BK's actings explained

[BlackCat]

Source

5 logical fallacies that make you more wrong than you think
Posted on July 9, 2012 | 480 Comments

by Judith Curry

The Internet has introduced a golden age of ill-informed arguments. But with all those different perspectives on important issues flying around, you’d think we’d be getting smarter and more informed. Unfortunately, the very wiring of our brains ensures that all these lively debates only make us dumber and more narrow-minded. – Kathy Benjamin, CRACKED

CRACKED magazine has a funny but insightful article entitled Logical fallacies that make you wrong more than you think. Here are excerpts describing the 5 fallacies, with some commentary from me re some examples from the climate debate:

#5. We’re not programmed to seek ‘truth’, we’re programmed to ‘win’

Think about the last time you ran into a coworker or family member spouting some easily disproven conspiracy theory. When they were shown proof that their conspiracy theory was wrong, did they back down? Did they get this look of realization on their face and say, “Wow … if this is untrue, then maybe the other ‘facts’ upon which I’ve based my fringe beliefs also aren’t true. Thank you, kind stranger, for helping me rethink my entire political philosophy!”

That has literally never happened in the history of human conversation. Whether it’s a politician whose point has been refuted or a conspiracy theorist who has been definitively proven insane, they will immediately shift to the next talking point or conspiracy theory that backs up their side, not even skipping a beat. They keep fighting to defend their position even after it is factually shown to be untrue. But what’s really weird is that process — of sticking to your guns even after you’ve been proven definitively wrong — is apparently the entire reason humans invented arguing.

It’s called the argumentative theory of reasoning, and it says that humans didn’t learn to ask questions and offer answers in order to find universal truths. We did it as a way to gain authority over others. That’s right — they think that reason itself evolved to help us bully people into getting what we want.

And as evidence, the researchers point out that after thousands of years of humans sitting around campfires and arguing about issues, these glaring flaws in our logic still exist. Why hasn’t evolution weeded them out? The answer, they say, is that these cognitive flaws are adaptations to a system that’s working perfectly fine, thank you. Our evolutionary compulsion is to triumph, even if it means being totally, illogically, proudly wrong.

Back when evolution was still sculpting your ancestor’s brains, admitting you were wrong to the person you were debating got you bred out of existence. These days, being able to admit you’re wrong is the greatest skill you can develop if you want to stay married.

JC comment: The warrior like tactics being used by proponents in both sides of the climate debate aren’t getting us anywhere; if either side actually ‘wins’ in terms of policies, they might end up being totally, illogically, proudly wrong. Staying married is a good analogy for what we should be doing: seeking solutions and areas of agreement to support overall well being.

#4. Our brains don’t understand probability

Do you know a guy who keeps a loaded shotgun under his bed? You know, in case a gang of European terrorists storm into his house and try to kidnap his family?

If you throw a bunch of statistics at him about how unlikely that is (for example, that he lives in a low-crime suburb in Wisconsin where there’s only been one murder in the last 40 years, that he’s statistically more likely to accidentally do something stupid than ward off a criminal and that more people were struck by lightning last year than successfully shot bad guys in the middle of committing crimes), it won’t change his mind. Instead, he’ll rebut you by citing a news story or an anecdote about a guy who successfully fended off a Die Hard bad guy thanks to his trusty 12-gauge. For him, that single, vivid example completely overrides all talk of statistics or probability.

It’s called neglect of probability. Our brains are great for doing a lot of things. Calculating probability is not one of them.

As experts point out, when there is strong emotion tied to the unlikely event, our ability to continue to see it as unlikely goes out the window. Thus, any statement of “It’s very unlikely your child will be eaten by a bear, these bear traps in the yard are unnecessary and keep injuring the neighborhood kids” will always be answered with, “Say that when it’s your child being eaten!”

JC comment: this one really strikes a nerve. It explains how extreme events (especially as they influence you or your country) or the lack thereof explain the waxing and waning of support for climate change policies in an individual country. It also explains the role grandchildren play in the debate.

#3: We think everyone’s out to get us

If you’re smart and savvy, you know not to trust anyone. This is why we can excuse ourselves for using shady or flat-out dishonest tactics to win an argument. We’re sure the other guy is doing much, much worse.

The world is so full of hidden agendas and stupid ideologies that we have to do whatever we can to keep up. And “whatever we can” is often code for lying.

Think about all the people you’ve disagreed with this month. How many of them do you think were being intentionally dishonest? Experts say you’re almost definitely overshooting the truth. It’s called the trust gap, and scientist see it crop up every time one human is asked to estimate how trustworthy another one is.

We start assuming people have ulterior motives and hidden agendas as early as age 7 and from that point on, we never have to lose another argument for the rest of our lives. After all, if we assume the person we’re arguing with is lying, the only thing they can prove to us is that they’re a really good liar.

The more arguments you get into with those lying extremists from the other side of the aisle, the more you learn about how they lie, the faster your brain turns off after they start talking.

