The Thinker

Quote of the Day

Jeffrey Ellis — Fri, 25 May 2012 12:00:59 +0000

Any human who becomes a preference aggregator will, must, present a false face to all. — Garrett Jones

Quote of the Day (for engineers)

Jeffrey Ellis — Thu, 24 May 2012 12:00:35 +0000

To be a successful software engineer (or indeed, any engineer), one first needs to be utterly and completely broken by failure. One must be so humiliated by a complex system that they give up and realize that the only chance of moving forward comes from being a supplicant to the complexity, by approaching it with humility and caution, not with hubris. You have to listen to the system, coax it into behaving. Commanding it does not work. – Vivek Haldar

HT to Engineering Revision.

Now Reading (for about the 4th time)…

Jeffrey Ellis — Wed, 23 May 2012 14:15:55 +0000

Ireland, by Frank Delaney.

From the front cover flap:

A novel of huge ambition, beautifully told, Ireland is the unstoppably readable story of a remarkable nation. On a November evening in 1951, an itinerant storyteller, the last of a fabled breed, arrives unannounced and mysterious at a house in the Irish countryside. By the fire, he begins to tell the story of this extraordinary island. One of his listeners, a nine-year-old boy, grows so entranced by the storytelling that, when the old man leaves, he devotes his life to finding him again.

It is a search that uncovers both passions and mysteries, in the boy’s life as well as the old man’s. In addition, a remarkable document is quoted from throughout the book – the Storyteller’s own chronicle, poignant, sharp and frequently amusing. Together they comprise the narrative of a people, the history of a nation, the telling of Ireland in all its drama, intrigue and heroism, its philosophy, its spirit, its national ego.

Ireland travels through the centuries by way of story after story, from the savage grip of the Ice Age to the green and troubled land of brochures and headlines. Along the way, we meet foolish kings and innocent monks, god-heroes and great works of art, shrewd Norman raiders and envoys from Rome, leaders, lovers and poets. Each illuminates the magic of Ireland, the troubling power of England and the eternal connection to the raw earth.

From the epic sweep of its telling to the ‘insider’ precision of its characters – great and small, tragic and comic - ‘Ireland – a novel’ rings with the truth of a writer passionate about his own country.

One of the very best books I’ve ever read.

College is the new high school

Jeffrey Ellis — Wed, 23 May 2012 13:45:19 +0000

I’ve posted frequently about the higher education bubble (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, and here). But Mark Perry just passed along another aspect of the bubble I haven’t touched on yet, from Forbes contributor Jerry Bowyer:

[T]here has been a severe contraction in the quality of higher education in America. Did we really think we could open the floodgates and not affect the quality of graduates? Can you turn college into the new high school, and not get high school-like results? Grade inflation will only keep the problem concealed for so long before the general public becomes aware that outside of a few highly challenging programs and majors, the quality of American higher education is plummeting. Graduates are mastering fewer facts, can’t think critically about the facts they have mastered, and can’t express whatever ideas they have mastered in clear, cogent, grammatically correct sentences. Employers already know this.

Moreover, most college students seem unaware of this erosion of quality in higher education, and they graduate believing themselves to be just as bright, educated, and capable as previous generations of college graduates.

A prime example of confirmation bias: the Trayvon Martin case

Jeffrey Ellis — Wed, 23 May 2012 12:45:46 +0000

Here’s Scott Adams, on the Trayvon Martin case:

The Trayvon Martin shooting case is turning into the world’s biggest example of confirmation bias, starting with the shooting itself.

We now know that the shooter, Zimmerman, thought Martin fit the general description of the two men (young, male, African-American) who had been spotted robbing homes in the neighborhood. Martin’s hoody served as a partial disguise, which probably made Zimmerman’s confirmation bias go through the roof. My best guess is that everything Martin did up to his death, including the fight, contributed to Zimmerman’s confirmation bias that he was dealing with a dangerous hardened criminal.

