THINKER'S ALMANAC - December 30

Subject:  Questions - Kipling’s Six Honest Serving Men

Event:  Birthday of British writer Rudyard Kipling (1865)

 

A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy? -Albert Einstein

Today is the birthday of Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936), England’s master storyteller and poet.  Kipling was British, but he lived for many years in India where he was born.  Known especially for his short stories and his popular work of fiction The Jungle Book (1894), Kipling was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1907 when he was just 42 years old.  He was the first English language writer to win the prize, and he was also the youngest ever to win the prize.

In a poem that accompanied one of his stories -- “The Elephant’s Child” -- Kipling includes a poem that personifies the six key interrogative pronouns, the words we use to begin questions:

I keep six honest serving-men

(They taught me all I knew);

Their names are What and Why and When

And How and Where and Who. (1)

Making Kipling’s “six honest serving-men” a part of your learning team is one of the best metacognitive strategies there is.  Metacognition is the ability to critically analyze and monitor your own thinking, and one excellent way to do this is to ask questions as you read or listen to a lecture.

In a 1991 study, ninth-grade students listened to a lecture.  A quarter of the students reviewed their notes on the lecture by themselves.  Another quarter of the students discussed the content of the lectures in small groups.  The final two quarters of students were taught self-questioning strategies, and then were asked to generate and answer questions individually during and after the lecture, or they were asked to generate and answer questions and then discuss their questions and answers with a small group.   All subjects in the study were tested immediately after the lecture and then tested again ten days later. 

Based on the study’s results, the students who employed self-questioning as a part of their study scored significantly higher than students who merely reviewed notes or discussed the contents of the lecture (2).

Challenge:  Six Starts for Self-Questioning:  Do some research on strategies for self-questioning.  Then, write a short public service announcement aimed at students, explaining what self-questioning is, how it can be done, and why it is an effective method of learning.

Sources: 

1-Poetry Foundation.  “Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936).

2-King, Alison. “Improving lecture comprehension: Effects of a metacognitive strategy.” Applied Cognitive Psychology July/August 1991, Volume 5, Issue 4.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - December 27

Subject: Creativity - Pasteur’s “Prepared Mind”

Event:  Birthday of French scientist Louis Pasteur, 1822

 

Science knows no country, because knowledge belongs to humanity, and is the torch which illuminates the world. -Louis Pasteur

More than probably any person who ever lived, the French scientist Louis Pasteur - who was born on this day in 1822 - revealed the power of science as a tool for mastering nature.

Today we take for granted that germs attack the human body from outside.  It was Pasteur who opened the world’s mind to seeing how microorganisms or “germs” can lead to disease.  He also did pioneering work in vaccines, being the first to use weakened viruses to develop cures for anthrax and rabies.  Part of his motivation for studying infections and vaccinations was the fact that three of his five children died of typhoid.  He also invented the process that bears his name - pasteurization, where liquids are heated to kill harmful germs (1).

In an 1854 lecture, Pasteur made a remark that has inspired generations of scientists who have followed in his footsteps:   “In the fields of observation chance favors only the prepared mind.”  Certainly imagination and creativity have an important role to play in invention and discovery.  As Einstein said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”  However, we might say based on Pasteur’s remark that this is a false dichotomy because unless there is a healthy balance between imagination and knowledge, the “prepared mind” will have little chance of capitalizing on serendipity.

As examples of prepared minds capitalizing on chance, read the following three anecdotes of chemists who were ready when serendipity smiled on them:

1. One evening the Russian chemist Constantin Fahlburg was working late in his lab on derivatives of coal tar.  Typical of a scientist immersed in his work, Fahlburg almost forgot about his supper.  Leaving the lab in a rush without washing his hands, he sat down to eat.  Breaking a piece of bread and putting it to his lips, he tasted something sweet. He soon realized that by chance he had discovered something as sweet as sugar and luckily it did not contain any poisonous substances.  He later marketed the world’s first artificial sweetener: Saccharin.

2. In 1827, an English chemist named John Walker was mixing a pot of antimony sulfide and potassium chlorate.  When he noticed a dried lump of the mixture on his mixing stick, he attempted to scrape it off; at that point the mixture ignited.  By chance, Walker had just created the world’s first strikeable match.

3. One day in 1903 when he was working in his lab, French chemist and artist Edouard Benedictus dropped a glass flask.  Although the glass shattered, Benedictus noticed that the glass shards held together.  Inquiring further, he realized that the glass had previously been filled with cellulose nitrate, a liquid plastic that Benedictus used in his art deco projects.  Apparently, when the liquid evaporated, it left a thin film of plastic on the glass that kept the shards of glass from falling apart. As an additional stroke of luck, Benedictus had recently read a newspaper article about the dangers of broken glass in automobile accidents.  Next, Benedictus went to work to produce what would become what we know today as shatterproof, safety glass.

