Ignorance, in itself, is not a problem . We can't avoid being ignorant for our whole lives, no matter how hard you try .

The problem, however, is pride of ignorance and having overconfidence in your knowledge and beliefs, and related, being afraid to admit our own mistakes and errors we have made, which is the source of overconfidence.

If more people learned about the "fixed vs growth" mindset and make an effort to transition to a "growth mindset", these problems could be mostly solved.

1. Confirmation Bias: The Great Enemy of Self-Improvement 

2. How Does Emotion Affect Culture, News Reporting, and What Facts We Consume?

3. How Does Emotion Affect Shopping? 

4. How Does Emotion Affect Comedy? 

5. Should We Trust The Common Man With Major Decisions?

6. If We Hear Something From More Than One Place, Does That Make It True?

7. The Forer Effect

8. The Dunning-Kruger Effect 

9. Neglect of Probability

10. Thoughts and Prayers

Introduction

The goal of critical thinking is to arrive at the most reasonable conclusions and take the most reasonable actions. 

We have evolved, however, not to seek the truth, but to survive and reproduce. Critical thinking is an unnatural act. By nature, we're driven to confirm and defend our current beliefs, even to the point of irrationality. We are prone to reject evidence that conflicts with our beliefs and to attack those who offer such evidence. 

• • Belief (n): Confidence that something is true without evidence.

  • Conviction (n): A fixed or very firmly-held belief.

  • Conclusion (n): A reasoned judgment resulting from evidence and experiment.

  • Fallacy (n): An error in reasoning used in an argument. Conclusions made with erroneous arguments have erroneous results.

Confirmation Bias: The Great Enemy of Self-Improvement

• Comic: You're Not Going to Believe what I'm about to Tell You (Classroom-Friendly Version) - The Oatmeal - Matthew Inman - April 19, 2020

• Study: Neural Correlates of Maintaining One's Political Beliefs In The Face Of Counterevidence - December 23, 2016 - Jonas T. Kaplan, Sarah I. Gimbel, and Sam Harris

When challenging beliefs:

• • We are biased in favor of new information that matches our current beliefs.

  • We are biased against new information that disagrees with our current beliefs.

  • If we have concluded something that is erroneous, these biases are a self-perpetuating mechanism that lead us to hold onto our convictions stronger and stronger and with ever-growing confidence.

  • This is called confirmation bias.

Side effects include:

• • It is easier to "go on the attack" with a person who challenges our beliefs than it is to consider the possibility that we are wrong.

  • It is harder to "unlearn and relearn" than it is to learn something new.

Appeal to Tradition/argumentum ad antiquitatem Fallacy

Confirmation bias is a personal version of the fallacy appeal to tradition.

• • There is a truth or a way of doing things that has been normal and accepted for a long time.

  • Therefore we should keep doing it that way going forward because it has gotten me this far. Right?

Appeal to Novelty/argumentum ad novitatem Fallacy

• • There is a new truth or a new way of doing things that has just be explained.

  • Therefore we should now do things in this new way because it is new and it's not old like the old way.

Opportunity Cost (Economics)

• • It may be entirely true that a new truth or a new way of doing this is demonstrated to be clearly superior to old ways, but it still might not be better to make a change.

  • The advantage of older ways is that they are established. The infrastructure is in place and works at a predictable and tested level of quality. There are costs associated with change. At what point do the benefits of a new way become greater than the costs of changing to it? When should that change be made? Would it be beneficial to completely overhaul a system for a 1% benefit? 2% benefit? 

Anecdote is one of the weakest forms of evidence. People and their limited perceptions are the reason that evidence is weak. A person's experience is not reproducible. In a courtroom, this is called hearsay. 

Ask everyone you know. 

