post hoc ergo propter hoc
February 24, 2008 9:51 AM Subscribe
Can you help me fix poor critical thinking in my high IQ but low education friends?
I don't know about other industries but in Hollywood there are a LOT of people with very high IQs and little-to-no education. A lot of them are actors who got such great traction early on that they went to performing arts High Schools and skipped college. That is the case for the person that is the focus of this question.
I have begun to notice a pattern in her thinking. It is something like a mix of confirmation bias with an almost-paranoid suspicion that there is conspiracy in anything they don't agree with or from anyone they don't like.
I should probably here request that we don't dwell on the arrogant, paternalistic and basically obnoxious tone of what I am trying to do -- let's just focus on the "how do you teach these skills?" aspect of the question.
To help clarify the kinds of thinking I am trying to get my friends to at least evaluate more critically:
"Airborn MUST work because I take it and I don't get a cold."
"Studies showing Vitamin C isn't effective at stopping colds are done in a field (general doctors and medecine) that competes with over-the-counter products like Airborn and so can't be trusted." "In other words, doctors don't want you to know you can just get Airborn and eat oranges to stay healthy."
"Bush must have known about the 911 attacks before-hand because he is the President."
"Bush personally knew that it was just a matter of time before the Katrina disaster and didn't do anything because those people don't vote for him."
Okay, so you get the idea of the kind of thinking I am trying to fight.
Putting aside the possibility that she is right about all those things and putting aside the question of whether they are right or wrong...
There is some kind of solipsism going on in these claims. Some kind of poor critical thinking. So the big questions is...
How do I teach a hostile listener that they are making these logical errors? Is there a good pop-science book that gives insight into this klind of thinking?
I don't know about other industries but in Hollywood there are a LOT of people with very high IQs and little-to-no education. A lot of them are actors who got such great traction early on that they went to performing arts High Schools and skipped college. That is the case for the person that is the focus of this question.
I have begun to notice a pattern in her thinking. It is something like a mix of confirmation bias with an almost-paranoid suspicion that there is conspiracy in anything they don't agree with or from anyone they don't like.
I should probably here request that we don't dwell on the arrogant, paternalistic and basically obnoxious tone of what I am trying to do -- let's just focus on the "how do you teach these skills?" aspect of the question.
To help clarify the kinds of thinking I am trying to get my friends to at least evaluate more critically:
"Airborn MUST work because I take it and I don't get a cold."
"Studies showing Vitamin C isn't effective at stopping colds are done in a field (general doctors and medecine) that competes with over-the-counter products like Airborn and so can't be trusted." "In other words, doctors don't want you to know you can just get Airborn and eat oranges to stay healthy."
"Bush must have known about the 911 attacks before-hand because he is the President."
"Bush personally knew that it was just a matter of time before the Katrina disaster and didn't do anything because those people don't vote for him."
Okay, so you get the idea of the kind of thinking I am trying to fight.
Putting aside the possibility that she is right about all those things and putting aside the question of whether they are right or wrong...
There is some kind of solipsism going on in these claims. Some kind of poor critical thinking. So the big questions is...
How do I teach a hostile listener that they are making these logical errors? Is there a good pop-science book that gives insight into this klind of thinking?
I can't think of a better way to lose a friend. You don't FIX your friends. You either accept them as they are or you, well, don't be friends with them -- which is an entirely acceptible option, fwiw.
posted by LordSludge at 9:58 AM on February 24, 2008 [15 favorites]
posted by LordSludge at 9:58 AM on February 24, 2008 [15 favorites]
What LordSludge said.
posted by fire&wings at 10:03 AM on February 24, 2008
posted by fire&wings at 10:03 AM on February 24, 2008
Look, if they arent smart enough to google logical fallacies on their own then they're not smart enough to stop believing stupid things. You cant fix people on this level. They'll need to want to fix themselves first. Theyre honestly not as smart as you make them out to be. Also you list a couple of conspiracy theories. Usually the motivation for believing a conspiracy theory isnt a lack of logic, its to serve emotional needs while dismissing logic. Adding more logic to the recipe isnt going to make any difference.
Perhaps its not as hopeless as I make it to be. Like i mentioned above, start googling logical fallacies and get cracking.
posted by damn dirty ape at 10:03 AM on February 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
Perhaps its not as hopeless as I make it to be. Like i mentioned above, start googling logical fallacies and get cracking.
posted by damn dirty ape at 10:03 AM on February 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
You're definitely not going to get anywhere if they think you're trying to repair their flaws. Maybe you could try pointing out the logical flaws of those they disagree with and see if something takes root.
posted by winston at 10:10 AM on February 24, 2008
posted by winston at 10:10 AM on February 24, 2008
Snopes is your best weapon here. Keep sending them links until they develop some critical thinking skills of their own.