Challenge - Serendipity Strikes:  Research other inventions that have resulted from the combination of chance events and prepared minds.  What is one example that you find particularly interesting?

Sources:

1-Alexander Hammond. Louis Pasteur: "The Father of Microbiology" Who Pioneered Vaccine Science. Foundation for Economic Education 2 June 2019.

2-Ward, Alvin. “24 Unintended Scientific Discoveries.” Mental Floss 2 May 2015.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - December 23

Subject: Default Effect - Organ Donation

Event: First organ transplant, 1954

If you want to encourage some activity, make it easy. -Richard Thaler

On this day in 1954, the first successful organ transplant operation was performed; it was a kidney transplant.  Today advances in medical technology have made transplant operations routine, including transplants of the heart, the liver, and the lungs.  Unfortunately, the supply of healthy organs for donation is much lower than the demand, and many people die each year before they can acquire a needed organ.

One possible solution to the problem can be found by examining how states acquire consent from potential donors.  Most people are familiar with checking a box to become an organ donor.  This is usually offered to people when they renew their driver’s license.  This method of signing up donors is called “explicit consent”: in order to become a donor, a person must take a specific action.  The problem here is that although roughly 97% of people support organ donation, only 43% take the explicit step of checking the box to sign up.  

An alternative method for signing up donors is called “presumed consent”: all citizens would be automatically signed up as organ donors; however, each would have the choice of opting out by checking a box when renewing their driver’s license.

Based on research by Eric Johnson and Dan Goldstein in 2003, participants were offered the opportunity to become organ donors in both the explicit consent condition and the presumed consent condition. Under the explicit consent condition, only 42% opted in.  In contrast, under the presumed consent condition, where participants had to opt out, 82% agreed to become donors.

More than just an issue related to organ donation, explicit and presumed consent have something to teach us about the default effect, our human tendency to accept default options.  We are basically indecisive individuals, and most often select the easiest option.  For example, many people own an iPhone, but few take the time and effort to customize their phone’s settings; it’s much easier to just stay with the default options.

Economist Richard Thaler and law professor Cass Sunstein wrote a book analyzing how governments can use the default effect to guide the choices of citizens while at the same time not restricting their freedom.  The term they use is “nudge,” which also happens to be the title of their book.  An example of the difference a nudge can make comes from two European countries: Germany and Austria.  In Germany, organ donation is an opt-in program that requires explicit consent; as a result, only 12% of citizens sign up.  In Austria, however, citizens must opt out because their program is based on presumed consent; in Austria, 99% of citizens are organ donors.

Of course, we should not always assume that governments will nudge their citizens towards the most benevolent options.  Therefore, we should be more alert when we are making decisions.  Consider not just what the default option is, but also why it might be the default option.  It’s more cognitive taxing to examine options besides just the default, but often it allows us to expand our perspective and to take advantage of opportunities we wouldn’t have considered otherwise.

 

Challenge - Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge:  The example of how Australia nudges its citizens to become organ donors is just one example of how a government might influence its citizens towards positive action.  Do some research on nudges.  Write a paragraph defining the term for a reader who is unfamiliar with it and give a concrete example to illustrate it.

Sources:

1-Thaler, Richard H. and Cass R. Sunstein.  Nudge:  Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New York:  Penguin Books, 2008.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - November 23

How can an Ivy League football game played in 1951 help us to see the world more clearly?

Subject: Motivated Perception and Reasoning - Ivy League Football

Event:  Dartmouth and Princeton Football Game, 1951

We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are. -Anaïs Nin

On this day in 1951, two Ivy League teams, Princeton and Dartmouth, played a football game in Princeton, New Jersey.  The game was roughly played; Princeton’s star tailback left the game in the second quarter with a broken nose, and at the end of the third quarter, a Dartmouth player broke his leg.  Princeton prevailed.

                                                                Image by David Mark from Pixabay 

If not for two psychologists, one from Princeton -- Hadley Cantril, and another from Dartmouth -- Albert Hastorf, the game might have been just another forgotten football game.  What made it memorable, however, was a follow-up study published by the two psychologists.  

About one week after the game, Hastorf and Cantril asked students from both schools to give their assessment of the game.  Their responses depended on their school:  Princeton students overwhelmingly blamed Dartmouth for the rough play while Dartmouth students blamed Princeton.

