David Kelley - What is Cognitive Bias?

Speaker 0 00:00:00 The topic today is cognitive bias. And, uh, this is kind of a continuation of the clubhouse I did in March on objectivity. And we even, um, in that session, um, began talking about cognitive bias. So, um, as I say, it would be a continuation and, um, possibly is a little rep repetition, but, um, uh, I'll try to be brief. I wanna, um, cover, uh, three topics. One is the nature of cognitive bias. Um, talking a little bit about it and the way in which I've dealt with it. And, um, secondly, the, uh, various for countering, um, cognitive biases and then finally how, um, the whole package fits within the objectives concept of objectivity and of rationality. So let me begin, um, cognitive biases been an active field of research since at least the, uh, 1970s. Uh, I've been interested in, uh, for a lot of, most of that time and, um, actually able to talk about it in, uh, of course I did summer seminar course back in oh eight called counterfeit reason. Speaker 0 00:01:15 Um, it, and it's, it, it, it has now become very, uh, widely known, um, popular issue. Uh, there are a lot of, um, non-academic sources for information about it. Um, if you go online and search for, uh, cognitive bias, uh, you can find lists or charts that list, uh, you know, up to 200 different. I biases most of these are, uh, little, uh, you know, off, off the chest, so to speak, uh, I mean, one of them, there's a on one list I saw there's something called the, the humor effect, um, which, uh, you know, <laugh> a lot of these things have no, uh, research background or support, um, and you even, uh, and, and they vary largely in how they define them, how they classify them. I can talk a little bit about the classification problems, uh, in the question, if anyone's interested. Um, and even at the theoretical level, there are a lot of empirical claims that have been challenged. Speaker 0 00:02:23 There are arrival theories and interpretations of the data. So research is ongoing, but this there's little doubt that, that, uh, those biases exist, uh, confirmation bias. The grandad of the mall, uh, for example, is a, is a well known example. It was described as far back as, uh, Francis bacon in 1620. He actually gave a wonderful statement that, um, pretty much covers the waterfront in terms of what we, uh, now know a lot of it's been confirmed confirmation bias. I would define as the tendency to look for and take account of evidence, supporting a conclusion while ignoring or downplaying or failing to seek evidence against it. Um, and that's now a familiar term. I'm just defining what I hope, um, is pretty common under standing among, uh, this audience. Um, psychologists have provided strong evidence for other less obvious biases, um, in my logic textbook college textbook on, on logic, uh, the art of reasoning, uh, for the fifth edition, my co-author and I, Debbie Hutchins, um, added a new chapter on cogno bias. Speaker 0 00:03:41 It was the first textbook, um, of in its class to, uh, provide a full, um, a full chapter and the first card to include exercises for trying to get to 'em. Those, I can talk again, in the question period, I was interested about the difficulty of making up exercises and, um, but I can explain a little bit now about why I'll give you an idea. Um, Debbie and I define cognitive biases as systematic psychological tendencies to make errors in seeking and interpreting information. So there's psychological tendencies and they involve errors as tendencies that produce errors. They they're somewhat like fallacies, but fallacies are logical errors that we can address by giving examples and asking students to recognize cases. Um, for example, at honu, why should Congress consult the chief, uh, joint chiefs of staff about military funding, they're military men. So obviously they will want to get as much money as they can. Speaker 0 00:04:51 Well, you know, we're talking, we're attributing to the military people, um, uh, a vested interest, uh, that distorts their view in the beginning. I'm not saying that's never a consideration, but, um, the, my point now is simply that you can state the logical form of that fallacy. Someone X says something P plus you say, X has some negative trait in a vested interest, or, uh, you know, some sexual misbehavior in his past, whatever it might be, therefore you conclude P is false, which is wrong. And once you see the pattern, you know, you can give some further examples, teach students how to identify it. It's all conscious, but cognitive biases as psychological tendencies often operate below the surface of conscious attention. And that makes them harder to be, uh, self aware of and harder to create exercises, which is, I mentioned we did in the art of reasoning, um, in that chapter, I should mention we covered, um, each cognitive biases that I, as isolated as, uh, the, the best dis best research and, um, defended ones. Speaker 0 00:06:13 Uh, so we can discuss others besides cognitive, um, confirmation bias in the question, period. Uh, others includes things like hindsight bias, what's called availability, uh, and so forth. I don't know if we can post the, uh, a, a list of those. I sent those to Lawrence, um, to put up in the, the chat column if possible. Um, so that's a general issue of, uh, nature of cognitive biases in a nutshell, uh, in the rest of my, this presentation, um, to open a discussion, I wanna focus on two issues, uh, which I mention one, the next one is countering bias techniques for doing that <affirmative>. And then, um, the relationship of all this to the ethics of the virtue of rationality. So countering bias, um, some, some people, uh, researchers in the field, um, regard the human mind is just hardwired to be vulnerable to the, these biases. Speaker 0 00:07:20 Um, and some psychologists believe that, uh, believe that, uh, Daniel conman, who's one of the pillar, uh, founders and, uh, major, major researchers in the field. He believes that, but we are not hardwired to be victims of them. They can and be counter, um, consider the comparison with fallacies again, um, to get at what we have to do in order to counter them. Fallacies are logical errors that can be avoided by understanding why the conclusion is not supported by the premises. Uh, but the question, for example, another fallacy is, uh, involves trying to support a proposition with an argument in which that very proposition is sup premise. Speaker 0 00:08:13 So the argument is circular. It goes nowhere. That's a logical error though. Fall fallacy do seem plausible. That's why people commit them. They don't need special psychological techniques to avoid them. You can teach them in a, in a logic class in college or wherever, but biases do require special, um, psychological techniques precisely