And this doesn't have to kill a friendship, my SO has yet to meet a conspiracy theory or quack cure he doesn't like and I'm a research scientist. Arguing about the effects of collodial silver and the likelihood that Roswell was a coverup gives us something to do on rainy days.
posted by fshgrl at 10:14 AM on February 24, 2008 [3 favorites]
And this doesn't have to kill a friendship, my SO has yet to meet a conspiracy theory or quack cure he doesn't like and I'm a research scientist. Arguing about the effects of collodial silver and the likelihood that Roswell was a coverup gives us something to do on rainy days.
posted by fshgrl at 10:14 AM on February 24, 2008 [3 favorites]
I wouldn't say anything unless she does something dangerous. (ex: use woo or homeopathy for cancer instead of chemo.)
A lot of people are heavily invested in relying on emotions or mysticism instead of logic. Usually there's a reason, and trying to debunk her way of thinking will be met with serious opposition. Let it go and enjoy your friendship.
posted by red_lotus at 10:21 AM on February 24, 2008
A lot of people are heavily invested in relying on emotions or mysticism instead of logic. Usually there's a reason, and trying to debunk her way of thinking will be met with serious opposition. Let it go and enjoy your friendship.
posted by red_lotus at 10:21 AM on February 24, 2008
Airborne: Dumb people and smart people fall for marketing as well. That's the beauty of it. I am in medical school. Many of my classmates are quite smart. One of them recently had a cold, and he was chewing on Airbornes constantly. When I asked him why he was doing this, he said he heard it might reduce the length of his cold. He admitted he had no real evidence, it was just something he "felt" might work. He agreed that if anything was going to work, then antivirals probably would be a better bet. Nonetheless, he continued to eat Airbornes compulsively, despite agreeing that there were worryingly high levels of zinc in the formulation. His cold lasted around a week, but he claimed that it "might have been" longer without the candies. In my class, I have also met several people who disbelieve in evolution through natural selection are are straight up and up Abrahamic Creationists, and one notable person who sincerely believes that the entire Apollo moon landings program was a con job using Hollywood special effects. They claim never to have seen Capricorn One.
So, you get woolly thinking everywhere. Demon-Haunted World is a good book to learn how to use critical thinking.
posted by meehawl at 10:27 AM on February 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
So, you get woolly thinking everywhere. Demon-Haunted World is a good book to learn how to use critical thinking.
posted by meehawl at 10:27 AM on February 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
Perhaps try to expose her to books that aren't so much about the things that she cares about, but rather showcase a logical, analytical method. Guns, Germs, and Steel or various TED Talks. I think trying to actively convince her to change will be futile and painful for all involved, but I also doubt she has an accurate idea of the other side.
posted by Schismatic at 10:28 AM on February 24, 2008
posted by Schismatic at 10:28 AM on February 24, 2008
That is the case for the person that is the focus of this question.
I'm rather getting the impression that this is one person in particular - a special person maybe?
nthing the accept them as they are or find different friends view. Your friend(s) are happy in their views of the world - can't you agree to disagree?
If this is someone special that clearly makes it more difficult - your expectations are higher and if this lack of critical thinking bothers you now it will bother you more over time...
Also have to agree with damn dirty ape - intelligent people normally note inconsistencies in arguments and develop these facilities in due course - irrespective of their education. Likewise higher education will not really allow a thick person to think critically.
I have older family members who didn't benefit from higher education but are exellent critical thinkers. Likewise I have met people at university who were nominally educated, i.e. had passed exams because their parents pushed them and they had good work ethic but they were nevertheless incapable of critical thinking...
posted by koahiatamadl at 10:31 AM on February 24, 2008
I'm rather getting the impression that this is one person in particular - a special person maybe?
nthing the accept them as they are or find different friends view. Your friend(s) are happy in their views of the world - can't you agree to disagree?
If this is someone special that clearly makes it more difficult - your expectations are higher and if this lack of critical thinking bothers you now it will bother you more over time...
Also have to agree with damn dirty ape - intelligent people normally note inconsistencies in arguments and develop these facilities in due course - irrespective of their education. Likewise higher education will not really allow a thick person to think critically.
