THINKER'S ALMANAC - October 4

Why do the best scientists and the best thinkers seek out ways to destroy their own theories or ideas?

Subject:  Constructive Conflict - Mary Stewart’s Statistician

Event:  Birthday of Dr. Alice Mary Stewart, 1906

It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human intellect to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives; whereas it ought properly to hold itself indifferently disposed towards both alike. -Francis Bacon

In June 2012, Margaret Heffernan presented a TED Talk that celebrated the strategic thinking of Alice Stewart, an English epidemiologist, who was born on this day in 1906.  Stewart was a pioneer in the field of epidemiology, the science of studying patterns in disease.  The specific problem she was working on in 1956 was childhood cancers.  What she discovered was a high correlation between childhood cancer and mothers who had received X-rays during their pregnancy.  Despite the scientific soundness of her case against X-rays, the medical establishment and nuclear industry did not approve.  Not only did they not act on her findings but she also had her financing for further studies reduced.  It took twenty years for the medical establishment to end the harmful practice of prenatal X-rays.

One thinking error that all good scientists must avoid is confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret evidence in a manner that confirms what you already believe.  One way that Stewart avoided confirmation bias in her work was to establish a productive working relationship with a statistician named George Kneale.  Working together, these two applied a strategy known as constructive conflict, where Kneale’s job was to be a “no-man” rather than a “yes-man,” seeking actively to disconfirm any of the data that Stewart presented to him.  As Margeret Heffernan put it, “it was only by not being able to prove that [Stewart] was wrong, that [Kneale] could give Alice Stewart the confidence to know that she was right” (1).

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Employing a constructive conflict approach requires a commitment to counterintuitive thinking.  Instead of following our neurobiological instincts to seek out confirming evidence and to ignore disconfirming evidence, constructive conflict requires that we leave the echo chamber and seek out people who don’t think the same way as we do. Instead of the easy path that avoids conflict, we must instead seek out people with different experiences who will give us different perspectives.

In a commencement address at Harvard on June 13, 1986, American businessman and philanthropist Charlie Munger cited two other well-known scientists who understood the importance of combating confirmation bias.  Munger first praised Charles Darwin: “Darwin’s result was due in large measure to his working method, which violated all my rules for misery and particularly emphasized a backward twist in that he always gave priority attention to evidence tending to disconfirm whatever cherished and hard-won theory he already had. In contrast, most people early achieve and later intensify a tendency to process new and disconfirming information so that any original conclusion remains intact.”  

Munger’s second icon for sound reasoning was Albert Einstein, who held up self-criticism as a virtue that was just as important as curiosity, concentration, and perseverance.  According to Munger, Einstein’s genius rested on his willingness and enthusiasm for “the testing and destruction of his own well-loved ideas” (2).

To sum up, the lesson from Stewart, Darwin, and Einstein is to eschew ignorance by seeking out, facing, and using our errors as a launchpad for learning.

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What were the different roles of Alice Stewart and George Kneale, and how did their constructive conflict prevent confirmation bias?

Challenge - Why Avoid the Bias?:  Do some further research on confirmation bias; then, write a short PSA on what it is and why and how it can be avoided.

ALSO ON THIS DAY:

October 4, 1957 at 7:28 PM:  The Soviet Union launched the first satellite, Sputnik I. 

Sources:

1-Heffernan, Margaret. “Dare To Disagree.” TED.com June 2012.

2-Hogg, Alec. “Simply great: Charlie Munger’s speech to the Harvard School, June 1986 – ‘Invert, always invert.’” biznews.com 13 July 1986.

 

THINKER'S ALMANAC - October 3

What single word has inspired over one hundred thousand people to write an essay about their personal philosophy of life?

Subject:  Personal  Philosophical Credo - This I Believe Essays

Event:  This I Believe book published, 2006

In 1951, a unique radio program called This I Believe began, hosted by the journalist Edward R. Murrow.  The idea was to invite individuals to write and read their personal essays on air.  The basic invitation was to “write a few hundred words expressing the core principles that guide your life -- your personal credo.”  The word credo is from the Latin for “I believe.”