because they're psychological tendencies that often operate below the surface of, uh, conscious awareness to, um, so to avoid them, we have to be more self aware of the cognitive and motivational factors at work. There's no inherent reason why this can't be done. Um, in a way you can make an analogy between cognitive biases, which are conceptual level issues with perceptual illusions, like the Ben stick and water. We've all seen that. And, um, it's easy. We can't help seeing the stick as bent because of the laws of refraction, um, and the way our eyes work, but take the stick out you counter. Speaker 0 00:09:19 It's easy to counter. Just take the stick out and look, see it's straight. I once heard about a, uh, I don't know whether a humorous or, or malicious, uh, te teacher who had a teaching subject and had a, a stick in a glass of water. And when you pull that out, it actually was Ben. See, I, he, he might have been a vicious skeptic, or just having fun with a class anyway. Um, but perceptual illusions can be countered and, and in the same way, as a lot of physical imperfections, bad eyesight, you know, we correct with glasses. There's lots of ways of countering what may be, um, uh, um, a tendency or, or a factor that's that's innate and just create, you know, creates a challenge for us, but a challenge that can be met, uh, among the, uh, many, um, issues of, uh, or many forms of, of, of countering biases that, um, I developed, uh, w and I developed and wrote about in our, the chapter in, in the order of reasoning. Thanks for putting that up. Um, one of the most important is, is to ask yourself about something you believe, what would I take as evidence that I'm wrong? Speaker 0 00:10:44 It helps to talk about people who disagree with you, because that, you know, they're the most likely ones to provide you with that evidence. But you even that question alone when people a are as seriously asked to, um, take some view that they hold and, and consider, okay, what, what might be a good argument against it? It just changes the mindset. And it is, um, if, if you're honest about it, it can be effective in countering, especially confirmation bias. Another question, do I want this to be true? What I believe do I need it to be true? Uh, and if so, why? Because, you know, uh, we should be, we can be passionate in the pursuit of knowledge, but the knowledge itself, you know, should not be dictated by our passions or goals or values. And the way, one way I like to put this is would I rather be right or get it right? Would I rather be right in the sense of winning the argument, um, getting my opponent to concede, or do I want to get reality, right. Regardless of what anyone else believes, Uh, I think we, the best counter to this, and this gets us, um, maybe toward the, uh, the ethical issues is to anchor your self-esteem not in the truth of, um, uh, or, you know, extent of what you believe, but in your commitment to grasp reality as it is. So that errors are not a threat, they are an opportunity to grasp reality better. Speaker 0 00:12:25 One technique that I like, um, Speaker 0 00:12:29 Is, comes from a book by Annie duke, um, uh, called thinking in bets. Um, the idea is that you, how much, how much money would, I bet that I'm right in this prediction, this plan, um, this view about politics or Ukraine or whatever it might be, uh, I'm gonna read a short quote from her being asked if we were willing to bet money on a belief, makes it much more likely that we will examine our information in a less biased way. Uh, be more honest with ourselves about how sure we are of our beliefs and be more open to updating and calibrating our beliefs. The more objective we are, the more accurate our beliefs become. Um, but take a slight regress here. Um, two objectives, friends of mine, um, both economist expert economists, um, and, uh, very successful in their fields. Uh, the couple they were, um, they told me once it, sometimes when they're out on a trip driving, um, often say and unfamiliar country, um, you know, they're looking at the gas gauge and the wife says, um, well, we're down to a quarter tank and there's a gas station right there. Speaker 0 00:13:46 Let's fill her up. And the husbandman says, no, it's it's too soon. Why fill her up with a quarter tank left? Um, we'll fill it up with the next one. And she says, well, we don't know where the next one's gonna be, how far it's gonna be, whether our gas is gonna last. And the husband, who's a little, uh, less risk averse says, okay, I'll tell you what I remember. These are economists, um, I'll post a thousand dollars bond that, which is yours. If you, um, if we run outta gas and that solved the issue, it was not a, an argument. Uh, it was just an offer. He was making a bet that they'd find a gas station and, uh, he put his money where his mouth is anyway. Um, I've discussed some of these points in my, in the short pamphlet I wrote, uh, for the Atlas society called the seven habits of highly objective people, uh, which you can find on our website. Speaker 0 00:14:45 So let me, let me turn now to the final topic of rationality. Uh, in, as I said, we did, I covered the topic of, uh, objectivity. And the main point in that discussion was the idea that objectivity means a commitment to finding the truth in the process of thinking by using rational methods. So objectivity by that standard involves both a choice and a skill, uh, that is the choice to focus on reality, to be reality oriented and committed to objectivity, and the skill of using the methods of, of reason to, um, uh, uh, to, to, to use your mind properly. Um, in March I focused on the skill side of it was, uh, I talked a, some length about the, uh, the hierarchy of methods that we employ from the basic standards of logic, which apply across all fields to the more detailed and often complex methods and specialized mastery in particular fields of science in law, in project management, finance, et cetera. Um, and that one point I, I, I, I think I made, I certainly was, uh, a point I, I should have made is that it, those who, who glibly deny the possibility of objective knowledge are under, are attacking a highly complex and developed product of reason that, um, has gone on is part of human learning over many decades and since, um, so do not be casual about that, but today I wanna discuss, discuss the other aspect of objectivity the, uh, the, the commitment side. Speaker 0 00:16:51 Uh, the element of choice means that objectivity has a more oral dimension. And in fact, it is indeed one core of the ritual of rationality. You know, in objective, we tend to think of rationality as the choice to think, or not to think to focus or not to focus, uh, to use our minds, um, objectively or to evade or rely on oceans rather than reason, or rely on mystic