• If the smartest person you know says X is true, 

• One expert in a particular field says X is true (argumentum ab auctoritate/appeal to authority)

• One expert in a particular field says X is true and X is outside of the expert's specialized field of study (appeal to false authority) 

• The head of your family says X is true,

• One expert says X is true, another expert says Y is true, and the public declares that the midpoint between the two experts is the correct answer. (argumentum ad temperantiam/argument from the middle ground)

• Most of the people you know says X is true (argumentum ad populum/appeal to the people)

• A person thinks X is true because nobody has ever disagreed (argumentum ex silentio/argument from silence)

• Some people think X is true, Others think Y is true. No conclusion has been made but everyone is sick of talking about it now. (argumentum ad nauseum)

How Does Emotion Affect Culture, News Reporting, and What Facts We Consume?

What Kills Us vs. What We Fear vs. What We Read

• Image: Cause of Death - Reality vs. Google vs. Media - Aaron Penne - April 17, 2018

  • • Introduction

    • Body: What actually causes death in America?

    • Body: Which causes do we worry about in America?

    • Body: Which causes are in the media?

    • What conclusions can we make from the three data sets?

    • Conclusion

• Interactive: Gun Deaths in America - FiveThirtyEight - Ben Casselman, Matthew Conlen, and Reuben Fischer-Baum - July 13, 2016

  • • Introduction

    • Body: What does the news report?

    • Body: What do our values make us afraid of? What do our values make us pay attention to?

    • Body: What does the data suggest we should be talking about regarding gun deaths in America?

    • Conclusion

How Does Emotion Affect Shopping?

• Video: The J.C. Penney's Effect - Designing "Fair" vs "Feels Good" Systems - Extra Credits - May 30, 2013 

  • Before most of their sales were listed at 50% off. 

  • .99 prices were all rounded to the dollar.

  • People are much more likely to buy a $50 item at 50% off for $25 than buying an item for $25.

BOGO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOK3bF3jhXU

Clocks at 10:10

Superstition

Does knocking on wood change the outcome of upcoming events?

How Does Emotion Affect Comedy?

Hidden in plain sight, visual media adds emotional elements to affect you unconsciously. I could be the epic soundtrack from a famous symphony composed by a famous person in the background of characters traveling. Watching people walk or drive is boring. Watching people walk or drive with an epic soundtrack is often a moving experience.

• Video: How Music Affects Film #17 - Loud Son - Apr 12, 2017 

In comedy, many of our sitcoms will have catchy music fill in the silence, and many many sitcoms will design their dialogue around a laugh track. To realize how awkward the story design is, the internet has removed the music and the laughter to play scenes without it. This can make you realize how not funny and terrible many of these shows actually were. People don't behave like that. The length of the pauses and silences is way larger than actual human behavior would have happened. So why do we do it?

• Video: Friends - No Laugh Track 1 (Ross Invited Them All to Watch)

• Video: Big Bang Theory But Without the Laugh Track *CRINGE* 

• Video: ICarly But Without The Music Or Laugh Track!

The illusion of a group environment affects us as if we were in a group. Live music is better than recorded music. Concerts are even better. Stand up comedy on TV is pretty good. Live stand up comedy is way funnier.

1. A joke with genuine laughter played at the right time 

2. is funnier than a joke with fake laughter played at the right time 

3. is funnier than a joke with no laugh track.

But how much?

• Study: Modulation of Humor Ratings of Bad Jokes by Other People’s Laughter - Current Biology 29, R663–R682, July 22, 2019

Should We Trust The Common Man With Major Decisions?

So who should we trust to make a major decision. Is it genius? Is it experience? Is it seniority? Is it socioeconomic status? 

Take a look at this map of the United States sorted by day and labeled with the Most common Google search topic according to Google Analytics. This will give us an idea of what was the big question of the day, the burning topic that people wanted to know more about. 

• The Top Trending Google Searches in Every US State Throughout the 2010s - V1 Analytics - Jul 16, 2020 

“In regard to propaganda the early advocates of universal literacy and a free press envisaged only two possibilities: the propaganda might be true, or the propaganda might be false. They did not foresee what in fact has happened, above all in our Western capitalist democracies - the development of a vast mass communications industry, concerned in the main neither with the true nor the false, but with the unreal, the more or less totally irrelevant. In a word, they failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions."--Aldous Huxley

James Randi "The Amazing Randi"

James Randi is a conjurer. He prefers that term to being called a magician because he and everyone else should know that he does not do real magic. He is an entertainer and uses psychology, curiosity, misdirection, and a person's willingness to be fooled to put on a show. 