On the flip side, Martin probably made up his mind quickly that Zimmerman was some sort of racist, bully, thug wannabe who was just looking for a fight. After all, what kind of guy gets out of his car and follows you down the street in the dark? The last thing that might occur to you is “Neighborhood Watch.”

When the story first broke, and the public had scant information, much of it incorrect, most of us jumped to an initial assumption. People who have had experiences with bullies and racists probably assumed Zimmerman fit the mold. Therefore, he must be prosecuted.

[...]

My question to you is this: If you made up your mind about Zimmerman’s guilt when the story first broke, has the flood of new information changed your mind? Or has confirmation bias allowed the new information to harden the opinion you already had?

Adams is spot on here. Zimmerman’s confirmation bias caused him to believe Trayvon to be a dangerous criminal; Zimmerman’s confirmation bias made him assume that Zimmerman was a racist bully trying to pick a fight; and the public’s confirmation bias made everyone immediately take one side or another based on scant information filtered through their own ideologies.

And, as Adams suggests, many people will be “doubling down” right now in the face of evidence that counters their entrenched opinions (although it’s the backfire effect, not just the confirmation bias, that’s the culprit).

A prime example of confirmation bias: the Trayvon Martin case © 2012 by Jeffrey Ellis / The Thinker. All rights reserved. Use of this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. Scraping is not permitted.

The Answer Syndrome

Jeffrey Ellis — Wed, 23 May 2012 12:00:48 +0000

I was gratified to be able to answer promptly. I said, “I don’t know.”
– Mark Twain

Do you suffer from the answer syndrome?

Answer syndrome is the affliction of the hyper-educated, the detail-oriented, the obsessive, and the internet-saturated. It plagues people whose highly technical and specialized knowledge means that they often spend their days explaining things to people who have no idea what they are talking about [...] People with answer syndrome get used to having all the answers. And then . . . they don’t know when to stop.

Answering is a terrible addiction. It starts out with little things, like dropping a few bits of (correct) trivia you gleaned on Wikipedia about the history of the term “free market.” But then it snowballs, and suddenly you’re flailing wildly, convincing yourself that it’s perfectly legitimate to inform everyone about how Adam Smith really wouldn’t qualify as a capitalist today. After all, you know that it’s true. How do you know? Well, it seems right. Based on what you’ve read, which by now seems to encompass several books, because after all the people who wrote the Wikipedia entry on free markets cited hundreds of sources — plus, there was that economics book you read that included a section on Smith. So surely that means that you have absorbed the relevant knowledge from at least a dozen sources.

At this point, you’re in denial. At some deep level, you realize you don’t really know what you’re talking about, but you convince yourself otherwise. Answer syndrome, at its worst, is a form of self-delusion. But like all the most potent delusions, it’s founded on truth. In the information overload age, we all know a little bit about everything. We’ve read a zillion headlines. And because we’re human, we have opinions about stuff we’re pretty hazy on. The person who suffers from answer syndrome, however, takes it to the next level. That person feels as if he or she is qualified to be an expert with all the answers — usually, as I said earlier, because he or she genuinely is an expert in one or two topics already.

The trick to overcoming the answer syndrome lies in intellectual humility: the ability and willingness to admit to yourself that you are not as smart as you think you are, not as knowledgeable as you think you are, not as right as you think you are. Intellectual humility is the cornerstone of critical thinking.

Intellectual humility means being able to say, “I don’t know.”

HT to Sarah Skwire via FB.

A sticky moral dilemma, courtesy of Stargate Universe

Jeffrey Ellis — Tue, 22 May 2012 12:00:53 +0000

Stargate Universe, Season 1, Episode 13 (“Faith”) provides a sticky moral dilemma that pits individual freedom against the collective greater good.

First, here’s a very brief background synopsis of Stargate Universe: A multinational group of soldiers and civilian scientists is investigating an alien “stargate” when their base is attacked, and the group must escape through the untested stargate. They find themselves aboard an ancient alien spaceship, which they name Destiny, traveling on an automated faster-than-light (FTL) course halfway across the universe. The series follows their efforts to find their way back to earth, while coping with the ancient ship’s technical difficulties, not to mention attacks from the Lucian Alliance and hostile aliens.