revelation or on authority. All these things are things that I ran discussed in various inner novels and nonfiction, um, in some detail, uh, but even so stated abstractly like that, it seems like, okay, simple, yes or no issue, my focused, or not as if the mind had a, you know, an on and off switch, like your, uh, the lights in your living room, but it's not simple. And cognitive biases are an interesting example of why. Um, Just consider the distinction, ran drew an objective in general draw between errors of knowledge and errors of morality. Someone believes something you think is false. Um, do you think, do you think they're innocently mistaken or are publicly evading facts, um, relying on authority or whatever it is? That's a moral error. Speaker 0 00:18:16 Um, so the, so errors of knowledge have, are morally speaking innocent. Um, But, uh, errors of morality are obviously not innocent, morally they're culpable. So cognitive biases, which category do they fall in? Well, on the one hand, the operation of these biases is not rational. Uh, it's not simply a lack of information. It's a misuse, um, of information you have, and a distorted search for REL other relevant information. So the biases are failures of objectivity. So are they moral errors? Well, on the other hand, to the extent that they are tendencies operating below the level of awareness they're not chosen, so are they maybe really, should we sign 'em to the category of error of knowledge? You know, sometimes the answer is very clear. If, if you spend any time on social media, you see the vehement confirmation bias contestants slugging it out, um, and hardly listening to each other, except to find out, you know, How outrage they could be by someone who doesn't believe what they do. Um, so sometimes the answer's clear, but it's not always, um, I mean, take an example. The I'm going the example of the cognitive bias that we discuss in the textbook, um, called availability Speaker 0 00:19:51 Availability is a tendency to estimate their frequency or likelihood of an event on the basis of how quickly instances, um, come to mind, for example, you know, we read, uh, people read reports of child abductions, airplane accidents, train derailments, and that leads them to believe that such events are more typical than they are. You know, it's, the news tends to feature the bad news, um, uh, not the good ones precisely because they're not as common as the good outcomes. Um, but still people are aware of that. And so how frequent are playing crashes? Well, gee, um, how, how, how dangerous is, is, uh, airline transportation, which either I, you know, I'm just reading about it, an airline accident. So maybe pretty much, um, countering this bias requires looking at the base rates of such events. That is how many airline miles, um, uh, take the number of, of, of fatalities say over, uh, the number of total airline miles, uh, airline passenger miles is I think the normal statistic. Speaker 0 00:21:10 Um, and, and it's a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction, less than the, uh, frequency of car accidents among all the models driven. Um, but count taking that into account countering the bias by looking at base rates, um, is a fairly sophisticated statistical skill. This is an issue of probabilities and, um, we're not born knowing least. And in fact, there's a lot of evidence from the cognitive biased research that met. Um, there are a number of other, uh, uh, cognitive biases, like availability that involve, um, issues of, of MIS not getting the probabilities. Right. Um, so one conclusion to draw is that countering bias in general does involve skill as well as choice it requires. Um, but it also requires meta awareness, the task, the commitment of monitoring one's inner cognitive function. That's a skill that people have to learn, but also they have to choose to use and make it part of their normal cognitive hygiene, so to speak. Speaker 0 00:22:26 Um, so there's a lot, um, you know, I think that is as, as monitoring was in emotional functioning, um, the kind of self-reflection that you, you would do say in a therapist's office to get at why you're feeling outta sorts, why you're feeling conflict over this or that, um, that's meta awareness too. Um, and we, one of the Glor of the human mind is that we are capable of it, but it's a capacity that has to be chosen, exercised by choice. So there's a lot more to say on the issue, but, um, let me conclude for now, um, the just great voluntary, uh, element. Okay, Speaker 3 00:23:12 David it, are you ready to take questions or Speaker 0 00:23:15 Are you let's go ahead with questions, right. Point there. Um, Speaker 3 00:23:20 Yeah. Great. Um, so, uh, I brought my, uh, partner in crime Scott up here. I don't know. Um, Scott, if you had a question or, uh, of course, who has an interesting new profile picture, which I wanna hear all about. Go ahead. Speaker 4 00:23:40 Um, yeah, I'll, I just wanted to say this one is a little bit personal to me, just because I'm, uh, often accused of being biased because I see, uh, one side of the political spectrum as more, um, of a threat than the other. And I think I wanna, you know, I think that it is possible to still be objective and to of that conclusion. And in fact, there can be a kind of trying so hard to prove that, you know, you're not being cognitively biased that Y you know, some people, especially in the Liberty movement adopt this kind of both sides must always be equally bad. And then in, in trying to prove that they just kind, you can still, even within that, still try to, you know, then make everything fit into that mental box. If you're trying to just prove that in, in defiance of the evidence, Speaker 3 00:24:39 I think that's an excellent, um, point Scott, uh, and, you know, I attacking certain Paula policies and positions, um, that I see with the, the ATLA society's social media feed. And of course, I'll get a question. Why aren't you, uh, attacking? Why aren't you, um, attacking DeSantis <laugh> policies? And I'm like, well, because I, I think those are the right policies for the most. Um, um, so, okay. Uh, David, do you have some thoughts on that? Speaker 0 00:25:14 Um, yes, I, I, I take Scott's point, but I think that's more an issue of content than, uh, cognitive bias per se, that people are accusing you of bias. Yes. But, uh, bias is sometimes used to me. You have a viewpoint and that's just different. That's not a, um, psychological phenomenon, that's a cognitive, uh, phenomenon read certain conclusions and for reasons, um, and you know, I, if it doesn't matter where you are on the range of opinion, what matter is where you are these to be reality and what your reasons for believing what you do are, and then we engage when we engage in discussion and debate, uh, because