[Jdm-society] Political postings

[Deborah Frisch]

JG: But we need to be aware of a sort of generalized confirmatory bias.  I'm
sure that I could come up with JDM-ish perspectives to support my particular
political views, but I'm also confident that those who hold different
opinions than I do could do exactly the same.

DF: I agree that you are justified in accusing me of suffering from
confirmation bias - the overwhelming tendency of the human mind to gravitate
toward evidence that seems to support its currently preferred hypothesis.

Confirmation bias exists because logically, beliefs and desires are
separate, but in the human mind, they are linked.

We seem to be more psychologically comfortable when there is a positive
correlation between p(x) and u(x).  I'm happy when I want x and I believe x
will happen.  I'm unhappy when I want x and I believe x will not happen.

I spend a fair amount of my time making xes happen. I have noticed that very
often, if I want x, I can make x happen. I'm often more successful making x
happen if I'm optimistic and confident.  Sometimes, pretending that x is
true can actually cause x to be true!

So there is a complicated story about how and why the human mind confounds
belief and value. One consequence of this confounding is that we shouldn't
believe everything we think.

By accusing me of confirmation bias you are suggesting that I selectively
chose examples and frames that make the United States look morally
equivalent to Nazi Germany, George W. Bush the analog of Adolph Hitler, the
likely outcome of this war a "quagmire" like Vietnam, etc. You are
suggesting that although I accuse the American war camp of suffering from
availability bias, it would be just as easy to use JDM concepts to criticize
the peace camp.

Here's my availability-bias argument that supports the peace side of the
debate:

a. EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION: There is a HUGE SYSTEMATIC DIFFERENCE between the
European and American perception. ON AVERAGE, Europeans are MUCH more
opposed to the war than Americans.

b. JDM-BASED HYPOTHESIS: One explanation for this systematic discrepancy is
that the Americans suffer from more availability bias than Europeans. It's
been roughly 50 years since a catastrophic war was fought on European soil -
roughly 150 since such a war was fought on American soil.  More warring has
occurred on European soil in the last 50 years than on (North) American
soil.  Since Americans do not have access to (we can't collectively
remember) the visceral, emotional and economic negative consequences of
having a war fought on our "home court" then it's a good bet that we are
understimating the cost of war.  [Maybe we should talk about "home court"
security instead of "homeland security" to reduce this bias.]

c: NEW EMPIRICAL HYPOTHESIS:  Once all the bills have been paid, bodies have
been counted, QALYs have been computed and "goal achievement" has been
determined, this war will wind up being grossly "cost-ineffective" from the
American perspective.

To counter this, you need to demonstrate that there's a plausible JDM-BASED
hypothesis that accounts for the US-Europe discrepancy that implies that in
hindsight, the peace crowd will say to the war crowd, "You know dudes, you
were right." Merely accusing me of "confirmation bias" isn't really enough.
That is, you need to present an alternative "b" that explains "a" that leads
to a difference "c."

JG: There is a danger in trying to argue that our science supports our
views, or in trying to promote our views as "lessons" of JDM.

RD: Do you really think that we form political views by some process
independent of our "JDM-ish perspectives" and then just use these
perspectives to justify these views derived form some other source?  I
(smile) always thought that it was my scientific understanding of people and
the world that LED to my political views (and some pretty good predictions,
e.g. about Vietnam and the quality of the currrent Iraq "cakewalk").

DF: I agree 100% with Robyn Dawes here. In response to JG, I think there is
a much bigger danger having a large, militarily and economically powerful
society make decisions that violate basic principles of common sense,
psychology and economics.  The risk of a false alarm (applying our science
in a biased way) seems lower than the risk of a miss here (not trying to
apply our science at all).

DF: I'd never really thought about JDMers' views about religion  and
physics, but now that you mention it, I think it's a fascinating topic.

JG: I'm certainly not famous (and probably don't even count as a JDMer), but
anyone who wants to know my views about physics and religion can read my
extensive corpus on the newsgroup uk.philosophy.atheism going back over many
years.

DF: I have no interest in reading your corpus. I might spend five or ten
minutes reading a condensed, focused version you send to this list.

JG: But that is all I need to do. Post a pointer to where I've stated those
opinions and carried out those arguments. It would be wrong of me to try to
bring those here. Those few who want to know, can find out; the vast
majority of others don't have their noses rubbed in it.

DF: Sorry for rubbing your nose and others in my thoughts about the
relationship of decision science to politics and religion. How gauche of me.

JG: I comment on what you have below not to actually discuss it, but to
illustrate my earlier comment about generalized confirmatory bias.

DF: I'm not quite sure what the distinction between "comment on" and
"discuss" is, but that's okay.

