superMemo2 Flashcards

(103 cards)

1
Q

A simple Law of Motion

A

If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

G.K Chesterson quote on open-mindedness

A

“One should never be so open-minded that one’s brains fall out.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Napoleon’s Law

A

Napoleon’s Law: Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

A funny ‘woke’ question…

A

Is it OK to ask ‘Is it OK to be white’? –I’m jujst asking for a friend.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Christopher Hitchens on Islamophobia

A

Islamophobia is a word created by fascists used by cowards to manipulate morons.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Einstein on what matters

A

“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts,

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

A good racist quote

A

Being called a racist used to be because of what you did now it’s because of what you are.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

The Iron Rule of nature and business (besides entropy)“

A

The iron rule of nature is: You get what you reward for. If you want ants to come, you put sugar on the floor.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

On Settled Science

A

Climate Change is ‘settled science’.But the difference between a man and a woman? ‘ Not settled. We have much to learn!’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

The two ways a person can feel confidence

A

“There are two ways that a human being can feel confidence. One is knowledge, and the other is ignorance.” Charles Darwin

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

A couple of Notes on Stress and Small MistakesS

A

Stress is InformationA fear of small mistakes…an overreaction to small mistakes…makes large mistakes more likely and more severe.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Words of Wisdom from Vaclav Havel

A

Anyone who takes himself too seriously always runs the risk of looking ridiculous anyone who can consistently laugh at himself does not.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

The Third Left’s Recipe for Success

A

Turn entertainment into propaganda Education into indoctrination And mass media into thought-directing rather than news-providing journalists.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Paying now or later

A

“The man who needs a new machine tool and hasn’t purchased it yet is already paying for it.”It comes from an old machine tool ad, but it’s excellent nonetheless.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

TOPOI on Resolution of Definition

A
  1. Is the interpretation or definition relevant? [ie define “murder” or “person”]2. Is the interpretation fair?3. How do you choose among competing definitions?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

TOPOI for Resolution of Value

A
  1. Is the value (ie appraisal or comparison) truly good or bad as alleged?2. Which among competing values should be chosen or preferred?3. Has the value been properly applied?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Need for Closure

A

The need to reach a verdict in important matters to have an answer and to escape the feeling of doubt and uncertainty. The personal context (time or social pressure) might increase this bias.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

TOPOI for Resolution of Policy

A
  1. Is there really a problem?2. Where is credit or blame due?3. Will the proposal even solve the problem?4. On balance, will the proposal be better than the current? —ie a cost/benefit analysis
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

A problem with affirmative action…

A

“One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Dunning–Kruger Effect

A

Cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Red Herring

A

A red herring is an idiom referring to a device which intends to divert the audience from the truth or an item of significance.[1] For example, in mystery fiction, an innocent party may be purposefully cast as highly suspect through emphasis or descriptive techniques; attention is drawn away from the true guilty party.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Magical Thinking of the Leftists

A

Magically, the government had no independent life or identity as an institution. It was not a player with its own selfish interests in the battle for power but merely the selfless representative of the masses’ true will and interest. No actual human beings would shape it with their own selfishness, greed, ambition, or personal perspective.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Fallacies of distraction

A

Fallacies of Distraction (aka Fallacies based on correlatives) include:False dilemma or false correlative. Here something which is not a correlative is treated as a correlative, excluding some other possibility.Denying the correlative where an attempt is made to introduce another option into a true correlative.Suppressed correlative where the definitions of a correlative are changed so that one of the options includes the other, making one option impossible.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Where you are apt to find success