I have older family members who didn't benefit from higher education but are exellent critical thinkers. Likewise I have met people at university who were nominally educated, i.e. had passed exams because their parents pushed them and they had good work ethic but they were nevertheless incapable of critical thinking...
posted by koahiatamadl at 10:31 AM on February 24, 2008
I don't know how to fight it, exactly, but it might help you find resources to think of these things as spiritualism. If nature (oranges) trumps science (whatever doctors would have you do instead), then don't you have a God?
Some people just want to believe that there's magic in the world; it helps them feel like life is worth living. And since ghosts and wizards and whatever else have been debunked, then they look for other instances of life having magic -- forgotten natural cures (shamanism), world leaders with the kind of power combined with evil to arrange 9/11 or ignore Katrina.
posted by xo at 10:32 AM on February 24, 2008
Some people just want to believe that there's magic in the world; it helps them feel like life is worth living. And since ghosts and wizards and whatever else have been debunked, then they look for other instances of life having magic -- forgotten natural cures (shamanism), world leaders with the kind of power combined with evil to arrange 9/11 or ignore Katrina.
posted by xo at 10:32 AM on February 24, 2008
Don't think of her/them as "hostile listeners". Accept them at their face value, accept them for who they are, unless they are doing something which will actively hurt them or another being. Engage the person in debate without being condescending.
If I had someone trying to "improve my thinking" (I never went to college, and studied mostly arts in high school), I would start to avoid that person. You may want to think about the "arrogant, paternalistic and basically obnoxious tone of what" you are trying to do, and why you want to do it. Why is this person your friend if you have to suffer through so much to deal with them?
posted by kellyblah at 10:35 AM on February 24, 2008
If I had someone trying to "improve my thinking" (I never went to college, and studied mostly arts in high school), I would start to avoid that person. You may want to think about the "arrogant, paternalistic and basically obnoxious tone of what" you are trying to do, and why you want to do it. Why is this person your friend if you have to suffer through so much to deal with them?
posted by kellyblah at 10:35 AM on February 24, 2008
I'm with LordSludge. A friend is welcome to disagree with me at any time, but anyone who tries to 'fix" me will fast find themselves out the door.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:44 AM on February 24, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:44 AM on February 24, 2008 [3 favorites]
Whatever it is, it's nothing to do with education. I suggest that a six-year-old could perceive the kind of fallacy inherent in "Airborn MUST work because I take it and I don't get a cold." You just have to roll with the blows ;) I have a friend who, when she gets a bit of money, goes and spends it on a mystic lady who gives her a bit of reassurance about the future. Why should I worry, if I'm not planning on getting married to her?
posted by londongeezer at 10:46 AM on February 24, 2008
posted by londongeezer at 10:46 AM on February 24, 2008
Response by poster: lordsludge and similars: you are hilarious. there is no danger of losing this relationship. she is a good friend with whom i regularly spend 10 hours of beer-inspired debating, hopping up and down and generally having a good time yelling at each other about whether it is reasonable for her to believe navy seals blew the levies on purpose.
this is why i suggested we not worry about that aspect. i figured going into my relationship with her was not to the point. she's just a friend, btw, not a significant other.
but i understand, it's easy to read a question like this and imagine her as a poor, intellectually bullied girl and me as an over-educated ogre trying to fix her. ha ha.
like for example, this question is spurred because we made a deal last night that i would take airborne for a year and she would read 2 books on critical thinking of my choice. so i am looking for something to make her read... and this morning i found a bottle of airborne with a bow on it on my front door.
worry not.
posted by robotdog at 10:46 AM on February 24, 2008
this is why i suggested we not worry about that aspect. i figured going into my relationship with her was not to the point. she's just a friend, btw, not a significant other.
but i understand, it's easy to read a question like this and imagine her as a poor, intellectually bullied girl and me as an over-educated ogre trying to fix her. ha ha.
like for example, this question is spurred because we made a deal last night that i would take airborne for a year and she would read 2 books on critical thinking of my choice. so i am looking for something to make her read... and this morning i found a bottle of airborne with a bow on it on my front door.
worry not.
posted by robotdog at 10:46 AM on February 24, 2008
Books, eh? Nothing like a bit of Feynman to instill a rational world view.
For starters, Richard Feynman on "Cargo Cult Science"
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 10:50 AM on February 24, 2008
For starters, Richard Feynman on "Cargo Cult Science"
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 10:50 AM on February 24, 2008
Two great books are In Gods We Trust and Religion Explained.