The radio program ran for four years and was later revived on National Public Radio.  To date, over 125,000 essays have been written, and on October 3, 2006, an anthology of This I Believe essays was published.  The collection included essays by people from all walks of life, including such well-known individuals as Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, Helen Keller, and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Image by Rodrigo Pignatta from Pixabay

In one of the thousands of essays that can be accessed online at ThisIbelieve.org, Yvette Doss of South Pasadena, California, shares her discovery and belief in philosophy:

Thanks to philosophers, my new friends, I considered my thoughts worth expressing and later, when I tried my hand at writing, I experienced the joy of seeing my thoughts fill a page.

I believe the wisdom of the ages helped me see beyond my station in life, helped me imagine a world in which I mattered. Philosophy gave me permission to use my mind, and the inspiration to aim high in my goals for myself. Philosophy allowed me to dare to imagine a world in which man can reason his way to justice, women can choose their life’s course, and the poor can lift themselves out of the gutter.

Philosophy taught me that logic makes equals of us all. (1)

When putting together your personal philosophy into a “This I Believe” essay, think of the following four Bs:

1. Be Specific:  Illustrate your belief by telling your story. Show your reader -- instead of telling -- by grounding your core philosophy in specific, concrete details.

2. Be Brief:  Write between 500 and 600 words.  As you revise and edit, read it out loud. It should be about three minutes long when read at a natural pace.

3. Be Positive:  Frame your philosophy in positive terms, and focus on what you DO believe rather than what you DO NOT believe.

4. Be Personal: Write in the first person.  Remember, it’s called “This I Believe,” not “This We Believe” (2).

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason: What are the 4 Bs of This I Believe Essays? Which two of the Bs do you think are most important for effective writing and why is each important?

 

Challenge - Create A Credo:  Visit the This I Believe website, and read some of the essays.  Then, keeping the four Bs in mind, write your own essay.

Sources:

1. Doss, Yvette.  “Finding Equality Through Logic”  This I Believe. August 3, 2008

2. “This I Believe Essay Writing Suggestions.”  Thisibelieve.org.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - October 2

How does a speech about whiskey given by a Mississippi judge in the 1950s teach us about the power of language?

Subject:  Rhetoric and Equivocation - “If By Whiskey” Speech

Event:  Birthday of Judge Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat, Jr., 1922

In the 1950s, the state of Mississippi was a dry state, which means that alcoholic beverages were illegal.  As a young legislator, Noah S. “Soggy” Sweat, Jr. would travel the state giving speeches.  In the course of his public speaking, Sweat would frequently have a constituent call out:  “How do you feel about whiskey?”

To answer this question, sweat prepared a speech, which would become famous. 

Sweat’s “If by Whiskey” speech demonstrates the power of words to frame a concept.  It is an especially powerful example of political speech and how the connotations of words and a speaker’s tone can influence -- and even manipulate -- an audience’s perception.

Image by M. Platte from Pixabay

Shakespeare’s great character Hamlet said, “There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so.”  After reading Sweat’s speech, you might say “There is nothing good or bad but diction makes it so.”  In other words, it’s not just a writer’s logic or evidence that influences an audience; instead, a speaker’s word choice can be so emotionally charged, that connotation and imagery carry the argument.  

My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:

If when you say whiskey you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.

Sweat’s speech is a satiric example of equivocation, the politician’s art of manipulating language and an audience so that it appears that he or she supports both sides of an issue.  The truth, however, is that equivocation conceals truth through the use of ambiguous language.  Master politicians, like Judge Sweat, use language to frame an issue in more than one way, giving everyone in the audience something they like.  For example, proponents of prohibition would latch onto the first half of Sweat’s speech, while opponents of prohibition would be captivated by the second half.

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What does Sweat’s “If By Whiskey” speech teach us about the power of words?

Challenge - If By Prevarication: Practice your own ability to pander politically by taking on a controversial topic -- like whiskey -- that can be seen through two lenses, one good, one bad.  Use Sweat’s speech as your model.