these are complicated issues. It's, you know, political, anything involving value judgements viewers on, um, on the opinion side, um, rather than the spring forward fact side, the distinction I was talking about back in January, but, um, Speaker 0 00:26:20 You know, there can be confirmation bias. Um, there's a lot of it in political debate, but just having a political view is not itself, um, uh, a cognitive bias. And I wouldn't even say it's, it's an actual bias of any kind. Um, it's a, uh, it's a view could be right or wrong, um, depending on the evidence, right. If it corresponds to reality wrong, if not. So, um, I would just answer people say, um, if you want me to be in the middle, um, the middle between what and who defines those two ends, how do they get to decide what the endpoints are anyway, I'm, I'm, I'm moving into Al mode and I'll stop Speaker 3 00:27:07 There. Mm-hmm <affirmative> thank you. All right. Roger, what happened to the old, what happened to the old, uh, profile picture? You Speaker 6 00:27:17 Know, it will come back, but I went on a walk and, uh, that is a view from, uh, a little hike that I take from my house and I snapped the photo and I thought, you know what, instead of having some menacing photo, let me share a little bit of beauty with the world and, uh, you know, it's, uh, it's created a conversation piece, so, um, thanks Speaker 3 00:27:36 For making, I like it. Okay, Speaker 6 00:27:39 Cool. I, I question for you, David. Um, and I'm glad you're doing this room because what, what I'm concerned with is when I'm communicating with people, obviously I have bias and, uh, I put a lot of thought into my ideas and I, I, I, I, there's, it's kinda a two-parter, how do I check my own confirmation bias, uh, and, and, and make sure, sure that, that I'm not simply, um, regur regurgitating, uh, you know, uh, things that, that, that back up my own, uh, established belief system, for example, uh, and I'm sure a lot of us agree on this is that I believe that the standard, uh, you know, in which governments should arise is to individual rights and property rights, and that's really their only role. And then, so oftentimes, you know, when I'm doing research, I, I, I, I go and I look at what the other side has to say, but I'm always looking for like, poking holes in their argument and looking for reinforcement of my own. Speaker 6 00:28:42 Um, and so, so the two parter is how do I check my own bias so I can keep not an open mind, but a more critical mind to making sure that that I'm open to learning, but also, do you have any techniques that you would, uh, advise when you're having a conversation? Maybe not a debate, uh, cuz that seems more competitive, but when you're having a conversation with somebody that, uh, doesn't see the world, the way that you do <affirmative> to be able to bring to their awareness, the biases that they might have brought into the conversation, just maybe a little food for thought for them to go back and think about, Speaker 0 00:29:19 Uh, thanks, Roger. Great question. Um, and you know, Eli at the core of the work that we do at the analysts Saudi as teachers and, uh, activists and, uh, it, you know, and, and today I think with all the polarization, there have actually been quite a few efforts on the part of, uh, uh, the hetero hetero doc academy and, and many others to design. Um, it's it title of one book, the author escapes me for a minute, but it was how to have impossible conversations, meaning impossible convers conversations between people who seem like they have IM impossibly, uh, reconcilable views. Anyway, anyway, there, first of all, um, one thing I like to do, uh, just cognitively is just slow down and find out what the other person actually believes and, and get in, you know, being on the surface by just asking you, why, why do you believe that? Speaker 0 00:30:20 Um, and asking questions that I would raise against it, not as objections, but just how would you deal with that? And you go deeper and deeper. Um, you know, you can run on a steam because the other person, I ideally should be doing the same thing with you. Um, but that's a, that's a cognitive technique, um, that I recommend. Another one is something I learned, um, teaching philosophy, um, in the classroom when I was teaching the history of philosophy. One thing that I just found was, I mean, my responsibility as a teacher was not to convince people my philosophy or, I mean, especially in history classes, <laugh> and Randy is not quite historical yet by philosophical terms, but to, uh, talk about a Aristotle and Plato San August and John log Manuel con. And in doing that, I, I realized, um, it was, it was helpful and actually became quite a bit of fun. Let me, you put myself inside that system of thought and just what's, what's the most plausible way I can put it. Speaker 0 00:31:34 Um, I did this with, you know, San Augustine, the Christ, one of the great Christine philosophers and the bigness in attitude. And, um, I just found, you know, I was teaching a class. So my goal really was I was doing this in order to help them understand as best they could from the inside, why someone would believe these things. But I had to, I had to get inside the system myself and I found it was it, it was actually kind of fun and interesting, um, to make up the arguments. Um, um, look, try to, you know, look at the world the way a thinker did. And I think we can apply that technique in everyday conversations with other people. Um, that's something you tend to do in your own mind in, in AF, before or after the event, but, um, that's kind of a, an attitude shift, um, that, uh, I'd find helpful, uh, might be useful. Speaker 6 00:32:37 Thank you very much. Speaker 3 00:32:41 All right. Um, I wanna also just, uh, re reiterate, uh, if you would like to ask professor Kelly a question on this topic on objectiveness, on philosophy, uh, in general or, uh, current events, and please just raise your hand and we will bring you up onto this stage. Uh, and also if you're enjoying the conversation, um, we are looking to just continuing to grow this, uh, room for the out society club. So please take a moment, um, tap the share button at the bottom of your screen, share on clubhouse or any other social media, uh, platforms. We'd really appreciate it. So, uh, Speaker 7 00:33:25 Lawrence Lawrence, Speaker 3 00:33:30 You might need to unmute yourself. I'm not seeing your mute button. Speaker 4 00:33:37 He had some technical difficulties he may need leave and come back. Speaker 3 00:33:43 All right, well, um, I think we have professor Richard Salzman, who is, uh, a professor of economics at duke. He is also on the faculty of the ATLA society, uh, as one of our senior scholars. So, um, Richard, thanks for joining us Speaker 0 00:34:04 On