The second one in particular changed the way I think (and made me a lot more tolerant). Both examine the evolutionary roots of belief in the supernatural, rather than being treatises on religion as the titles might lead you to believe. Religion Explained spends a lot of time explaining why some supernatural beliefs are widely embraced by mentally healthy folks and others are dismissed out of hand by the same people as crazy talk. Absolutely fascinating stuff.
I, for one, would like to applaud you for working to bring scientific realism to Hollywood.
posted by fshgrl at 10:56 AM on February 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
The second one in particular changed the way I think (and made me a lot more tolerant). Both examine the evolutionary roots of belief in the supernatural, rather than being treatises on religion as the titles might lead you to believe. Religion Explained spends a lot of time explaining why some supernatural beliefs are widely embraced by mentally healthy folks and others are dismissed out of hand by the same people as crazy talk. Absolutely fascinating stuff.
I, for one, would like to applaud you for working to bring scientific realism to Hollywood.
posted by fshgrl at 10:56 AM on February 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
Also be careful taking Airborne for a year, that stuff is loaded with zinc.
posted by fshgrl at 10:57 AM on February 24, 2008
posted by fshgrl at 10:57 AM on February 24, 2008
Well, I'm surprised no one has suggested "Why People Believe Strange Things" by Michael Shermer. Here's another good one.
posted by TochterAusElysium at 10:59 AM on February 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by TochterAusElysium at 10:59 AM on February 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
Conspiracy theories are common amongst the smart-yet-ill-educated. They allow the theorist to feel superior to all those "highfalutin' intellectuals with their fancy book-learning," while at the same time confirming all of their own personal suspicions and biases. I ran into this problem with a former roommate, who would rattle off the most bizarre unsubstantiated conspiracy theories at the drop of a hat.
When I find myself in conversations like the ones you mention, I try to point out the difference between a conspiracy and a confluence of interests. For example, as plausible as it may seem that Bush knew about 9/11, we have absolutely no evidence to that effect. Thus, it's useless to talk about a conspiracy. However, you can certainly point to the deep ties between the Bush administration and the oil and defense interests, and show how it just happened to be in all of their best interests to start a war in Iraq. And although we have no proof that Bush knew about 9/11, you can certainly point to instances where he consciously benefited from it - which, to my mind, is nearly as despicable. See? No conspiracy theory necessary. All of damning evidence is available right out there in the open, without needing to resort to empty speculation.
Still, I could understand if you don't want to involve yourself so deeply in a conversation like this. I didn't have a whole lot of luck with my roommate, which I regret. In the end, it may just be helpful for you to familiarize yourself with why conspiracy theorists think the way they do. For that, I would recommend Shermer's excellent book, Why People Believe Weird Things.
posted by Afroblanco at 11:00 AM on February 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
When I find myself in conversations like the ones you mention, I try to point out the difference between a conspiracy and a confluence of interests. For example, as plausible as it may seem that Bush knew about 9/11, we have absolutely no evidence to that effect. Thus, it's useless to talk about a conspiracy. However, you can certainly point to the deep ties between the Bush administration and the oil and defense interests, and show how it just happened to be in all of their best interests to start a war in Iraq. And although we have no proof that Bush knew about 9/11, you can certainly point to instances where he consciously benefited from it - which, to my mind, is nearly as despicable. See? No conspiracy theory necessary. All of damning evidence is available right out there in the open, without needing to resort to empty speculation.
Still, I could understand if you don't want to involve yourself so deeply in a conversation like this. I didn't have a whole lot of luck with my roommate, which I regret. In the end, it may just be helpful for you to familiarize yourself with why conspiracy theorists think the way they do. For that, I would recommend Shermer's excellent book, Why People Believe Weird Things.
posted by Afroblanco at 11:00 AM on February 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
You could try a course of How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World by Francis Wheen. Or direct her to the Wikipedia page on fallacies.
posted by tiny crocodile at 11:36 AM on February 24, 2008
posted by tiny crocodile at 11:36 AM on February 24, 2008
In the same scenario a friend in high school gave me a copy of "How to Lie with Statistics". It really helped me in so many ways. And if I remember right it has cartoons. It is included in a good list of critical thinking books on Amazon.
posted by cda at 12:04 PM on February 24, 2008
posted by cda at 12:04 PM on February 24, 2008
Sophie's World - a history of philosophy in narrative form.
