Thinking about thinking

This is the first of a planned two posts that I've been mulling over and sporadically writing notes to myself about over the last year or so. This first post is a very brief overview of some important concepts and well established results of psychology that help me think about my thinking. The second post is about valuing scientific expertise and why our non-expert default position should be to believe scientific consensuses, or at the very least, to be comfortable in saying, "I don't know". Both include a lot of links to further reading and learning if you're so inclined.  

Why?

Since the ascendancy of Donald Trump to the White House, and now with the coronavirus pandemic, I've noticed a lot of weird beliefs and thinking take hold across social media. Common to these groups is the idea that "the media" and other non-specific all-powerful groups or people (the "deep state", Bill Gates) are manipulating us with their "fake news", false narratives and sinister motives; that scientists and so-called "experts" can't be trusted. Unlike me, this new group of free and critical thinking peoples see the truth; the scales have fallen from their eyes (not that they are being manipulated by an authoritarian dictator and a disinformation campaign). I, on the other hand, as someone who tends to take experts and journalists who have a proven track record at face value, am one of the “sheeple”.

Arguing with people who have fallen down the YouTube and Facebook rabbit hole about their specific beliefs and claims is exhausting and likely to backfire. As such, I thought I'd take a different tack and discuss how I think about critical thinking vs non-critical and pseudo-critical thinking, and the importance of valuing expertise. 

If I have sent you a link to this post, it's because I know I won't convince you about whatever it is we're disagreeing about. I'm not even going to try. Forget about whatever it was we were discussing as it’s not specific to what follows. What I hope to do is to show how I think about any claim, how I try to reflect on my own thinking (I'm not always successful), and in another post, why I think we should all value and respect expertise. 

Critical thinking vs non-critical and pseudo-critical thinking

First, I think it's important to distinguish between the three different modes of thinking that to some degree we all use to come to a point of view — critical thinking, non-critical thinking (see Kahneman's slow and fast thinking) and pseudo-critical thinking.

Belief Survey results

Results from the "Belief Survey"

It's been a few weeks since I closed off this survey, so I thought I'd better supply the results.

 

 

There are people who can read other people's minds.
	True 2 3% Probably True 5 7% Equally likely/Don’t know 3 4% Probably false 11 16% False 46 69% People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.

People can be cured by faith healers.
	True 2 3% Probably True 4 6% Equally likely/Don’t know 9 13% Probably false 12 18% False 40 60% People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.

The positions of the sun, stars and planets at birth can affect a person's body, character and destiny.
	True 1 1% Probably True 1 1% Equally likely/Don’t know 3 4% Probably false 6 9% False 56 84% People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.

There are people who can see into the future.
	True 2 3% Probably True 4 6% Equally likely/Don’t know 3 4% Probably false 8 12% False 50 75% People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.

Poltergeists (ghosts) can move physical objects.
	True 5 7% Probably True 3 4% Equally likely/Don’t know 3 4% Probably false 4 6% False 52 78% People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.

There are people who can talk to the spirits of the dead.
	True 4 6% Probably True 2 3% Equally likely/Don’t know 5 7% Probably false 4 6% False 52 78% People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.

After a physical body dies, a person can reincarnate in another physical body.
	True 1 1% Probably True 1 1% Equally likely/Don’t know 8 12% Probably false 8 12% False 49 73% People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.

There are people who have been possessed by demons.
	True 3 4% Probably True 3 4% Equally likely/Don’t know 9 13% Probably false 5 7% False 47 70% People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.

There is life elsewhere in the universe.
	True 12 18% Probably True 34 51% Equally likely/Don’t know 15 22% Probably false 3 4% False 3 4% People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.

Alien spacecraft have landed on the Earth.
	True 0 0% Probably True 0 0% Equally likely/Don’t know 11 16% Probably false 28 42% False 28 42% People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.

There are people who have been abducted by space aliens.
	True 0 0% Probably True 0 0% Equally likely/Don’t know 5 7% Probably false 19 28% False 43 64% People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.

Historical Origins of Acupuncture

Contrary to the common assumption of Chinese cultural origins of acupuncture...

Acupuncture was first used in the American midwest.

It was commonly offered by a husband and wife team of traditional medicine practitioners. The husband usually took the role of acupuncturist, while the wife specialised in mercy killing (now more commonly known as euthanasia).

The mere prospect of treatment usually resulted in the instantaneous recovery of the patient.

The practice died out along with patients and the rise of scientific medicine in the West.

The Chinese continue the practice on a large scale today, but because they use woosey little needles instead of pitchforks, at least they do little harm.

Derren Brown demonstrates personal validation

This is called the Forer effect. A good antidote to The One.

"The One" thing not worth watching

...on TV. Okay, there's plenty of other things to not bother with on TV too. But the show, The One, is up against The Simpsons. It's a no brainer.

I had started to write a detailed post about “The One”, but the show is so credulous and poorly done, I can’t be bothered. I also can’t be bothered to explain the background of this show – read it from the link above.

All I’ll say is the obvious flaw is they should have seven non-psychics doing the tests with the seven psychics. (Even better if it's double blind and no one knows who is a "real" psychic and who is a fake.) If the psychics beat the non-psychics hands down – there you go. Without a control group, the tests are essentially meaningless. Moreover, because it’s TV, they do a test only once. That isn’t even close to being methodologically sound. I could use it as a test item in my science classes. “Q1: Identity two flaws in experimental design that essentially make ‘The One’ complete BS.”

They should have also employed a magician to perform cold-reading etc. They could have even just explained cold reading. Oh Richard, I hope the pay was worth it. (Then again, someone had to do it I suppose…)

The last thing I’ll point out is Daddo’s introduction:

Good evening. How would you like to live in a world where a chosen few could solve our greatest mysteries [well, why haven’t they already?], or know things about you, you barely knew yourself [and, how are to verify they are not just making it up as they go along, or more likely, making obvious generalisations?]. Or do we live in that world already? You see, a lot of people think we do and others are [long pause] quite certain we don’t [note the skeptics are already painted as being the “certain” ones]. Do you have an open mind [straight after the “certain” skeptic]? Are you up to challenging your beliefs? This is the search for Australia’s most gifted psychic [note the presumption…]. Welcome, to The One.

Then the cat was let out of the bag when Daddo asked the psychic judge: “You know this works?” To which she replied: “Yes, I know this works.”

So who’s certain?

Richard has put himself in a no-win situation. No chance to explain cold-reading, confirmation bias, probability, controlled experiments, all the while having to try and sound “open-minded” and not cynical (a word Daddo interchanged with skeptical at least once), or even worse, “baffled”.



My only hope for the show is the producers have secretly used a magician as one of the psychics… That would be awesome. However, my psychic said I was due for an unluckly second half of the year, so I don't like my chances.

_________
Update: I think The Chasers need to deal with this show.



________
Update 2: As much as I like Richard Saunders, I think "The One" needs Criss Angel as a judge.