He also has an intolerance for any person who would use or abuse the same tools to manipulate or exploit people. He had a distaste for people claiming to be psychics, palm readers, faith healers, mediums, dowsers, etc. who then used that act to take people's money and turn their audience into victims.

In 1964 he created a cash prize to be claimed by anyone who could demonstrate paranormal powers under agreed upon scientific conditions. This prize started at $1,000 and grew to its highest at $1,000,000 in 1996. The prize was offered until 2015, the year James Randi retired. The number of applicants was over a thousand, none have earned the prize.

Manipulating People Warm Up

• • • Video: James Randi: We All Make Assumptions - James Randi Educational Foundation - Recorded in 2000

    • Video: James Randi: Scientists Fooled by a Match Box Trick - James Randi Educational Foundation - Recorded in 2000

Testing Extraordinary Claims

• • • Video: Secrets of the Psychics - NOVA Season 20 Episode 12 - 19 October 1993 

    • http://icbseverywhere.com/Files/SecretsNotesheet.pdf

If We Hear Something From More Than One Place, Does That Make It True?

• Argumentum ad populum - Most of the people you know says X is true (appeal to the people)

• Argumentum ad nauseum - Some people think X is true, Others think Y is true. No conclusion has been made but everyone is sick of talking about it now. People have been talking about this often enough that everyone has heard of the argument.

The Speed of Repeating Is Faster Than the Speed of Verification

• Video: CMCMath 2016 Opening Keynote - Practice Problems - Excerpt 36m43s to 42m2s - Dan Meyer - December 4, 2016 

One of the problems of human nature, amplified by the internet and social media, is that we will often share things before verifying them. We will engage in hearsay. We will explore “he said she said” scenarios. We will spread rumors that we have heard.

The share button in social media is a click, it is a moment, it is an emotional impulse.

Verification is time consuming, and difficult, and way more annoying. Requires many clicks, and critical thinking.

“Nothing travels faster than the speed of light, with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.”--Douglas Adams

Three Men Make a Tiger

Three Men Make a Tiger is a Chinese proverb. It is a parable that warns the reader that we have a tendency to accept absurd things as true if we are told it by enough people. This story is from a text called Zhan Guo Ce from somewhere between the 5th and 3rd century BCE. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_men_make_a_tiger 

Before he left on a trip to the state of Zhao, Pang Cong asked the King of Wei whether he would hypothetically believe in one civilian's report that a tiger was roaming the markets in the capital city, to which the King replied no. Pang Cong asked what the King thought if two people reported the same thing, and the King said he would begin to wonder. Pang Cong then asked, "what if three people all claimed to have seen a tiger?" The King replied that he would believe in it. Pang Cong reminded the King that the notion of a live tiger in a crowded market was absurd, yet when repeated by numerous people, it seemed real. Since Pang Cong, as a high-ranking official, had more than three opponents and critics, he was in fact urging the King to pay no attention to those who would spread rumors about him (Pang Cong) while he was away. "I understand," the King replied, and Pang Cong left for Zhao. Yet, slanderous talk took place. When Pang Cong returned to Wei, the King indeed stopped seeing him. 

Button Issue/Single Issue Voting

Also called a "Hot Button Issue", this is a single strong emotionally-charged conviction that tends to override good sense regarding other issues.

Most people politically care a great deal about a few things. There are hundreds of things to care about and discuss, but each person has just a couple that they care about all others. 

Examples:

• Abortion

• Gun Rights

• Religion

• Party Loyalty

Let's say that you're a voter and a politician's platform matches with your convictions in 95% of their platform. But then add disagreement on one button issue. Knowing that there is no politician in the world that you will ever agree with on everything, and knowing that this politician will fight to move the world forward on 95% of the things you agree with, would you not vote for them because of the one thing?