I was dating a person like this for a long time. We got along in most ways, so it wasn't easy just to leave her because of her superstitious tendencies. I found it very frustrating, and I can understand your dilemma, which is why I don't understand why you or other people are so eager to dismiss your concern as arrogant or obnoxious. How can people not be up in arms about the legions of religious nuts combing the solar system for vulnerable converts to back-water, antiquated, debunked myth, yet when somebody wants to help a friend to try to deal more in knowable facts than specious reasoning, they get more abuse than praise? I believe this is reprehensible. Let there be more people in the world like you who are motivated for your own sanity and for the best interests of your friends to "convert" people to reality so as to at least moderately temper the unfounded and counter-productive thinking that plagues us as a race.
When I read your questions I thought, maybe this person is more than a friend to you. Maybe you love her, or maybe she's an annoying client who has hired you as a life-coach or something. The point is people should consider possible scenarios before going off on a tirade.
Anyway, when my ex and I broke it off she got a job in a lawfirm. Somehow the prolonged exposure to people who must deal in what is provable helped dissuade her from her tendency toward dismissive paranoid malarky.
The root of the problem, in my ex's case, was a desire to seem more clever than what she considered herself to be in her own unspoken estimation. So, ironically, her doubts about her intellectual capacity were at the root of her specious thinking. The more confident she became in her ability to deal in facts, the less prone she was to superstition.
Life is full of magic. The combination of organic material and electricity only go so far in explaining the existance of the human race. Nothing would be as it is without intent on the part of some higher power, and while the details of that intent are hidden from us, we know that the higher power gave us the ability to reason, and to ignore it is to ignore all possible sense of purpose in life.
posted by tosteka at 12:27 PM on February 24, 2008 [2 favorites]
I was dating a person like this for a long time. We got along in most ways, so it wasn't easy just to leave her because of her superstitious tendencies. I found it very frustrating, and I can understand your dilemma, which is why I don't understand why you or other people are so eager to dismiss your concern as arrogant or obnoxious. How can people not be up in arms about the legions of religious nuts combing the solar system for vulnerable converts to back-water, antiquated, debunked myth, yet when somebody wants to help a friend to try to deal more in knowable facts than specious reasoning, they get more abuse than praise? I believe this is reprehensible. Let there be more people in the world like you who are motivated for your own sanity and for the best interests of your friends to "convert" people to reality so as to at least moderately temper the unfounded and counter-productive thinking that plagues us as a race.
When I read your questions I thought, maybe this person is more than a friend to you. Maybe you love her, or maybe she's an annoying client who has hired you as a life-coach or something. The point is people should consider possible scenarios before going off on a tirade.
Anyway, when my ex and I broke it off she got a job in a lawfirm. Somehow the prolonged exposure to people who must deal in what is provable helped dissuade her from her tendency toward dismissive paranoid malarky.
The root of the problem, in my ex's case, was a desire to seem more clever than what she considered herself to be in her own unspoken estimation. So, ironically, her doubts about her intellectual capacity were at the root of her specious thinking. The more confident she became in her ability to deal in facts, the less prone she was to superstition.
Life is full of magic. The combination of organic material and electricity only go so far in explaining the existance of the human race. Nothing would be as it is without intent on the part of some higher power, and while the details of that intent are hidden from us, we know that the higher power gave us the ability to reason, and to ignore it is to ignore all possible sense of purpose in life.
posted by tosteka at 12:27 PM on February 24, 2008 [2 favorites]
Ha ha ha - I feel your pain: I could have written this question myself. I think the "don't fix your friends" responses are a bit high and mighty, and perhaps not understanding of what I consider to be quite a unique phenomenon here in Tinseltown (which I think you clarified pretty well).
I don't think there's a book or an answer, but what I personally do in these situations is just ask why. So on Thursday when a noticeably intelligent colleague told me that "people in poorer countries are happier than us," I just politely asked her what her sources were and what she was defining as happiness. She took the point. Of course the art is to do this without coming over as a condescending prick.
Generally I find that in these situations people either realize they're just passing on daft small-talk biscuits and are a bit embarrassed, or they don't and you kinda learn to tune out their junk. That's as far as you can go I think.
posted by forallmankind at 12:36 PM on February 24, 2008
I don't think there's a book or an answer, but what I personally do in these situations is just ask why. So on Thursday when a noticeably intelligent colleague told me that "people in poorer countries are happier than us," I just politely asked her what her sources were and what she was defining as happiness. She took the point. Of course the art is to do this without coming over as a condescending prick.