Hastorf and Cantril then had all students watch a film of the game and keep track of infractions by players on both teams as if they were a referee.  The results showed both groups of students were unable to see the game dispassionately or objectively; the Princeton students still blamed Dartmouth and the Dartmouth students still blamed Princeton.  Although both groups of students watched the same film, both groups seemed to be watching an entirely different game.  

Hastorf and Cantril published their case study entitled “They Saw a Game” in 1954.  It established the concept of motivated perception; in short, we don’t always see reality; instead, we see what we want to see.  This concept is similar to motivated reasoning, where instead of coming to conclusions based on evidence, we interpret the evidence in a way that fits our preconceived beliefs.  In other words, we don’t always believe the truth; instead, we believe what we want to believe (1).

In her 2021 book The Scout Mindset, Julia Galef warns against the dangers of self-deception and of motivated reasoning. Like the college students in 1951, we sometimes employ emotionally-biased reasoning to produce the verdict we want to be true in favor of the actual truth. We cherry-pick evidence that supports our side, and we rationalize to make a case sound better than it actually is.  Galef calls motivated reasoning the soldier mindset and argues that it is an unconscious cognitive bias that needs to be exposed and rooted out.  Galef also prescribes a more sound, reasonable approach called the scout mindset.  Instead of seeing what we want to see or being defensive, we need to seek first to understand.  We should be skeptical of our own conclusions and value the pursuit of truth over our fears of being right or wrong.  The pursuit of the scout mindset means testing your own claims and understanding that changing your mind is not a sign of weakness (2).

One powerful way to understand motivated reasoning is to see it through the eyes of a sports fan.  Imagine you are watching a basketball game, a game where your favorite team is competing for a championship against a longtime rival.  Imagine your reaction when your team is charged with a foul that results in points being taken off the scoreboard.  What would be your honest reaction?  Would your emotions motivate you to find immediate fault with the referee's call and begin to construct rationalizations for why the call was wrong?  Or would you calmly accept the call and defer to the referee’s indifferent judgment?  Most honest fans -- short for “fanatics” -- will admit that their emotional 

investment in their team prejudices them and blinds them to objective judgment.  In addition, they are rarely even consciously aware of their own bias. To further understand the impact of motivated reasoning, compare the reaction you have when your team is called for a foul versus when your team’s opponent is called for a foul?  In the latter case, do you spend any time or emotional energy scrutinizing the fairness or justice of such a decision?

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason: What is the difference between the soldier mindset and the scout mindset, and which mindset was more prominent in the 1951 football study?

Challenge -  Scouts and Soldiers:  Write a public service announcement that explains the thinking behind the scout mindset versus the soldier mindset.  Try to persuade your audience that the scout mindset is preferable and a possible solution to the political polarization that is plaguing our country.

Sources:

1-Resnick, Brian. “How desire can warp our view of the world.” Vox.com 8 Aug. 2019.

2-Galef, Julia.  The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t.  New York:  Portfolio/Penguin, 2021.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - November 14

How can a cask of wine teach us to be less easily manipulated?

Subject:  Persuasion - Montresor’s Revenge

Event:  Publication of Edgar Allen Poe’s short story “The Cask of Amontillado,” 1846

Elegant persuasion is when the other person thought it was their idea. -Marshall Sylver

On this day in 1846 Edgar Allen Poe’s short story “The Cask of Amontillado” was published in the New England Weekly Review.

Imagine you were talking with an elderly gentleman -- named Montresor -- who confesses to you that 50 years ago he got away with murder.   He is telling you the story in first person as it happened.  This is the set-up of Poe's great short story.

Although the story is a chilling tale of murder, it is also a lesson in the art of persuasion, specifically the dark side of persuasion.

Montresor begins by identifying his motive, but he is vague, saying only that “The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge.”  The setting of the story is Italy during the carnival season, and Montresor tells the reader that his goal was not only to punish Fortunato but also to “punish with impunity.”

To succeed, he must lure Fortunato into the catacombs beneath his home, and he must do so in a way that raises no suspicion in Fortunato’s mind.  Like any effective persuader, Montresor knows his audience and appeals to his interest instead of his own.  Montresor knows that Fortunato’s weakness is wine.  When the two meet in the street, Montresor has already imbibed much of his favorite drink and is dressed in the motley of Carnival.  

                                                                    Image by Ann B. from Pixabay 

At this point Montresor baits his trap, telling Fortunato that he has acquired a cask of what he thinks is amontillado, a prized variety of sherry wine. Rather than directly appealing to Fortunato’s expertise, Montresor claims he is going to consult another wine expert -- Luchresi -- to confirm that his purchase truly is amontillado.  This is the perfect trap for Fortunato, for it pits his own expertise against another expert, making him not just willing to go with Montresor but demanding to accompany him to the catacombs where the wine is supposedly stored.