mute. Speaker 8 00:34:07 This is fascinating, David, I have, uh, I have a question about I'm intrigued by your, um, classification of the fallacies as logical and, uh, kind of in the cont this awareness or more likely to be, whereas the biases are psychological and perhaps in our subconscious, do you think there's any connection between someone being more prone to biases, cognitive biases, also being prone to fallacious thinking? In other words, the overall package is they're just sloppy all around or is it possible imagine a combination where you don't really see someone resorting to fallacies, they might have actually be AIAN, but if they have low self esteem, they might engage in confirmation bias, you know, they just don't wanna be embarrassed. And so they're, is there anything like that? Any, anything you have found literature and your studies that, that suggest they, they go hand in hand or not necessarily? Um, Yeah. Speaker 0 00:35:11 Yeah. That's a great question. Um, in, in researching for this new chapter in the book, I spent, uh, fair amount of time, um, in, in trying to organize materials, seeing with a, or I could line up the cognitive biases that I wanted to cover with the fallacies that were covered in a different chapter and there were links, but it was not a perfect correlation. So I didn't, um, make much of that, but however, just take confirmation bias. Um, confirmation bias, um, leads us to fallacies, such as hasty, generalization. Um, we see a few incidents, um, and they, they kind of, um, you know, a fit a narrative we already have. So we general lies, you know, that's the case, you know, all businessmen are, um, selfish and, um, uh, probably corrupt or corrupt if they could be. Um, and so you, you know, you read a story that someone with with that kind of confirmation bias and not very self-aware could could say, um, read a story, worry about, you know, a Ken Le or any of the other actual actually, um, corrupt business people and, um, say, okay, that just confirms it. Speaker 0 00:36:27 That's hasty generalization. It's an inductive fallacy that involves drawing a generalization from too few or, uh, inadequate, um, particular cases. Um, it also confirmation bias also can fuel what we call false dichotomy. Um, you say, well, it's either, you know, either I'm right or, you know, um, the only other view only the possibility is communism, right? It put it from our standpoint, well, that's a false alternative. There are other many other, uh, views in, but in, you know, even if those are the two extremes that many other views are possible. So, but someone who, um, is looking to mainly to confirm his view will, it will be much more prone to engage in what we can identify when expressed verbally, um, as committing a fallacy. And so there, there's definitely a link and I mean, and this adds somewhat fine line. Um, you know, here there are, uh, because a lot of FIEs are committed because people are thoughtless of a, what they're doing. We can, they're just a little easier to identify, um, and put into language and show that the logical structure, uh, in kind of a diagram, uh, forum, just to make it so obvious. That's, that's PHIS reasoning, cogniti biases are a little harder to, um, as a Speaker 8 00:38:04 Thank you, David. Speaker 3 00:38:08 All right. Uh, Lawrence and again, um, I, I did see some questions in the, uh, chat I can get to those, but I wanna encourage you to go ahead, raise your hand and come on up. So Lawrence. Yep. Speaker 9 00:38:20 Can you hear me now? Speaker 3 00:38:22 Yes, we can. I Speaker 9 00:38:23 Think it's working. Mm-hmm <affirmative> I think. Perfect. Uh, thank you for doing this, David. Uh, my question for you is I spent my thesis paper in college, sort of studying Twitter and how that relate to how people used it and everything. And one thing that I think, as you mentioned, you know, there's a lot of biases that we can be seen online that people fall into on social media in particular. And I'm curious if you, when, when looking at this stuff, do you think that social media platform are just, are, make it far easier to embrace your biases or people have always found ways to sort of find their in groups and confirmation biases, which is sort of the biggest one you always see on social media. Do you think the platform inherently makes it easier to fall into that? Or it's just a nature that we have always been doing? Speaker 0 00:39:19 Um, that's a interesting question. I, you know, it, it's really a sociological question in a way, and I, and I don't have, uh, a lot of evidence, I mean, but I think these biases, you know, when psychologists about these, these biases or any other features of human cognition, um, they're not timestamped. I mean, these are things that are, um, part of the way, reason functions and reason has been, you know, one of our attributes for millennia, uh, many, many millennia. And so, um, I'm sure confirmation bias happened in, uh, in the, the era of hunter gatherers. Uh, it certainly happened in history. I mean, I mentioned Francis bacon before writing about confirmation bias. He, he gave one of the most amazing statements is it's in Elizabeth in type language, but I I'd love it if it's a little too long to read here, but, um, out loud to you, but, um, it's just, it, it is so perceptive. Speaker 0 00:40:29 And, um, he was, you know, he knew nothing about social media, um, and printing was fairly recent in his day. So, um, I'm, I ensure that the kinds of things that we're talking about, the kind of biases is that we're studying now and identifying now, um, used to be just as common in town meetings and backyard gossip and so on and so forth. It just, what social media has done is to make all of us, have to listen to of the, the idiots on, um, uh, the gossips and the town meeting, um, people and the who, the loudest voices. And so it's, it's just, I don't think it makes it worse. It just makes it, um, it, it just makes it, um, you know, very repetitive, very tiring. That's why I don't spend much time there. Um, but I doubt that that what we're seeing on social media is new qualitatively. It seems like a difference in quantity, the quantity of voices that are engaged and, um, who can reach us across, you know, continents and whatever. Thank you. Speaker 3 00:41:51 Thank you. Um, Liberty. Speaker 10 00:41:58 Oh, thanks so much, Dan. Um, we could just step back. I, I had a question for, uh, for David or, or any of the panel that may would like to answer it. Um, I'm curious as to, um, cognitive bias, when it comes to ology, like, um, Basis on, um, appearance of someone like say someone has the MC one R G mutation, does that odd instantly give a bias to you when, when you see a redhead for example, or, you know, the things they say about blondes or something, for