Here are some sample topics to get you thinking:

If By Homework

If By Cats

If By Social Media

If By Taxes

If By Coffee

If By Education

If By Procrastination

ALSO ON THIS DAY:

October 2, 1869:  Today is the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi, who said, "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self-sustained.”  See THINKER’S ALMANAC - January 30.

Sources:

1- Logically Fallacious.  “If By Whiskey.”

THINKER'S ALMANAC - October 1

What can the greatest soccer player of all time and his jersey teach us about logic?

Subject: Post Hoc Fallacy - Pele’s Jersey

Event:  Soccer star Pele retires, 1977

Success is no accident. It is hard work, perseverance, learning, studying, sacrifice and most of all, love of what you are doing or learning to do. -Pele

Once upon a time, a boy named Joe was walking down the road when a black cat crossed his path.  This seemed like no big deal at the time, but soon after his encounter with the cat, something terrible happened:  Joe tripped, fell, and hit his head on a rock.  Fortunately, Joe recovered.  All he has now is a small scar on his forehead and a terrible fear of a black cat crossing his path.

Joe’s conclusions and the countless other similar superstitions that have plagued humankind for generations are based on our brain’s rational desire to understand not just what happens to us -- events -- but also WHY things happen -- causes.

Logical fallacies are categories of common errors that people make in their reasoning.  If we want to think well, we should be on the lookout for these common errors.  The fallacy that best sums up the error in Joe’s thinking  is called post hoc ergo propter hoc, which means “after this, therefore, because of this.”

This fallacy has also been called the “rooster fallacy”: each morning just before sunrise I hear a rooster crow; therefore, it must be the sound of the rooster’s crow that causes the sun to rise.

Besides roosters and black cats, another way to understand the post hoc fallacy is to remember a story about one of the greatest soccer players of all time, a player who retired from soccer on this day in 1977 after scoring 767 career goals.

Image by Matthias Groeneveld from Pixabay

Pele ended his career playing in the United States for the New York Cosmos, but he began his career playing in his native Brazil, where he led his team to three World Cup championships.

Pele made his name as a goal scorer, but there was one point in his career in the 1960s when he was experiencing a scoring drought. Desperate to get back on track and to score goals, he searched for a reason for his lack of scoring productivity.  Racking his brain for an answer, he remembered that after his last productive game, he had given his lucky jersey to a fan.  This, he concluded, must explain his problem.  His only option was to get his jersey back.  As a result, he called in a private detective to locate the fan and to get the jersey back. After conducting a thorough search, the detective tracked down the fan and convinced him to return the jersey.  When the detective showed up at Pele’s door with the jersey, he was overjoyed.  Having regained his old confidence, Pele once again became a prolific goal scorer.  What Pele did not know, however, is that the detective was not actually able to track down the fan; the jersey he gave Pele was, in fact, simply a jersey he had scrounged from one of Pele’s previous games.

Fortunately for Pele, a placebo jersey was enough to get him back on track.  He broke his scoring slump; his thinking, however, was still less than stellar.  

The key to avoiding post hoc thinking is to go beyond just the why and to think more about the how.  Also, avoid the common human tendency of settling for a single cause; instead, look for other possible explanations (See THINKER’S ALMANAC -February 26). For example, if Pele had thought a bit more carefully about how a jersey contributed to his goal-scoring, he might have ended his slump sooner.  Also, instead of latching onto the single cause, he might have entertained some other more plausible explanations.

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What is the post hoc fallacy, and how can it be illustrated with a three-part example:  1) THIS: preceding event, 2) THEN THIS: following event, 3) THEREFORE: casual connection?

Challenge - Superstition In Sports:  Sports is a prime breeding ground for the post hoc fallacy.  Research other examples of superstitions in sports. What is the most interesting one?

ALSO ON THIS DAY:

-October 1, 1914:  Today is the birthday of historian Daniel Boorstin, who said, “The greatest obstacle to knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.”

Sources:

1-Brown, John.  “BLETHER: Superstitious superstar Pele couldn’t play without ‘lucky’ shirt.”  Evening Telegraph 29 July 2019.