As the two descend into the catacombs, Fortunado begins to cough.  Montresor further puts Fortunato at ease by showing concern for his cough, saying they should turn around and go back.  When Montresor again tells Fortunato that he would be happy to employ the competing wine expert, Fortunato is more determined than ever to continue the descent into the catacombs. 

In the dark, damp catacombs they arrive at a crypt, littered with the skulls and bones of Montresor’s ancestors.  Montresor directs Fortunato to a recess in the crypt’s walls; however, instead of a cask, all that Fortunado sees is a granite wall with chains hanging from it.  Before Fortunato realizes it, Montresor wraps the chain around his waist and secures it to the stone wall.

Still under the influence of alcohol, Fortunato looks confused as Montresor begins to build a wall brick by brick, sealing Fortunato in the dark recess.  Only as the final bricks are being put in place does Fortunato, in horror, realize his fate.

In the story’s final lines, Montresor boasts of how he added Fortunato’s bones to those of his ancestors in his family crypt:   “For the half of a century no mortal has disturbed them.”

                                        Edgar Allan Poe - Image by WikiImages from Pixabay 

Poe’s story is a warning to any reader of the dark side of persuasion.  By understanding the full story, readers can become more alert to how malevolent actors might use psychology and emotion to manipulate them.  The story is full of irony, but perhaps the greatest one is the story’s title: “The Cask of Amontillado.”  Although the cask of wine exists only in the characters' minds, it is the chief object of Fortunato’s undoing and Montresor’s successful plot.

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  How can understanding Montresor’s psychological manipulation of Fortunato help us be less susceptible to being duped. 

Challenge - The Catbird Seat:  Coincidentally another classic short story about manipulative persuasion was published on this day in 1942.  James Thurber’s classic story “The Catbird Seat” begins like Poe’s tale does with a murder plot, but the plot shifts midway to a more comedic resolution.  Read the story and pay particular attention to how the narrator’s understanding of his target helps him accomplish his goal.

Sources:

1-Poe, Edgar Allan, 1809-1849. The Cask of Amontillado. Charlottesville, Va. : Boulder, Colo. : University of Virginia Library Electronic Text Center ; NetLibrary, 1993.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - November 13

How can the popularity of Elvis help us understand the importance of thinking for ourselves?

Subject:   Ad Populum Fallacy 

Event:  Elvis’ album “50,000,000 ELVIS FANS CAN’T BE WRONG released, 1959

Which one of the three lines marked A, B, and C matches the length of the line in the box below?

----------------- A ---------- B ----------------------- C -----------------

The answer to the problem is obviously C.  How then, did psychologist Solomon Asch get subjects in an experiment to select B as the correct answer?  

He did it using the same appeal that advertisers use to catch your attention and to make you feel like you need to have what everybody else has.  Marketers call it the bandwagon technique; psychologists call it social proof or groupthink; logisticians call it the ad populum fallacy.  When they were alone, Asch’s subjects selected the correct answer, C; when other people were in the room, however, and when those people gave the wrong answer, individuals succumbed to peer pressure, conforming to the group rather than standing apart.

On this day in 1959, the second album of Elvis’ gold records was released.  Featured prominently in all caps at the top of the album was the boast “50,000,000 ELVIS FANS CAN’T BE WRONG.”

                                                                Image by Uwe Conrad from Pixabay 

It’s one of the oldest appeals there is:  “Everybody’s doing it; therefore, it must be right.”  It makes perfect sense that it “feels” right to do the popular thing, to give in to the herd instinct.  After all, a big reason that our ancestors survived long enough to have offspring is, in part, because they stayed with and followed the group.  It’s our default.  If you’re walking down the street and you see one person looking up in the sky, you might not stop and look up; however, what if you were walking down the street and you saw four people looking up?  Would you even think about it, or would you instinctively look up?  

Feeling right and being right, however, are different.  Just because popular opinion favors one side, does not make it right. As the English writer W. Somerset Maugham said, “If fifty million people say something foolish, it is still foolish.” There was a time when popular opinion favored slavery.  Likewise, there was a time when the majority believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.  This is why we need science because it is a truth-seeking, reality-based system that works against our tribal instinct toward groupthink.

Elvis’ music really was pretty good, but that doesn’t mean you have to be a fan.  Think for yourself, and remain skeptical.

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  How did the Asch experiment show the true nature of the ad populum fallacy?