example, does, does that instantly bring something to your head and do you make decisions based on that? Thank you. Speaker 0 00:42:49 Oh, uh, thanks. Uh, Liberty, uh, that, I'm sorry. Speaker 3 00:42:57 I was just saying it was a great question. You know, how appearance people's appearance, um, how does that play into cognitive bias? Speaker 0 00:43:07 Well, um, Speaker 0 00:43:13 It plays into it because, uh, one, um, one for one category or one, uh, cognitive biases, uh, it turns on stereotypes now. Stereotypes are, um, things that we use all the time. Um, there's nothing wrong per se, with the stereotypes. It's just because what, what a stereotype means across the board is that, um, you have a conception of what things of a kind normally look like, how they've normally function, et cetera. Um, so you know, you, uh, you get on a clubhouse with me and, uh, you have stereotype of some kind. I, I, you do that. Um, I'm not gonna spout Marxism. Um, that's one of the reasons you're here, you acted on that stereotype, but, uh, it, there are, are also, uh, you know, stereotypes that result from what, in logic we would call hasty generalization. I know, I know some, uh, red people who have hot tempers, um, or I know some Irish people, um, that, uh, have, have never red hair and they have an Irish, you know, way, uh, you know, kind of they're more, more, uh, uh, outspoken saying. Speaker 0 00:44:37 And so I formed a generalization, bedhead are, uh, temperamental, um, blondes are, um, so on, you know, such a such, there is, that's just a stereotype and it, it, you can, and, um, the bad ones are based on hasty, generalization, the ones involving, uh, pretty the ones involving racial or ethnic, um, stereotypes, but there is one cognitive bias that in particular that turns on stereotypes and that is called represe representativeness representativeness. Um, that is the, that is the bias, uh, the tendency to estimate that a probability that a thing or event belongs to a class primarily by the similarity of the thing to the stereotype of the class. So, for example, if I didn't see your appearance is sort of the opposite of stereotyping, um, people instead of attributing traits to a stereotype, you're noticing the traits to someone and therefore assuming that, um, uh, they're they belong to a certain class based on your stereotype in that class. Speaker 0 00:45:48 Uh, that sounds a little complicated. Let, give you an example. Um, there's, um, say a student, a college student is, uh, uh, taking, uh, is politically somewhat liberal. Um, she speaks very good French. Um, she loves dance and other arts forums. Okay. <affirmative> that, that's kind of closer to the stereotype of a, um, uh, humanities major than it is to say, um, an accounting major. So you make a best guess that, um, she's probably, you know, a liberal arts, uh, humanities major well, but what you, this is another base rate issue. The fact is that there are many more, uh, students in accounting than there are in the humanities or in the, you know, the comparative language humanities. And, you know, so, and there, within, within those majors, there are many, many, many different differences. So you're jumpy to a conclusion there on the basis of a stereotype. And, um, but it's kind of the reverse of what I think you're talking about. If you see someone who has, um, and you're actually seeing the person and they look a certain way, you make inferences about what they, I believe, what race or, or, uh, uh, what personality they have represent representativeness is, goes in the opposite direction. You see that someone trait and you assume, okay, they must belong to this class, this cuz they fit the stereotype. Speaker 0 00:47:39 I'm sorry. It's, it's laid out much more clearly in the order reasoning <laugh> Speaker 10 00:47:44 Well, I mean, uh, just as far as speaking, like it was mentioned earlier, uh, by Jennifer, for example, about Roger's, uh, profile picture today. Well, if someone was not familiar with Roger, for example, he has this beautiful picture from one of his walks, but his usual profile picture would instantly give you a different, um, A friend idea of who Roger is based on his normal profile picture and then who Roger is otherwise is yet even another thing. So, um, yeah, it's not just a redhead thing or a blonde thing, you know, we're, we're in this app pretty much sight UN and left. You've met someone personally. So looking at a picture, you decide something based on, on what you're seeing. So that was a no, that's Speaker 0 00:48:43 A great example. I wish I thought about myself, uh, Liberty, uh, looking at Roger's picture, you know, just looking at it if I'd never seen his previous photo say, well, this is probably a, uh, uh, kind of a real nature lover, maybe photographer, um, probably an environmentalist broken stop type guy. Um, and because this picture is the kind of thing I might expect from that. Um, now all that may be true of Richard. I Roger, sorry, I didn't mean to say, but I think you could infer a lot of things about you from the picture that probably aren't true, but just because the picture is, um, fits a certain stereotype or is close resembles a stereotype of a certain kind of person who would post that picture. Yeah. Great example Liberty. Thank you. Speaker 12 00:49:36 Environmentalist rock environmentalist. Roger says that we need to embrace nuclear. Speaker 11 00:49:42 <laugh> Speaker 3 00:49:48 Richard, did you wanna chime in, Speaker 8 00:49:50 I just wanted to ask quickly what David you mentioned, and I think it's true in recent years, maybe the, the, there was an increasing attention and classification of biases. Do you think this is a good thing from the standpoint of, they're really trying to remind people to think better or as some, as I think I'm noticing it's for purposes of showing skepticism, it's it's for purposes of, of saying to people everyone's bias and in these dozens of ways and to hell with no. So, you know, you know what I'm saying? On the one hand, it might be a good trend on the other hand, I'm wondering whether it's just a version of skepticism. Speaker 0 00:50:32 Um, again, great question. I, I think it's both, I mean, these biases have been used, um, uh, by skeptics, um, or implicit skeptics, you know, the lots of people psychology say, well, you know, we don't perceive reality directly. Um, it's filter all through the mind. They're, they're not maybe philosophical skeptics, but they're, um, they treated all, all these things as problems for objectivity and, but not, and they are problems if you, they need to be defined, what kind of problems are they for for objectivity? So I think, you know, this is fodder for a skeptic skeptics case on the one hand, but on the other hand, the more aware people are of them. Um, the more thoughtful