Many people would and do.

Flip the coin. Is it reasonable when having a conversation with a stranger to first ask their thinking on your top three issues? You would end up talking to very few people and have far few interesting conversations. Button issues polarize our politics toward the extremes and its becoming very common.

False Dichotomy

The attitude that there are only two answers to a question, and good conclude that one answer is right. This is black or white thinking. You're either with us or against us. It is a terrible fallacy.

• A group of three friends exists. Two of them have a falling out and don't want to be around each other. Should the third have to choose which one to hang out with?

• A person who thinks that there is no such thing as man-made climate change and an environmentalist disagree. Can they talk about other issues?

• Is it possible to agree with the political stances of a particular terrorist, but denounce their use of violence as a means to create change?

• Can you be in favor of a new law while simultaneously critical of the new law for not going far enough?

No True Scotsman

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test/en

Take "Winning" out of Science

• Image: Snowflake Arnold

The goal of a scientific conversation, of a debate, of a classroom, and a school is to approach higher truth together. It is not a you vs. them, it is an us vs. the problems of the world.

• Set aside the power structures. That means that even in the most rigid of hierarchal relationships (e.g. parent-child and teacher-student) that the speaker in control of the conversation must be open to challenge, to surprise, and the possibility that some or all of what is being said is wrong. The speaker must also be seeking to learn and be open to the unknown or new ways of stating the known.

• Set aside the goal of winning. This sets aside ego. The goal is not to make a winner or a loser, or to determine who was right and who was wrong. The goal should be to exchange information, to provide new evidence and new viewpoints. The goal should be to leave with something to think about. Your evidence and presentation win the day in an argument.

• Set aside ridicule, humiliation, and a desire to “gotcha” the other party. Think of a sporting event in which there was a clear winner. The winning team then began excessive celebration and began an “in your face” unsportsmanlike conduct toward the other team. Conversations are not sporting events with set leagues. The person you talk to today does not have to talk to you again, and “gotcha” behavior tends to make sure people don’t talk to you again and have a very negatively charged reason for that. A conversation that cannot happen again or cannot continue at a future time results in lost potential value.

• Set aside emotion, outrage, and offense. This is also impossible, so work to minimize this. Being offended, and interrupting a conversation to say that you are offended, does not further a claim, and does not help the argument. If your opponent is bad at controlling their emotional reactions, control your tone and your wording to keep the focus on the argument. Most people interpret your tone and your non-verbal communication before they hear the content of your message. If you feel yourself getting emotional and are having a respectable conversation, remember that they made an argument and not an attack. 

• Set aside the idea that you are right. If you start an experiment with a fixed conclusion, you are not doing science. You conduct experiments to find truth and to test hypotheses. Your side, when entering a conversation, must remain testable and in flux. You may be wrong, you may be partially wrong, you may be right and the opposition has a better way to explain the truth. Something the opposition says may inspire new experiments and new ways of approaching the issue. There is always the chance that both parties are wrong. You should still make your case with evidence, convincingly, according to all of your accumulated experience up to this point. 

• Whenever possible, ask more questions and listen.

• Whenever confusion sets in, attempt to restate what you just heard and seek confirmation that you understand before moving forward.

Allow People To Evolve Their Foundations

• Everybody is growing up. Go into the future a few years and you will find that your future self will find faults with the decision making you use today. Five years ago you were way dumber. Five years from now you will be way smarter. This is growing up and this is good.

• Due process and due diligence does not happen instantly. One conversation today probably won't change a mind, but it might start the process. A healthy and trained mind might be reluctant to take anything you said today at face value, and they deserve the time to validate, cross-reference, and independently confirm what you say today. A person should be allowed this phase of investigation and the time to do it. 

• A scientist should not stigmatize a person based on a past voting record or argument. If a person was making a terrible claim years ago, it is possible that they were making the best decision they could at the time based on incomplete or misleading influences. If later on they have revised or reversed their position on an issue, it is likely that they are still making the best decision they could make at the time, but with better and more complete information. Science is about valuing truth, and seeking it. 