JG: That I will play the Devil's advocate (or God's advocate) in this case,
not because I believe it, but to illustrate how easy it is to rationalize
any position. More importantly, keep in mind how easy it is to scrutinize
the rationalizations for things we oppose and accept with little question
the rationalizations for things we like.

DF: I'm not sure what value gets added by remaining in the closet about your
political and religious views - I hope you don't think it makes you more
"objective."  But go on.

DF: As a Bayesian, I differentiate two questions about God:

Q1: What is p(God exists)
Q2: What is p(God is humanlike and male/God exists)

I'll punt on Q1 but with respect to Q2, I think that if God exists, it is
exceedingly likely that God is beyond species and gender. I think religions
that even metaphorically treat God as a guy in the sky are illogical (and
increasingly dangerous).

JG: Here is a counter argument. Any "strong" notion of God will require that
it is something that has a special relationship with humans. That is, we are
the "chosen species", a species with a purpose, and that God somehow cares
about our moral decisions. God may be some abstract "life force of the
universe" or some sort of Gaia-like thing, but for people who actually care
about religion, there must be a personal connection.

DF: Hmm. I never thought of that. You are right that given that we're the
only bundles of DNA thinking and talking about morality and religion and God
(as far as we know), we have a "special" relationship with God. And while I
actually do care about religion, I don't really feel very religious..so your
hypothesis that there is a flaw in my approach related to my animosity
toward speciesist, sexist metaphors is intriquing to me. Go on.

JG: So if God has a special concern with humans and our moral decisions, if
God gave us souls, then it is not unreasonable to believe that there is a
sense that we were created in God's image.

DF: I'm losing you. God gave us souls?  Ugh. We are created in God's image?
Maybe.

JG: That is, our souls give us the capacity to be a faint echo of what God
is, and that this is something we should strive for.

DF: "Our souls give us the capacity to?"  UGH!  I'll buy "There are forces
at work that transcend the universe. These forces created the natural world
(planet, universe) and the human mind and gave the human mind the capacity
to understand, manipulate and control the planet and glimpse the universe."
I'll grant that of all the creatures on earth, we are most similar to the
force (in terms of power, apparent intelligence, etc.).

JG: Now if there is a God, why must it be in the "strong" sense instead of
the "weak" sense? Because if the weak sense is taken literally (which its
proponents do not do in practice) it is no God at all.

DF: Huh? Who are the proponents of the "weak" god? What is it that they do
in "practice" that contradicts their explicit image of a god that is not
speciesist and sexist?

JG: It is merely the physical laws of the universe, or it is just "love" (no
more, no less).

DF: Just love?  Huh?  What is it that believers in the "strong god" have
that's stronger than love?

JG: So to recap: The "weak" God notion is either atheism or incoherent. The
"strong" God notion has a special relationship with humans, and so may very
well have created us (loosely speaking) in its image. Therefore, if there is
a God, it is plausible that it is meaningfully like us.

DF: Ok - that gets us to human - you haven't touched the sexist problem yet.
Also, I lost you at "Therefore, the weak notion is either atheism or
incoherent." But an obvious counterexample for a viable, coherent candidate
for "weak God" is Buddhism.  The Buddhist practice of meditation is designed
to increase the adherent's ability to love all and be peace and love. It's
in the "just love" "weak God" category. It's not atheism and it's not
incoherent.

Moreover, the Buddhist image of the divine works at least as well as the god
of Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed, wouldn't you say?  There aren't a lot of
Buddhist terrorists or Buddhist governments attacking other countries, etc.
Tibet isn't quite up there with the Muslim controlled Iraq (invading Kuwait)
and the Judeo-Christian controlled US (invading Iraq) on the list of
pathological, aggressive, imperialistic nations.

JG: Now the argument I've presented could easily be shot full of holes.

DF: Damn straight.

JG: But I would say that it is at least as solid as the argument that you
presented.

DF: Well, you haven't "shot" my argument full of holes. At best, you've
refuted one aspect of one of my arguments. MAYBE it's not meshugina to
imagine God as a human. And your presenting a straw argument (that you don't
even claim to believe!) that's easy to shoot holes in isn't quite the same
as shooting a hole in my argument.

JG: So here is my golden rule:

Any time your science appears to support a
personal/political/social/religious position you favor, be extra skeptical
of it.

DF: Now that's excellent advice. And I'll confess that I didn't run my
original message through that filter. I should have. Next time I will. But
you STILL haven't told me what I would have caught if I'd run my thoughts
through this filter.

And by the way, your "golden rule" doesn't quite prove that "JDM is
irrelevant to politics and religion" - it just means we need to be careful
when we apply it.

JG: Though I suppose that that has been said better:

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

DF: Pathological-patriarchy induced myopia?