Challenge -Thinking For Yourself: Do some research on quotations on the topic of “thinking for yourself” or “independent thinking.”  When you find a quotation that you think shows real insight, write it down, and explain why you think it is insightful.

ALSO ON THIS DAY:

November 13, 2012:  On this day, TED.com presentations reached one billion views.  TED (Technology, Entertainment, and Design) was created by Richard Saul Wurman, who hosted the first TED conference in Monterey, California in 1984.  Attendees paid $475 to watch a variety of 18-minute presentations.  In 2009, TED began to depart from its once a year model by granting licenses to third parties for community-level TEDx events.  The TED.com website was launched in 2006, and today there are TED events in more than 130 countries.  While the number of TED talks has increased over the years, the basic template of each talk remains the same as the first talks in 1984.  Each presentation is crafted to be emotional, novel, and memorable.  In his book Talk Like TED, communication coach Carmine Gallo acknowledges that the success of any TED presentation relies on a communication theory that goes back to an era long before TED talks:

 

The Greek philosopher Aristotle is one of the founding fathers of communication theory.  He believed that persuasion occurs when three components are represented:  ethos, logos, and pathos.  Ethos is credibility.  We tend to agree with people whom we respect for their achievements, title, experience, etc.  Logos is the means of persuasion through logic, data and statistics.  Pathos is the act of appealing to emotions.

Sources:

1-Carroll, Robert Todd.  “Ad Populum Fallacy.”  The Skeptic’s Dictionary.  1994.

2-Gallow, Carmine.  Talk Like TED:  The 9 Public-speaking Secrets of the World’s Top Minds.  New York:  St. Martin’s Press, 2014:  47-48.

THINKER'S ALMANAC: November 12

After watching the base running of Ty Cobb, what did baseball executive Branch Rickey say is the single greatest thing a person can have?

Subject: Virtue - Rickey’s “Single Greatest Thing” Speech

Event:  Branch Rickey addresses the Executive Club of Chicago, 1926

On this day in 1926, Branch Rickey gave a speech entitled “The Greatest Single Thing a Man Can Have” to the Executives Club of Chicago. Rickey is best known as the man who broke Major League Baseball’s color barrier by signing Jackie Robinson to the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947.

Rickey was fired as the manager of the St Louis Cardinals in 1925. The owner of the team, however, recognizing Rickey’s talent for player development, offered Rickey a position as an executive for the team.  In this new position, Rickey began to invest in several minor league baseball clubs, using them to develop future talent for the Cardinals.  By doing this Rickey invented what is now a staple of Major League Baseball, the minor-league farm system.

In his speech to the Executives Club, Rickey began with an anecdote from his time as the Cardinals’ manager.  It involved an amazing feat of athleticism, not by one of his players, but by an opposing player for the Detroit Tigers, Ty Cobb.  In the play, Cobb stole two straight bases to score the winning run in extra innings.  In describing the play, Rickey expressed his amazement at Cobb’s audacity: Cobb did not rely on luck to win the game; instead, “he made his own breaks.”

                                                                                        Image by Keith Johnston from Pixabay 

The tenaciousness displayed by Cobb on the base paths and his singular desire to be the best  is what Cobb argues is the single greatest thing a ball player or any person can have:

The more that a man exercises himself and asserts his own influence over his work, the less the part that luck plays. It is true in baseball that the greatest single menace that a man has is a willingness to alibi his own failures; the greatest menace to a man’s success in business, I think, sometimes is a perfect willingness to excuse himself for his own mistakes. 

What is the greatest single thing in the character of a successful enterprise, in the character of a boy, in the character of a great baseball player? I think it is the desire to be a great baseball player, a desire that dominates him, a desire that is so strong that it does not admit of anything that runs counter to it, a desire to excel that so confines him to a single purpose that nothing else matters. (1)

Rickey’s speech joins the long philosophical tradition of asking questions about what are the most important qualities, the most important virtues that a person can have?  Similarly, his speech typifies the philosopher’s desire to break the chains of determinism and to withstand the bludgeonings of chance by mastering one’s own destiny.  As Aristotle put it:  

Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives – choice, not chance, determines your destiny.

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  How was Branch Rickey’s speech consistent with philosophical tradition?

Challenge - Your S.G.T.:   Imagine that you have been invited to address an audience and that you have been asked to speak on the following topic:  “What is the single most important thing a person can have?”  Whether you select an abstract idea or a concrete object, make your case.

Sources:

1-Safire, William.  Lend Me Your Ears:  Great Speeches in History.  New York:  W.W. Norton & Company, 1997: 521-523.