Generally I find that in these situations people either realize they're just passing on daft small-talk biscuits and are a bit embarrassed, or they don't and you kinda learn to tune out their junk. That's as far as you can go I think.
posted by forallmankind at 12:36 PM on February 24, 2008
From an above comment: "Nothing would be as it is without intent on the part of some higher power, and while the details of that intent are hidden from us we know that the higher power gave us the ability to reason, and to ignore it is to ignore all possible sense of purpose in life."
This is a perfect opportunity to point out a fallacy. This comment suffers from:
Burden of Proof. Where is there ANY proof for that comment?
Ignoring a common cause. That statement ignores the possiblity that the universe may not have a creator or if it does it may be that human life is an unintended temporary side-effect.
Also its traditional religious comment without proof and roughly suffers from these also:
Fallacy of belief.
Appeal to tradition.
Cause and effect. Its also possible that humans create gods in their image, not the other way around.
posted by damn dirty ape at 12:52 PM on February 24, 2008 [2 favorites]
This is a perfect opportunity to point out a fallacy. This comment suffers from:
Burden of Proof. Where is there ANY proof for that comment?
Ignoring a common cause. That statement ignores the possiblity that the universe may not have a creator or if it does it may be that human life is an unintended temporary side-effect.
Also its traditional religious comment without proof and roughly suffers from these also:
Fallacy of belief.
Appeal to tradition.
Cause and effect. Its also possible that humans create gods in their image, not the other way around.
posted by damn dirty ape at 12:52 PM on February 24, 2008 [2 favorites]
quite a unique phenomenon here in Tinseltown
Hilarious that people bragging about their critical thinking skills are able to, with a straight face, come to the conclusion that people in a metropolis like Los Angeles are more gullible than in say, Kansas, or Romania.
Anyway, whenever someone tells me they're taking Airborne, I say, "Really? I'm using Sugar Pill? Want some?" it doesn't really help, but it's fun.
posted by drjimmy11 at 2:28 PM on February 24, 2008
Hilarious that people bragging about their critical thinking skills are able to, with a straight face, come to the conclusion that people in a metropolis like Los Angeles are more gullible than in say, Kansas, or Romania.
Anyway, whenever someone tells me they're taking Airborne, I say, "Really? I'm using Sugar Pill? Want some?" it doesn't really help, but it's fun.
posted by drjimmy11 at 2:28 PM on February 24, 2008
One has to question the sincerity of this question. The OP is committing their own extremely harmful confirmation bias in the second paragraph.
Moreover, is the point to enrich the lives of your targets, or to feel better about your own beliefs? For instance, the Placebo Effect is scientifically proven and eminently reproducible. Letting people believe in something that is a placebo in your worldview still may have a provable positive net effect in their lives. Why do other people's beliefs bother you so much?
Or maybe it's about time to balance out those initial explorations of the Skeptic's Dictionary with some Kierkegaard and Sartre.
posted by Skwirl at 3:13 PM on February 24, 2008
Moreover, is the point to enrich the lives of your targets, or to feel better about your own beliefs? For instance, the Placebo Effect is scientifically proven and eminently reproducible. Letting people believe in something that is a placebo in your worldview still may have a provable positive net effect in their lives. Why do other people's beliefs bother you so much?
Or maybe it's about time to balance out those initial explorations of the Skeptic's Dictionary with some Kierkegaard and Sartre.
posted by Skwirl at 3:13 PM on February 24, 2008
Is it just scientific reasoning (cause and effect) or other kinds of critical thinking too?
Critical Thinking university textbooks are, unfortunately, expensive. Offhand, among textbooks you might try:
Critical Thinking by Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker (lots of color pictures and sidebarred little stories, hence more expensive)
or
Asking the Right Questions by M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley (short and sweet)
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:36 PM on February 24, 2008
Critical Thinking university textbooks are, unfortunately, expensive. Offhand, among textbooks you might try:
Critical Thinking by Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker (lots of color pictures and sidebarred little stories, hence more expensive)
or
Asking the Right Questions by M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley (short and sweet)
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:36 PM on February 24, 2008
As for post hoc, my method is usually to give ten examples where it's obviously a bad reason to form a belief. (ditto for correlation not implying causation)
-I took a sip of beer, and the Red Sox scored a home run. I'm going to take another sip of beer to help them score again.
-I thought about death, and today there was a car bombing in Baghdad. I need to stop my negative thinking!