they can be. And I think, you know, it's always when science, some branch of science gets popularized, you have people running off in all directions and speculating and, you know, doing, making up hair, hair, brain concepts, and, and theories. Um, so that's a danger, but still the awareness of it. And there's some very good, um, non site nontechnical sites, um, that I have found, um, uh, I don't wanna take time to look them up, look up my book parts right now, but Speaker 3 00:52:02 I'm not sure how much, you know, we have seven, seven minutes on the clock. Um, but, uh, I'm just thrilled to see a few others, uh, joined this stage. So, um, depending David on how much more time you have, uh, would love to get to, uh, Christopher, Speaker 13 00:52:20 Uh, but that's me, unless there's someone else called Christopher I'm, I'm not quite sure. <laugh>, it's you? Um, I, I wanted to ask David a question regarding stereotypes and whether, well I'm, I think he probably is familiar with this term heuristics I'm I remember reading an article in new scientist, uh, magazine, uh, about 10 years ago, um, in UK. Um, and they would just, I, I, I think it was in that. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was, um, how stereotypes and heuristics are, are, are they the same thing or what, what's the relationship though? Speaker 0 00:53:09 Um, hu the, um, some, some cognitive biases involve heuristics that is, uh, rules of thumb in thinking that, uh, are, are rules have thumb because they normally work, but not always. And, um, the biases is, uh, involved, counting on them so much and applying them outside their proper scope of, uh, application. So I mentioned rep, uh, and in fact, one, one section of our, our book is, uh, of, or chapters called heuristic biases. Um, I mentioned one of them is the representativeness that I, uh, was talking about with Liberty. Uh, another is availability, which I was mentioning before. Um, and they're, these are, uh, heuristics is heuristics are on the one hand more, more general than cognitive biases because of the logic PEs we use, um, in a lot of fields, rules of thumb, so to speak that applies to almost every, every field, that skill, uh, body of knowledge. Um, Speaker 0 00:54:20 And they're not, they don't always, uh, lead us into, um, biases or, or, or errors. But on the other hand, I'm sorry, if you hear a siren in the background I'm in Washington DC, um, I don't think it's the president going by. You would be, uh, it would be a long, long whale. Um, on the other hand, in the field of cognitive bias, heuristic biases, um, are only one category, uh, confirmation biases, something different. And, uh, some of the, um, uh, uh, cognitive dissidents, one, another one we talk about, that's not really an issue of a hu heuristic. Uh, so, um, yeah, their concepts are related, but not the same. Speaker 13 00:55:15 Um, I'm, I've just brought it up on Wikipedia, David, and I'm just reading what the word heuristic supposedly means a cons whoever's, who whoever's contributed to Wikipedia. Um, <affirmative> is it saying that, yeah, it's kind of like, uh, an approximation and I remember I ran saying that there's nothing worse than an approximation. Um, I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on that. Speaker 0 00:55:49 Uh, well, I think she was talking about certain kinds of approximations, um, especially in, in morality or compromising on, on principles. Uh, but we have to approximate, we don't have time, you know, we driving our car, we use a heuristic about how fast we're going and how fast is safe to go. Um, and you know, if I ask you, well, you know, if you're driving the car and I ask you, well, exactly how fast you're going, well, you're gonna gimme an answer that is within the range. So it's approximately right. But won't be, you know, what your, um, spin armor would tell you if, if you were looking at it directly. So I, I think, uh, Rand's concern was much narrower and specific. Speaker 14 00:56:39 All right, Speaker 6 00:56:40 JP, Speaker 14 00:56:43 Thank you. Um, my question is also for David. Um, the, the way that I, I have coped with, uh, confirmation or cognitive bias, um, is That, um, I, it was extremely hard emotionally for me to experience, um, Cognitive dissonance and the way I learned to cope it was to expose myself even as not, um, you know, through exposure. Psychologists would say that that is, that is what you do. Um, would you agree that as a practical philosopher's standpoint, this, this would be a, a good practice? Speaker 0 00:57:38 Um, I think we'd have to talk a little more for me to give you a good answer. Uh, one of the things that, um, with, uh, There are many, there are different forms of cognitive, uh, dissonance, um, but the, the core one has to do with, with, um, trying to eliminate dissonance between what you think of yourself and what you have done by denying one or the other, or modifying one or the other. And, um, Speaker 0 00:58:18 Uh, I, I think the answer is just has to be, make an effort to step back and say, well, which thing is true? Do I really have this trait that I thought I had? Did I really do something that violated that trait or, or commitment? Um, either answer may be the case. Um, and whichever thing you decide, you know, it's gonna lead to different practices, but, um, and <affirmative>, and so that might include exposing yourself more to it. Um, in, in the, in the way people often, uh, suggest dealing with phobias deal with the thing you're afraid of you, you know, just get immune to it. But, um, I think it depends on the, on the, um, particular issue and, and form of cognitive bias that you're dealing. I'm sorry, uh, dissonance that you for me. So let, just leave it there, um, Speaker 14 00:59:22 For now. Right. And, and I, and I think I took the advice, uh, by, uh, I ran on, uh, philosophy who needs it. I think it, the introduction is written by learner pick. I'm not remember if that's correct you, you can correct me on that, but he says, right. So, so this, this, this rabbit hole, uh, suggested rabbit hole of, of studying the Greeks and then Aristotle and then objective, and then go back to everything else. So it's, it's the journey then becomes way easier, Speaker 0 01:00:00 Uh, in a sense, yes. Speaker 3 01:00:03 Okay. Uh, David, um, we kept you over time and if you could just give us a few more minutes, uh, Mr. S Sabatini's been so patient and thoughtful in the comment section. So, um, Mr. Sini Or Mr. Rembrandt, sorry. Speaker 15 01:00:24 Thank you. I appreciate you the, let me come up on the stage and speak. Um, so my, my question is, um, Uh, so I've, I've done, um, I've, I've done a lot of reading in this space, so this is a, a really exciting, exciting space for me to listen, uh, to David speak. And, uh, I, I made an effort to