JC comment: this explains the Peter Gleick episode as well as anything I’ve seen. And the refusal of consensus climate scientists to enter into debates with skeptics.

#2. We’re hard-wired to have a double standard

[T]he fundamental attribution error . . . is a universal thought process that says when other people screw up, it’s because they’re stupid or evil. But when we screw up, it’s totally circumstantial.

The process feels so obvious when explained — we simply lack information about the context in which the other person screwed up, and so we fill it in with our own.

The reality is, of course, that you were on completely different roads. The assumption that everyone’s circumstances are identical is so plainly wrong as to be borderline insane, but everyone does it.

JC comments: Skeptics, pay attention to this one. Accusing scientists of fraud and malfeasance with every mistake that is identified is not useful.

#1: Facts don’t change our minds

Let’s go back to the . . . theory that people figured out how to build arguments as a form of verbal bullying rather than a method of spreading correct information. That means that there are actually two reasons somebody might be arguing with you: because they actually want to get you to think the right thing, and because they’re trying to establish dominance over you to lower your status in the tribe (or office or forum) and elevate their own. That means there’s a pretty severe cost to being on the wrong side of an issue completely separate from the issue itself.

That is why confirmation bias exists. We read a news article that supports what we believe, and we add it to the “I’m right about this” column. News articles that contradict what we believe are dismissed. We make up a reason — maybe the source is part of the conspiracy from the other side or whatever it takes to make sure the “I’m wrong about this” column remains empty.

Researchers have done experiments where they hooked up people’s brains to scanners and then made them read a story pointing out something stupid their favorite candidate said. The logical parts of the brain stayed quiet, while the emotional parts of the brain lit up. Their brains were weighing the story, not based on what it logically meant for their position, but on the emotional/social consequences of that position being wrong.

Backing down . . . means letting down your team. Every inch of your psychology will fight it.

JC comment: Ahhhh, the tribe, and the team! The emotional/social costs of being ‘wrong’ in the climate debate have reached mammoth proportions. This is probably the scariest fallacy in terms of science, and we see ample evidence of this in the CRU emails.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The concise version.

1- He's just really ****ing annoying.

[H Tower]

People know these things, so we don't even argue the facts anymore, we immediately jump to the name calling, making it impossible to change someone's mind.

[SlowwHand]

That's bullshit, H Tower, you moron!

[rah]

I guess it's only appropriate that you use an article from "CRACKED" to explain BK behavior.

[BlackCat]

I guess it's only appropriate that you use an article from "CRACKED" to explain BK behavior.

I admit that the cracked article is way funnier, But Judith's version give it a more serious note

Edit: It was also a chance to introduce people to a relatively sane site about climate change

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

3..2...1... Flat earther claims

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm curious as to what belief I've held that I've not at one point been wrong about.

[SlowwHand]

This is particularly true whenever there's a change of mind on a subject.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is particularly true whenever there's a change of mind on a subject.

Exactly so. I've not always been a Christian. I find it funny that Apolyton is condemning someone who became a Christian for failing to acknowledge that he might in fact be wrong.

What they really mean is that 'he doesn't agree with us, ergo he must be wrong'. Cracked speaks the truth - everyone one of these applies to most of the crowd here.

[Hauldren Collider]

http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/1...=1#post5790685

Ultimate ben wrongness

[Ben Kenobi]

You might want to reread that sentence.

[Oncle Boris]

People still evolve over time.

Not so long ago, Imran was a Muslim libertarian, and KrazyHorse voted NDP.

[gribbler]

http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/1...=1#post5790685

Ultimate ben wrongness

Amazing how Ben manages to be really, really bad at basic physics and math and not even have the modesty to admit it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Amazing how Ben manages to be really, really bad at basic physics and math and not even have the modesty to admit it.

Ask my students sometime.

[kentonio]

Ask my students sometime.

David Koresh couldn't have been wrong, just ask his cult members.

Amazing how Ben manages to be really, really bad at basic physics and math and not even have the modesty to admit it.

You forgot History.

[MOBIUS]

Ben is just plain wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hey hey hey! It's kentonio again!

You forgot History.

What's your degree in by the way?

[gribbler]

Ben is just plain wrong.

He's probably the craziest teacher I've ever encountered, crazier than the science teacher I had in 8th grade who was some sort of creationist...

[kentonio]

Hey hey hey! It's kentonio again!

Yeah I keep meaning to stop posting about you, but whenever I remember what a terrible, terrible knowledge of history you have, I just can't help commenting on it. I'm sure I'll grow out of it.

What's your degree in by the way?

Nothing that would interest you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nothing that would interest you.

For someone who claims expertise in evaluating instructors, you sure are coy about your qualifications.

[kentonio]

For someone who claims expertise in evaluating instructors, you sure are coy about your qualifications.