In episode “Faith”, Destiny drops out of FTL to correct its course by means of a parabolic orbit around a star. The team uses the opportunity to send a shuttle to explore an earth-like planet.

It is quite a nice planet. Of the 15 who went down to explore, 11 want to stay. But the group’s military leader, Col. Young, threatens to return them to Destiny by force, pointing out that the group’s survival and chances of returning to earth depends on all of their abilities. (For example, the group’s only medic is one of those who wish to remain on the planet.)

This sets up a nice moral conflict. Should these scientists have a right to stay on the planet, when doing so will negatively impact the larger group’s chances of surviving and returning to earth?

My knee-jerk reaction is one thing, but my opinion upon deeper reflection is not particularly well resolved.

Opinions welcome.

A sticky moral dilemma, courtesy of Stargate Universe © 2012 by Jeffrey Ellis / The Thinker. All rights reserved. Use of this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. Scraping is not permitted.

Prog Rock Friday: Starcastle, “Fountains of Light”

Jeffrey Ellis — Fri, 18 May 2012 12:45:01 +0000

Sounds like three parts Yes and one part Genesis.

Logical Fallacy of the Day: The “Eventual Futures” Fallacy

Jeffrey Ellis — Fri, 18 May 2012 12:00:01 +0000

Robin Hanson (Overcoming Bias) describes the eventual futures fallacy.

I’ve noticed that recommendations for action based on a vision of the future are based on an idea that something must “eventually” occur. For example, eventually:

We will run out of coal, so we’d better find replacements soon.

Earth will run out of stored energy of fossil fuels and radioactivity, so we’d better get ready to run only on sunlight.

[... long list of examples snipped here ...]

The common pattern: project forward a current trend to an extreme, while assuming other things don’t change much, and then recommend an action which might make sense if this extreme change were to happen all at once soon.

The fallacy stems from three unwarranted assumptions:

the assumption that the current trend will continue (example: current rates, and rates of increases, of oil and petroleum consumption)
the assumption that other things won’t change much by the time the predicted disaster eventually occurs (example: current ability to extract petroleum)
the assumption that it is better to take action now rather than in the future — ignoring the possibility/likelihood that we will be more informed in the future and may be in a better position (e.g., technologically) to act

Logical Fallacy of the Day: The “Eventual Futures” Fallacy © 2012 by Jeffrey Ellis / The Thinker. All rights reserved. Use of this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. Scraping is not permitted.

Today’s Fortune Cookie (FAIL)

Jeffrey Ellis — Thu, 17 May 2012 17:11:39 +0000

“Love mankind, trust the majority, and never owe anyone.”

Emphasis mine.

This is dangerously false bullshit advice to be giving. You should NEVER trust the majority. The majority once believed the earth was flat. The majority once believed the earth was created 6,000 years ago over a 6-day period. The majority once elected Jimmy Carter, and more recently elected Barack Obama. The majority once thought the “war on poverty” was a good idea, and still thinks the “war on drugs” is a good idea, in spite of abundant evidence to the contrary. Similarly, the majority seems to subscribe to Keynesian economics when it comes to matters such as stimulus spending, again despite a mountain of countering evidence.

I could go on and on. Majorities throughout history have believed and done incredibly stupid things, and have largely failed to learn from it. To believe something just because the majority does is to fall victim to the argument from popularity fallacy.

On a related note: While driving back from lunch, I heard radio talk show host Dennis Prager talking with a caller about a church sign that read:

“Distrust whomever you want, but never distrust yourself.”

Prager rightfully called this out as more dangerous bullshit advice. Just as you should never trust the majority, you should not trust yourself either. You should be intellectually humble enough to admit that you are not as smart as you think you are, not as right as you think you are, and not as knowledgeable and skilled as you think you are. Intellectual humility is the cornerstone of critical thinking. Its opposite, intellectual arrogance, could be summed up nicely as “never distrusting yourself.”