-The number of internet users increased over the last ten years, at the same time as the number of cell phones increased. Cell phone use causes internet use.
(etc)
Then say, look, this is the same reasoning pattern you're using. This is a reasoning pattern that does not reliably lead to true beliefs.
So she'll say, but look, isn't this how science works?
Then have to explain how good scientific reasoning works. Here's a cartoon:
1. Observation (eg observing that healing follows taking Airborne) leads to forming a causal hypothesis. (Airborne causes healing) This is fine. This is what your friend is doing, but she's stopping at this step in the process.
2. So far so good! But observation alone is not enough to confirm that hypothesis, because there are other "relevant alternative hypotheses" -- other plausible explanations that haven't been ruled out. Not just any old explanations (eg, magic gnomes made my cold go away), but ones that we are obliged to take into account, because they are plausible alternatives given the rest of what we know about how the world works (eg getting adequate rest and liquids made my cold go away).
3. To rule out these relevant alternative hypotheses, we need to do controlled experiments, in which we hold certain things fixed between the experimental (taking Airborne) and control (no Airborne) groups of subjects. We control for "confounding variables". Which variables we control for depends on what our relevant alternative hypotheses are -- in this case, we would want the two groups to have the same amounts of rest and liquids, and we'll probably want them to be similar in other ways too (eg no pre-existing illnesses, no immune system damage, etc). We also want the subject groups to be representative of the general population in which we're trying to establish an effect (eg if they're all 90 year olds, then our results might not hold for 25 year olds)
4. We do the study "double blind", to be sure that we don't fall victim to confirmation bias or the placebo effect.
5. We analyze the results with appropriate statistical techniques rather than interpreting the results qualitatively, to further reduce the likelihood of confirmation bias.
6. We would reflect on our work to see if there were any unexpected confounding variables.
7. We send out our study to be peer reviewed by other experts in our discipline, so they can detect any scientific errors we have made.
8. We check our results against the rest of what we believe about how the world works, and try to understand the mechanisms. Suppose we found that Airborne increased the likelihood of healing within a week. Then we would try to figure out what the likely mechanisms of this were -- how is Airborne accomplishing this? It has minerals and vitamins, and they have some effect on body systems... what systems do they effect and what do they do? Once we formulated hypotheses, we would do another round of experiments designed to test those hypotheses.
(etc)
posted by LobsterMitten at 4:05 PM on February 24, 2008 [4 favorites]
-I took a sip of beer, and the Red Sox scored a home run. I'm going to take another sip of beer to help them score again.
-I thought about death, and today there was a car bombing in Baghdad. I need to stop my negative thinking!
-The number of internet users increased over the last ten years, at the same time as the number of cell phones increased. Cell phone use causes internet use.
(etc)
Then say, look, this is the same reasoning pattern you're using. This is a reasoning pattern that does not reliably lead to true beliefs.
So she'll say, but look, isn't this how science works?
Then have to explain how good scientific reasoning works. Here's a cartoon:
1. Observation (eg observing that healing follows taking Airborne) leads to forming a causal hypothesis. (Airborne causes healing) This is fine. This is what your friend is doing, but she's stopping at this step in the process.
2. So far so good! But observation alone is not enough to confirm that hypothesis, because there are other "relevant alternative hypotheses" -- other plausible explanations that haven't been ruled out. Not just any old explanations (eg, magic gnomes made my cold go away), but ones that we are obliged to take into account, because they are plausible alternatives given the rest of what we know about how the world works (eg getting adequate rest and liquids made my cold go away).
3. To rule out these relevant alternative hypotheses, we need to do controlled experiments, in which we hold certain things fixed between the experimental (taking Airborne) and control (no Airborne) groups of subjects. We control for "confounding variables". Which variables we control for depends on what our relevant alternative hypotheses are -- in this case, we would want the two groups to have the same amounts of rest and liquids, and we'll probably want them to be similar in other ways too (eg no pre-existing illnesses, no immune system damage, etc). We also want the subject groups to be representative of the general population in which we're trying to establish an effect (eg if they're all 90 year olds, then our results might not hold for 25 year olds)
4. We do the study "double blind", to be sure that we don't fall victim to confirmation bias or the placebo effect.
5. We analyze the results with appropriate statistical techniques rather than interpreting the results qualitatively, to further reduce the likelihood of confirmation bias.
6. We would reflect on our work to see if there were any unexpected confounding variables.
7. We send out our study to be peer reviewed by other experts in our discipline, so they can detect any scientific errors we have made.
