages when it comes to getting political issues right, they also have at least nine disadvantages.  I am considering adding a tenth disadvantage to the list (though I am first taking some time to decide whether it is sufficiently different from the other nine):  highly intelligent people tend to associate with other highly intelligent people, and those who do not understand the difference between intelligence versus epistemic rationality often assume that because their associates are highly intelligent, they must be highly rational political thinkers.

          The willingness to exclusively consider only the views of left-leaning and heavily left-leaning faculty suggests that the authors of the editorial, just like almost everyone else, lack at least some of the reflective thinking dispositions required for maximization of the odds of truth discovery.  Requisite reflective-level thinking dispositions, which Keith Stanovich and colleagues claim in The Rationality Quotient make up one of the three components of epistemically rational thinking, include thinking styles such as:

​

• The tendency to base new beliefs on evidence

• The tendency to weight new evidence against a favored belief heavily

• The tendency to seek various points of view before coming to a conclusion

• The tendency to calibrate the degree of strength of one’s opinion to the degree of evidence available

• The tendency to seek nuance and avoid absolutism

• The willingness to change one’s mind in the face of new evidence

• The willingness to consider alternative opinions and evidence

• The tendency to think extensively about a problem before responding

• The tendency to spend a great deal of time on a problem before giving up

​

          Finally, the fact that in considering conservative perspectives, the students referred to three hot-button political cudgels Democrat politicians use to stereotype and bludgeon those on the right -- climate change denialism, pseudo-scientific support of racism, and misrepresentation of historical facts – is telling. These issues have literally nothing to do with conservatism.   It suggests the students formulated their collective worldview and chose their preferred political ideologies the way … well .. the way almost everyone else does.  Most people mistakenly but understandingly believe they have carefully reasoned their way to their worldview, their political ideology, and their preferred political philosophy.  However, evidence suggests that the overwhelming majority have not.  Rather, most simply adopt these perspectives during their most formative years – their late teens and early twenties -- from those to whom they are most exposed, without seriously considering or even having good understanding of other worldviews, ideologies, and political philosophies (Genetics appear to play a role as well.).  My guess is that the students rejected philosophical conservatism without having ever attempted to understand it, without reading Edmund Burke, without reading Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions, and without reading Russell Kirk’s Concise Guide to Conservatism.  (No, most conservatives have not read them either, and have not read key books from progressives, such as Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man and Robert Reich's Saving Capitalism.)

          I’ll close by referring to the example of global trade policy.  One might reject the arguments that NAFTA (signed into law by Bill Clinton) and most favored nation trade status for China (supported by Clinton; signed into law by George W. Bush) had very significant negative impacts on America’s working class, on American manufacturing, and on middle American industrial cities (some estimates suggest that these two policies alone led to the loss of more than 5,000,000 American jobs).  One might also reject the contention that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (heavily supported by Barack Obama) would have been equally harmful (while further enriching owners and corporate executives).  Or, one may simply believe the trade-offs were worth it.  However, these policies were highly non-conservative; could anyone possibly draw maximally informed, objective, accurate conclusions without open-mindedly considering the strongest and most thoughtful arguments from both liberals and conservatives?

          As technology (including artificial intelligence) rapidly facilitates better and more sophisticated means of persuading by those who control messaging, the beliefs of those who do not form their political beliefs in epistemically rational ways will soon be influenced by others to a greater and greater degree.

          The students of Harvard’s editorial board will still have beliefs they are confident in, and they will fit in with their peers.  However, will forming their beliefs heuristically, and hearing arguments from only one side of the political spectrum, truly be enough for them?  

          Frustratingly, the answer is probably yes.

​

​

​

August 22, 2022:  Additional thoughts about the most recent mass school shooting, the next mass school shooting, and other tragic ways in which children die

 

     Mass school shootings are unbelievably tragic.  As a father of two daughters, the thought of one of my children dying this way, or even experiencing a school shooting and surviving,  is one of the most horrific things I can imagine.

Other potentially preventable ways in which children die, such as alcohol-related traffic accidents, drug overdoses, iatrogenic (treatment-induced) hospital deaths, swimming pool and other drownings, accidental poisonings, gang violence, teen suicide, and deaths at the hands of human smugglers are horrifying to consider as well.  

 

     When news of the next school shooting saturates the airwaves, most of us will not ask questions such as: 

 

• How does the number of children dying per year at the hands of school shooters compare to the number dying via other preventable causes? 