• A person should also not be stigmatized for changing their mind. This is not a betrayal. Politicians get labeled "flip-floppers" in the United States and in other countries it is a backflip or a U-Turn. If you have a long career with cameras rolling, it is inevitable that video from your past will be paired with video from your present seemingly arguing against yourself. There should be no expectation that your earliest conclusions must be held your entire life. A scientist is expected to change their mind when confronted by superior evidence and reasoning. 

• A debate is often viewed as a competition and should not be. In a debate, two or more parties discuss their arguments and try to come to greater truth together.  If all sides are seeking greater truth, then everyone wins in a debate. Even if the debate is not fruitful this time, you spent time building a relationship with a person seeking truth as you are.

• A really good topic will not be settled in one conversation. A scientific discussion is not a one-time event. A good discussion should be on-going and episodic. Between each discussion, a debater will reconsider their facts, evaluate other facts, and research new facts before the next meeting. Everyone is evolving their positions constantly in many small and often unnoticeable ways in the short term.

Why do people do this?

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”--Upton Sinclair

Scams are increasing

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/8/29/20836745/frank-abagnale-scam-me-if-you-can

• • "In the old days the con man was a confidence man. He had to gain your confidence. He dressed well, he spoke well, he had a great vocabulary. He was a likable person and at the same time he was a human being, so he had a little emotion and a little compassion. He might’ve said, “I’m not going to take this old man for all his money. I’m just going to take a little of his money. Today you’re dealing with some guy who’s sitting in his pajamas on a laptop with a cup of coffee in his kitchen in Moscow. He never sees you. You never see him. He doesn’t know anything about the victim other than to victimize them. So all of that compassion has gone away and, unfortunately, they will take you for every penny you have."

People will attempt to gain your trust to exploit it. 

Neglect of Probability

Risk Assessment

Many people are bad at math. Because we are bad at math we are also bad at evaluating levels of risk. When emotion gets involved, many people focus on how they would feel in the event of that extremely unlikely outcome. 

Birthday Problem

Monty Hall Problem

Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200812-exponential-growth-bias-the-numerical-error-behind-covid-19?utm_source=digg

https://lendedu.com/blog/how-much-do-americans-spend-on-the-lottery/

$223.04  2017?

Independent Probability

• • Video: Derren Brown - Ten Heads in a Row

  • Video: Derren Brown - The System (Full) (2008) - Excerpt 32m23s to 41m20s (Stop the video before she has her swearing reaction) and 41m38s to

    • • Like tossing coins, each toss is independent from all of the other tosses. Many people don't understand independent probability.

      • You receive an email giving you a hot tip about a winner of a horse race coming up. That horse wins. You receive a second tip and that horse wins. You receive a second tip and that horse wins. You receive a third tip and that horse wins. You receive a fourth tip and that horse wins. You receive a fifth tip and the man behind the tips wants to film you at the track watching this next horse win and that horse wins. You are contacted by the tip giver that he has another guaranteed win tip to give you and to bring all the money you can get your hands on.

Thoughts and Prayers

• Weblog Post: Thoughts and Prayers (2016) by John Scalzi

• News Segment: Queen sends her ‘thoughts and prayers’ to fire-ravaged Australia - Sky News Australia - Jan 4, 2020

• News Segment: Lemon: Thoughts and prayers didn't stop the shooter - CNN - Nov 6, 2017 

• News Segment: President Donald Trump To YouTube Shooting Victims: I Send My Thoughts And Prayers - CNBC - Apr 3, 2018 

Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation CAN Imply Causation! | Statistics Misconceptions

Correlation can help prove causation as a part of a network of causal information. 

In the scientific method, a correlation can help you ask a better question, or can help you form a hypothesis to test. 

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations 

"Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does wiggle its eyebrows suggestively while mouthing 'look over there' "--Randall Munroe - xkcd - https://xkcd.com/552/

https://xkcd.com/925/