even probably buy his book, um, seven habits of highly objective people. If I'm, if I'm, uh, giving the title verbatim, I think I missed it. Not, not exactly saying it the proper way, but, um, but Speaker 0 01:01:07 Right. And please enjoy. Speaker 15 01:01:10 Yeah. So my question is, um, I'm not familiar. I'm not sure if you're familiar, which I might think you are with the work of Robert Sternberg's work on, uh, tri theory and his work on, on intelligence, but Robert's, uh, uh, work that he has. Um, he talks about theory and one of the elements is, is practical intelligence. And within practical intelligence, it, it talks about a person's, you know, ability to essentially adapt to different, um, things around them, thoughts, abilities, and, uh, he has taken that and written another book about highly successful people in which he believes there are th they have the component of practical intelligence as a way of, um, constructing ideas and thoughts now, uh, individuals who, um, might have bad S or cognitive biases, and in which Daniel Kaman would say probably most people are system one thinkers, they're, they're generally using these, um, S uh, uh, uh, uh, excuse me, think, um, using fast S all day, it's a way that we, we use to, uh, go throughout our day without having to be mentally fatigued on having, you know, to use slow thinking thoughts, which are thoughts that are usually done to do math equations and so on and so forth. Speaker 15 01:02:55 So an individual who's engaging in too much, uh, uh, fast thinking S have the ability to be prone to more bias types of thoughts. Um, and so as an individual moves forward in trying to objectively ideas and be objective in conversations, um, it is, you know, highly important for them to, uh, try to then change from using slow S excuse me, change from using fast S to using slow ones. So, um, it, it's, it's a, is a, a construction of power person a as you said, um, meta, sorry, meta meta analysis, so speak. Um, so my question is with that said, how much of a person's, uh, ability to be objective by using practical in the practical intelligence aspect, um, is contributes to not using bad S and not using cognitive bias as a way of, um, becoming successful in life. Hopefully that was a transparent, uh, questio there. Thank you. Speaker 0 01:04:31 Um, it, it, I think it was transparent. It just, um, you know, there are a lot of things for, you mentioned, and to look at, um, <affirmative> so you talked about Sternberg and you talked about conman the, uh, in Sternberg I'm, I'm somewhat familiar with this theory of different types of intelligence. Uh, I haven't studied it, um, uh, or look at it in a long time, so I, I, I'm not up to speed on it. Um, it's but it's one of many efforts, uh, over the years to try to take different intellectual skills and abilities and, uh, ask, are there different kinds of intelligence, not just a single intelligence by IQ desks, and I think most, most thinkers, uh, who are in the field would say, yes, probably what they are is, um, I mean, it's classifying them is difficult task. Um, just as classifying, uh, personality traits by the, my, um, my Briggs, um, tests is, you know, it's better than nothing, but it's, um, it's only one way of looking at personality. Speaker 0 01:05:47 Well, similarly, the view of different intelligence is only one way to look at how the mind works. You know, I, it's getting at a very true point that the, the human mind is an amazingly complex thing. Um, and as an epistemologist, you know, I'm just functioning at the high level of intelligence with concept, you know, studying perception and concept formation. But, um, I will say that when you mentioned, um, practical intelligence, uh, I, I, I have done a little thinking and, and actually gave a talk on the capacity of judgment, which is, I think getting at what practical intelligence means. It's a kind of judgment that, uh, uh, a business executive has who makes, who just makes good decisions. Um, uh, that's why they make the big bucks, um, cuz their decisions, uh, turn out right more often than not. Um, and that's because they, they are integrating a lot of factors, not always consciously. Speaker 0 01:06:53 Um, so let me, let me shift to conman. Um, you're, we're talking about, you know, thinking fast and slow. That's actually the title of this, um, recent work on cognitive psychology by thinking and it's it, he's presenting a theory. That is some, I don't know if there's an accepted name of theory, but it's that the mind consist of two basic, uh, operations one is, um, more or less responses, um, to stimulate coming in, not reflexes per se, but cognitive, um, responses that operate very fast because they don't require us to think through or engage in logic, um, or analysis. Um, and we, we live a lot of lives on that lot of our lives on that basis and use heuristics that, um, they may be shortcuts in one sense, but they are fast, um, routes to get where we're going as opposed to slow thinking in conman CEO, um, is the deliberate conscious logical thinking through of an issue? Speaker 0 01:07:59 Um, I think, um, um, I'm not sure about that, that dual dual theory of, of how the mind or how cognition works, but it is clear that we rely on our subconscious great deal on what we've learned and automated. Uh, we're not in the, you know, the completely naive, you know, blank slate, cha uh, case, uh, situation of a child, everything we've learned, the ability to speak ability to think, um, it is all developed and automated. Um, and that's great. That's one of our, you know, great, um, capacities. Um, so, but I'm, I'm kind of thinking loud here trying to connect what you're saying or asking to, you know, elements of objective. Um, so I, I, I think I better leave, um, and let, uh, Jennifer Speaker 3 01:09:00 Wrap us up. <laugh> well, thank you. Um, thanks. Uh, professor Kelly, David, uh, for giving us this extra time, um, for this really thoughtful and engaging room. Um, thank you. Uh, Mr. Rembrandt and JP Liberty and professor Salzman, everybody, uh, who engaged with the conversation. I, uh, just pinned the, uh, link to the events section of our website. Um, I also highly recommend that when you go on the website, you sign up for updates. So you'll get notices of, uh, our clubhouse chats. We have two, at least two a week, uh, with our faculty here at the ATLA society. And, uh, we'd love to have you join us. Um, next week, uh, we have a, um, we have a clubhouse with, uh, professor Jason Hill, um, second part of his series on Ukraine and <affirmative> and, uh, then we also have, um, professor Richard Salzman on capitalism, the optimal ha habitat for humanity. So, um, I hope to see you guys there and thanks again for this wonderful, um, enlightening room. Speaker 0 01:10:15 Thanks everyone.