• Based on the number of children dying and the relative ease and costs of preventing deaths, toward which causes of death should society direct the most energy and financial resources, and which of our freedoms (if any) should we consider curtailing?

• What does an open-minded-as-possible thorough analysis, involving study of evidence and arguments from thought leaders on both sides of the political aisle, lead me to conclude about gun ownership?

 

     Rather, many of us will simply demand new gun-related policies and laws, as well as the curtailing of gun-related freedoms.  Many others will simply demand that no new laws or policies regarding gun ownership even be considered.

 

     Why do many of us focus so heavily on mass school shootings, without giving nearly as much thought to the other preventable ways in which children die?

 

     As is the case for many of our other beliefs, most of us form our beliefs about school shootings heuristically, whereby difficult questions -- such as How big of a societal problem are school shootings, relative to other means by which children die?, and What do I think we as a society should do about all forms of preventable childhood deaths? – are subconsciously replaced by easier, heuristic questions.  Three key categories of judgment heuristics (all covered in my first book) are particularly relevant:

 

Availability heuristic:

 

     When we form beliefs utilizing the availability heuristic, we form them based on the based on the ease with which instances come to mind.  One of the key factors influencing the ease with which instances come to mind, in turn, is the extent to which the issue is covered by the news sources we tune in to.  Substitution questions become Which types of childhood deaths have I seen most recently on the news sources I tune in to?, and Which potential solutions am I most familiar with?  (The extent to which media saturation influences the decision of people to become school shooters in the future is beyond the scope of this essay.)

            

Affect heuristic:

 

     When we form beliefs utilizing the affect heuristic, we substitute heuristic questions for more difficult questions based on our emotions. The substitution questions become How do I feel about school shootings?, and How horrified am I by the thought of children dying at the hands of school shooters?, and How afraid am I that I or someone I love might be a victim of gun violence?  

 

The tendency to simply adopt the beliefs of others, without evidence and without reflection: 

 

     This heuristic is self-explanatory.  The substitution question becomes What does someone I trust, who presumably knows more than I do about gun safety and school shootings, think?

 

     As we then answer heuristic questions, our answers will of course be impacted by cognitive biases, such as myside bias, as well as the tendency to base our beliefs on the beliefs of those in our group.

​

​

​

August 10, 2022:  Some additional thoughts about quantity and quality of evidence

 

     Based on the way we form our beliefs about complex political issues – heuristically, almost always -- the amount and quality of evidence it takes to convince us that leaders of the political party we favor are wrong, or made a bad policy decision, or behaved unethically or scandalously; are typically far, far greater than the amount and quality of evidence it takes to convince us that leaders of the party we disfavor are wrong or incompetent or crooked.  

     The opposite is also true – it generally takes little evidence to convince us those in the political party we favor are right, or justified in an action they recently took, or honest and innocent of scandal; compared to what it takes to convince us those from the other side are right, or justified, or honest, or innocent.

     Though the bias is generally subconscious, we judge those belonging to our political party versus those belonging to the political party we do not agree with by very different evidentiary standards.

 

Coming soon:  Some additional thoughts about the most recent school shooting, the next school shooting, and other horrific, tragic, potentially preventable causes of childhood death.

​

​

July 26, 2022:  Thoughts about media narratives, concerning both people and events.  

 

Which stories do the media cover, and how do they cover them?  Which media do we consider objective and honest? And which of their stories are we willing to believe?

 

          When members of the media form their own beliefs heuristically – and that’s how almost all people form their beliefs about complex political issues – the stories they tell are of course heavily influenced by myside bias.  The issues they choose to focus on, the conclusions they reach, and the supporting evidence they gather and convey, are heavily impacted by their own existing beliefs, convictions, worldview, and political ideology. This bias occurs subconsciously, of course.  

          But what if a member of the media or an entire media organization wanted to deliberately create a narrative that is misleading?  What if they wanted to create a narrative that contained only true information, but that was specifically designed to change the way you think about a person or event?  

          Consider yourself as an example.  If someone wanted to paint you in a negative light, how might they go about it?  Could they convince others that you are not all that bright, or that you are unethical, or that you are a jerk?  How hard would it be?