A

You’ll be most successful where you’re most intensely interested. Another thing that I found is an intense interest of the subject is indispensable if you are really going to excel. I could force myself to be fairly good in a lot of things, but I couldn’t be really good in anything where I didn’t have an intense interest. So to some extent, you’re going to have to follow me. If at all feasible you want to drift into doing something in which you really have a natural interest.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Bare Assertion Fallacy
he bare assertion fallacy is a fallacy in formal logic where a premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true.One form of the fallacy may be summarized as follows: Fact 1: X claims statement A. Fact 2: X claims that X is not lying. Conclusion: Therefore, A is true.Put into practice, this fallacy would read: Fact 1: Simon says that Jack eats ice cream. Fact 2: Simon says that Simon is not lying. Conclusion: Therefore, Jack eats ice cream.Related to Ipse Dixit
26
Trait ascription bias
Trait ascription bias is the tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality, behavior and mood while viewing others as much more predictable in their personal traits across different situations. This may be because our own internal states are much more observable and available to us than those of others.This attributional bias has an obvious role in the formation and maintenance of stereotypes and prejudice, combined with the negativity effect.A similar bias on the group level is called the outgroup homogeneity bias.
27
Dangers of negative feedback
Sometimes we create environments which actually teach us the wrong lessons from experience. These environments perpetuate a cycle of poor decision making because they actually trick the decision maker into believing he is on the right path.Take, for example, a physician in the early twentieth century who often had intuitions about patients who were about to develop typhoid. Unfortunately, he tested his hunch by palpating the patient’s tongue, without washing his hands between patients. When patient after patient became ill, the physician developed a sense of clinical infallibility. His predictions were accurate— but not because he was exercising professional intuition!
28
Pejoratives
Pejoratives[1] are words or grammatical forms which denote a negative affect; that is, they express the contempt or distaste of the speaker. Sometimes a term may begin as a pejorative word and eventually be adopted in a non-pejorative sense. In historical linguistics, this phenomenon is known as melioration, or amelioration, or semantic change (e.g. "punk"). Within some social groups a particular term is still regarded as being a pejorative, whereas the term isn't deemed as such within another social group elsewhere (e.g. "gay"). Some social groups have attempted to "reclaim" formerly offensive words applied against them, known as reclaimed words. Ethnic slurs are one kind of category of pejorative.
29
Outgroup homogeneity bias,
According to the outgroup homogeneity bias, individuals see members of their own group as being more varied than members of other groups.This bias was found to be unrelated to the number of group and non-group members individuals knew. One might think that people thought members of their own groups were more varied and different simply because they knew them better, but this is actually not the case. The outgroup homogeneity bias was found between groups such as "men" and "women" who obviously interact frequently.The implications of this effect to stereotyping is obvious, and it may be related to confirmation bias.A similar bias on the individual level is the trait ascription bias. Compare to the group attribution error.
30
Lagom
Lagom is a Swedish word with no direct English equivalent, meaning "just the right amount".The Lexin Swedish-English dictionary defines lagom as "enough, sufficient, adequate, just right". Lagom is also widely translated as "in moderation", "in balance", "optimal", "suitable", and "average". But whereas words like "sufficient" and "average" suggest some degree of abstinence, scarcity, or failure, lagom carries the connotation appropriateness although not necessarily perfection. The archetypical Swedish proverb "Lagom är bäst", literally "Lagom is best", is translated as "Enough is as good as a feast" in the Lexin dictionary. That same proverb is translated as "There is virtue in moderation" in Prismas Stora Engelska Ordbok (1995)
31
Notational bias
Notational bias is a form of cultural bias that is incurred when the available notation to describe something introduces a bias in our ability to approach it.An example of this is the standard notation in Western sheet music, which offers limited ability to describe the melodies of the musical systems of various other cultures. A similar example are questionnaires with precoded responses, omitting potentially more appropriate responses.For example, consider a scientific experiment that seeks to measure whether most people keep their cars inside or outside garages. How does such a notation cope with cloth car covers, or carports which consist of a roof with open sides? This is a source of error caused by the available categories. It is a form of notational error.
32
Rosy Retrospection
Rosy retrospection refers to the finding that subjects later rate past events more positively than they had actually rated them when the event occurred, reminiscent of the Latin phrase memoria praeteritorum bonorum ("The past is always recalled to be good.").The effect appears to be stronger with moderately pleasant events and is usually explained as a result of minor annoyances and dislikes "fading" from memory dramatically faster than positive situations.[edit] ExperimentsIn one group of experiments, three groups going on different vacations were interviewed before, during and after their journeys. Most followed the pattern of initial anticipation, followed by mild disappointment. Generally, most subjects some time later reviewed the events more favorably than they actually did while experiencing them.
33
Appeal to tradition