Pretty much every statement you make is either wrong or untrue. You're also fundamentally dishonest. It doesn't require a particular branch of degree to tell that you shouldnt be allowed anywhere near the education of children.

[Zevico]

Pretty much every statement you make is either wrong or untrue. You're also fundamentally dishonest. It doesn't require a particular branch of degree to tell that you shouldnt be allowed anywhere near the education of children.

Kentonio: you're not possessed of mind reading abilities. Stick with the tarot and astrology. These fantasies of yours are just pathetic.

[kentonio]

Kentonio: you're not possessed of mind reading abilities. Stick with the tarot and astrology. These fantasies of yours are just pathetic.

You think it takes a mind reader to know that Ben is fundamentally dishonest? You don't think his complete inability to tell the truth, even when he is repeatedly proven to be in the wrong might be a bit of an indicator?

[Zevico]

You think it takes a mind reader to know that Ben is fundamentally dishonest? You don't think his complete inability to tell the truth, even when he is repeatedly proven to be in the wrong might be a bit of an indicator?

When people disagree with your politics and reasoning it is likely because they do not acknowledge it as being correct. BK's political views are completely unremarkable. Millions of people worldwide share some, or all of his views, for varying reasons. There is, in short, no reason to suppose that BK is dishonest merely because he disagrees with you and because his views irritate you. What's more, honesty is a personal quality. Such qualities are, I think, nigh impossible to judge from postings on political issues on an internet forum. So you make this judgement merely as a byproduct of your own views about his politics, not his personality. You've done the same to me.

Take the converse position: you've disagreed with my views and called me "fundamentally dishonest" for them. Do you really think I've concluded you're "fundamentally dishonest" because you've accused BK and myself of possessing that quality? Or for your politics? Of course not. The more likely explanations for your accusations are ignorance, naiveté, immaturity, foolishness, and perhaps most importantly, a Manichean worldview. You think yourself an agent of good; those who disagree with you are therefore agents of evil. So too, the likely explanation for your politics is simple: progressivism is a common political ideology, and you share in it. (No, progressives are not necessarily Manichaeans).

Well, so too with BK: social and political conservatism are quite common in American society and there is no reason to suppose that those who agree with those views are dishonest. Possibly you do not know many conservatives and this makes you more willing to caricature them. Possibly you're inclined to agree with caricatures because they help define your Manichean view of politics.

See? No psychoanalysis here: merely a judgement of your politics, based on the evidence.

[DaShi]

People don't call Ben dishonest because of his politics, it's because he lies. Seriously, how can you always write so much and say absolutely nothing?

[gribbler]

Most conservatives are not fundamentally dishonest. Ben is fundamentally dishonest.

[DaShi]

#3: We think everyone’s out to get us

[kentonio]

When people disagree with your politics and reasoning it is likely because they do not acknowledge it as being correct. BK's political views are completely unremarkable. Millions of people worldwide share some, or all of his views, for varying reasons. There is, in short, no reason to suppose that BK is dishonest merely because he disagrees with you and because his views irritate you. What's more, honesty is a personal quality. Such qualities are, I think, nigh impossible to judge from postings on political issues on an internet forum. So you make this judgement merely as a byproduct of your own views about his politics, not his personality. You've done the same to me.

I call Ben a liar because he consistently lies. I've called you dishonest before, because on that occasion you were being dishonest. Funny how I don't call people like Sloww and HC dishonest isn't it. It's almost like maybe I can disagree with people without questioning their honesty isn't it.

[notyoueither]

When people disagree with your politics and reasoning it is likely because they do not acknowledge it as being correct. BK's political views are completely unremarkable. Millions of people worldwide share some, or all of his views, for varying reasons. There is, in short, no reason to suppose that BK is dishonest merely because he disagrees with you and because his views irritate you. What's more, honesty is a personal quality. Such qualities are, I think, nigh impossible to judge from postings on political issues on an internet forum. So you make this judgement merely as a byproduct of your own views about his politics, not his personality. You've done the same to me.

Take the converse position: you've disagreed with my views and called me "fundamentally dishonest" for them. Do you really think I've concluded you're "fundamentally dishonest" because you've accused BK and myself of possessing that quality? Or for your politics? Of course not. The more likely explanations for your accusations are ignorance, naiveté, immaturity, foolishness, and perhaps most importantly, a Manichean worldview. You think yourself an agent of good; those who disagree with you are therefore agents of evil. So too, the likely explanation for your politics is simple: progressivism is a common political ideology, and you share in it. (No, progressives are not necessarily Manichaeans).

Well, so too with BK: social and political conservatism are quite common in American society and there is no reason to suppose that those who agree with those views are dishonest. Possibly you do not know many conservatives and this makes you more willing to caricature them. Possibly you're inclined to agree with caricatures because they help define your Manichean view of politics.

See? No psychoanalysis here: merely a judgement of your politics, based on the evidence.

What Dashi said.

The guy lies about verifiable facts and then when called squirms.