          What if they found several of the people who like you the least, and then asked them to provide things you have said and done that would make you look bad.  What if they took the pieces of information they received completely out of context and were also willing to grossly exaggerate (without actually lying, of course), and they carefully wove them into a “you're a lousy person” narrative?  Based on things you have said, written, and done, could they succeed in making you look dumb, or unethical, or mean? 

          What if you were a public figure, and much of what you have written is readily available online and much of what you have said and done exists on audio and video?  Could they carefully weave snippets of audio and video to make the narrative even more compelling?

          What if they wanted to do the opposite, to raise you up in the minds of others?  If they started with five or ten people who think very highly of you, could they succeed in this as well?  

       It would not be all that difficult to paint most of us in either a very positive or a very negative light.  Events that have occurred can easily be manipulated in the same way.  

 

Would the media you tune in to actually do such a thing?

 

          We tend to use heuristics when we form beliefs about political issues, but we also tend to use heuristic thinking when we form our beliefs about which media sources are objective, honest, and accurate.  This means that we, also, are heavily influenced by myside bias.  We tend to consider media sources that provide information and narratives that fit with our existing beliefs, convictions, worldview, and political ideology as objective and honest purveyors of truth.  Meanwhile, we tend to write off sources providing information and narratives that are not coherent with what we already believe as biased and dishonest.  We simply ignore them.

 

Which information, and which narratives, are we willing to believe?

 

          When we form our beliefs about complex issues heuristically – and again, almost all of us do, almost all of the time – whom and what we believe depends on who the media source is and on what they are telling us. 

          We pay close attention to sources we have already (heuristically) determined are objective and honest.  As long as they deliver information and stories that fit with our existing beliefs, we believe what they tell us and incorporate the evidence they provide into our own belief-and-evidence narratives.  

          Conversely, we tend to ignore sources we have already (heuristically) determined are biased and dishonest, and tend to discount or outright reject information and narratives that conflict with our existing beliefs.  Under most circumstances, these sources can’t do a whole lot to change our minds.  

          As long as our new belief fits what we already believe, and as long as we are able to identify and incorporate a few pieces of supporting evidence with little or no conflicting information, we are satisfied.  We are confident.  We feel no need to look further.  And we cling to our new belief ferociously, refusing to consider any evidence and opinions that might force us to reconsider.

          Yes, it’s the sources we trust the most that can most easily mislead us!

 

 

June 26, 2022:  Thoughts about the June 24, 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade, hence returning the issue of abortion legality to the states.

 

            As of June 25 as I am writing this, nation-wide protests and celebrations have erupted across the United States in response to the June 24, 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision to return the issue of abortion legality to the states.  You probably have pretty strong feelings about this decision, and very strong beliefs about abortion, yourself.  So where did these beliefs come from?  How did you form them?  Have you used belief-forming processes that are highly epistemically rational?

            Regarding the constitutionality of abortion rights, have you open-mindedly sought out and read thoughtful arguments from both those you agree with and those you disagree with (focusing more on material from those you disagree with)?  Have you read the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights?  Have you read the Supreme Court’s majority opinion?

            Regarding the morality of abortion, as you have contemplated what a fetus is, have you sought out and seriously considered strong arguments from those who argue that a fetus is, versus is not, a person?  Have you read and contemplated, for example, the very thoughtful and well-reasoned arguments from Princeton University bioethics professor Peter Singer AC that a fetus is not a person, and that even early infanticide is therefore often morally permissable and should in many circumstances be legal?  Have you read the very thoughtful and well-reasoned secular and non-secular arguments from Magis Center President and former Gonzaga University President Robert Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D., that a fetus is a person, and that it should have rights (and should be protected) from the moment of conception?

            Have you taken active steps to minimize myside bias; have you made a true attempt to look at the legality and morality issues from the perspective of those you disagree with?  Have you attempted to distinguish your personal beliefs from the political platform of the party you support?  

            Or, have you simply formed your beliefs about the legality and morality of abortion heuristically, using the same methods you probably use in forming the rest of your beliefs?  Have you perhaps reacted to the Supreme Court decision emotionally, out of fear that the leaders of the political party opposite yours want to seize authoritarian control of the country and to further curtail rights?  Have you only considered what you have heard most recently from information sources you regularly turn to (the ones that always tell you good things about the politicians you support and bad things about the politicians you do not support)?  Have you simply adopted the abortion-related views of others, without evidence, without strong arguments, and without careful reflection?