8. We check our results against the rest of what we believe about how the world works, and try to understand the mechanisms. Suppose we found that Airborne increased the likelihood of healing within a week. Then we would try to figure out what the likely mechanisms of this were -- how is Airborne accomplishing this? It has minerals and vitamins, and they have some effect on body systems... what systems do they effect and what do they do? Once we formulated hypotheses, we would do another round of experiments designed to test those hypotheses.
(etc)
posted by LobsterMitten at 4:05 PM on February 24, 2008 [4 favorites]
I don't think this has to do with a lack of education. Education is so specialized these days that someone who was tracked into the sciences / medicine may know very little about the humanities, regard "art" as a liberal conspiracy, etc.; people who concentrated on the humanities frequently know nothing about science or medicine and buy into conspiracy theories about drugs, vaccines, food additives, and the like. We all are undereducated if the standard of education is total all-around knowledge.
My favorite instance is the recent NYTM Ethicist column query about the graduate student in early modern European history who was a Young Earth creationist.
posted by bad grammar at 4:21 PM on February 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
My favorite instance is the recent NYTM Ethicist column query about the graduate student in early modern European history who was a Young Earth creationist.
posted by bad grammar at 4:21 PM on February 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
Asking the Right Questions is short, inexpensive, easy to read, and does a good job of laying out the main issues if you are looking for a book. But it might come off as condescending to give to a friend (it is pretty basic stuff).
I also wanted to note that by setting this up as an argument, she is going to be psychologically determined to 'win", so rather than really trying to understand and consider your thoughts, she'll be motivated to fight against them and come up with counterclaims that can defeat them. Instead of proving her wrong, I would just be the rational friend who casually points out errors from time to time, especially if she's spending a lot of money or time on something. Don't try to be her teacher - if she really is as smart as you think, her thought patterns will change over time.
I've known a lot of people who believed in a lot more nonsense in high school and college than they do as 30-something adults (the cliche is ideological thinking, generally, but it expands into all kinds of conspiracy theory stuff and weird UFO etc stuff too).
posted by mdn at 8:20 PM on February 24, 2008
I also wanted to note that by setting this up as an argument, she is going to be psychologically determined to 'win", so rather than really trying to understand and consider your thoughts, she'll be motivated to fight against them and come up with counterclaims that can defeat them. Instead of proving her wrong, I would just be the rational friend who casually points out errors from time to time, especially if she's spending a lot of money or time on something. Don't try to be her teacher - if she really is as smart as you think, her thought patterns will change over time.
I've known a lot of people who believed in a lot more nonsense in high school and college than they do as 30-something adults (the cliche is ideological thinking, generally, but it expands into all kinds of conspiracy theory stuff and weird UFO etc stuff too).
posted by mdn at 8:20 PM on February 24, 2008
Ah, okay, my mistake -- if this is all a tongue-in-cheek, fun sorta thing, then rock on. I just didn't get that from the original question and completely misread the tone as more of a "I have an idiot friend. Help me fix them." thing, which happens ALL THE TIME from well-meaning people.
Carry on.
posted by LordSludge at 9:59 AM on February 25, 2008
Carry on.
posted by LordSludge at 9:59 AM on February 25, 2008
Actually, How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World contains a interesting discussion of why everyone thinks it's rude to point out when others are being nonsensical (and why you should do it anyway).
posted by tiny crocodile at 11:06 AM on February 25, 2008
posted by tiny crocodile at 11:06 AM on February 25, 2008
Usually this kind of thing involves people substituting their conception of the world for reality, and there are ample opportunities to point out where reality is inconsistent with their working model of it. People who are smart, but don't have a lot of time for reflection learn to make more-or-less correct snap judgments and to rely on their working models of a situation instead of continually observing the reality of the situation.
Strange as it may sound, I'd encourage her to find more time for reflection and detached observation. Something like Yoga or meditation might help.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 3:44 PM on February 25, 2008 [1 favorite]
Strange as it may sound, I'd encourage her to find more time for reflection and detached observation. Something like Yoga or meditation might help.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 3:44 PM on February 25, 2008 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
Show her that episode of the Simpsons with the bear patrol (3F20, "Much Apu About Nothing"). Every time she makes commits a post hoc fallacy, quote this:
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The "Bear Patrol" is working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: [uncomprehendingly] Thanks, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work; it's just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: (pause) Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 9:58 AM on February 24, 2008 [14 favorites]