Also known as proof from tradition,[1] appeal to common practice, argumentum ad antiquitatem, false induction, or the "is/ought" fallacy,[2] is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."[3]An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions: The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced. In actuality this may be false — the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds. The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present. In cases where circumstances have changed, this assumption may be false.The opposite of an appeal to tradition is an appeal to novelty, claiming something is good because it is new.
34
Rebelling against elites
What we are seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policy-making "clerks" and journalist-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy League, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2)what to eat, 3)how to speak, 4)how to think...and 5)who to vote for.With psychology papers replicating at less than 40%, dietary advice reversing AGAIN after 30 years of fat-o-phobia, economic analysis worse than astrology, and wrong 50% of the time, pharmaceutical trials replicating only 1/5 of the time, people are entitled (and reasonable) to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers who have a better track record than these policy-making goons.
35
Plank of Carneades
In ethics, the plank of Carneades is a thought experiment first proposed by Carneades of Cyrene; it explores the concept of self-defense in relation to murder.In the thought experiment, there are two shipwrecked sailors, A and B. They both see a plank that can only support one of them and both of them swim towards it. Sailor A gets to the plank first. Sailor B, who is going to drown, pushes A off and away from the plank and, thus, proximately, causes A to drown. Sailor B gets on the plank and is later saved by a rescue team. The thought experiment poses the question of whether Sailor B can be tried for murder because if B had to kill A in order to live, then it would arguably be in self-defense.The Case of the Speluncean Explorers by legal philosopher Lon Fuller is a similar exploration of morality and legality in extremis.
36
Is-ought problem
n meta-ethics, the is-ought problem was articulated by David Hume (Scottish philosopher and historian, 1711–1776), who noted that many writers make claims about what ought to be, on the basis of statements about what is. However, there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be).Hume calls for caution against such inferences in the absence of any explanation of how the ought-statements follow from the is-statements.In other words, given knowledge of the way the world is, how can one know the way the world ought to be? The question, prompted by Hume's small paragraph, has become one of the central questions of ethical theory, and Hume is usually assigned the position that such a derivation is impossible.[2] This complete severing of "is" from "ought" has been given the graphic designation of Hume's Guillotine.
37
Extraordinarity bias
Extraordinarity bias is one of the cognitive biases. It is the individual and social tendency to value an object more than others in the same category as a result of an extraordinarity property of that object that does not change the value in itself.The extraordinarity does not have to be a fact, but can also be a belief. This makes the extraordinarity bias an instrument for those who want to change the perception of value of a certain object.Examples are: the fact (or the believed fact) that an artist lived seventeen years as a hermit - this fact alone does not improve the quality of his art, but it can enhance the valuation of the artist's work the fact (or the believed fact) that a house has been the living place of a certain famous person - this fact does not improve the quality of the house, but it can enhance the price of it the fact (or the believed fact) that a language is still spoken by only 3 people - this fact does not improve the quality of the language, but it raises the appreciation of the language because of this peculiarity
38
Contrast effect
A contrast effect is the enhancement or diminishment, relative to normal, of perception, cognition and related performance as a result of immediately previous or simultaneous exposure to a stimulus of lesser or greater value in the same dimension. (Here, normal perception or performance is that which would be obtained in the absence of the comparison stimulus - i.e., one based on all previous experience.)Contrast effects are ubiquitous throughout human and non-human animal perception, cognition, and resultant performance. A hefted weight is perceived as heavier than normal when "contrasted" with a lighter weight. It is perceived as lighter than normal when contrasted with a heavier weight. An animal works harder than normal for a given amount of reward when that amount is contrasted with a lesser amount and works less energetically for that given amount when it is contrasted with a greater amount. A person appears more appealing than normal when contrasted with a person of less appeal and less appealing than normal when contrasted with one of greater appeal.
39
Anthypophora
Anthypophora is arguing with oneself, for example asking questions and then answering them.ExampleHmm. I could go to the party or stay in with you. What shall I do? I think I'll stay here.Is the Republican party the best? I think not. Why else were they beaten? Because they are no longer in touch with the people.Who are you? You are my friend. Why did you betray me? Because you are not my friend.DiscussionAnthypophora uses the principle of rhetorical questions to ask questions which the speaker wishes to answer. Sometimes this happens when nobody else is asking the questions and sometimes when nobody is answering questions posed. Often it is used for deliberate effect.One use of anthypophora is to neutralize critics by asking questions that the critics may ask and then providing an answer, thus taking the wind out of their sails before they get going.Another use is to appear neutral by addressing both sides of an argument. However, this is done by using questions from the opposing side, often phrased weakly, and then providing strong arguments for the desired position.
40
Hawthorne effect
The Hawthorne effect is a form of reactivity whereby subjects improve or modify an aspect of their behavior being experimentally measured simply in response to the fact that they are being studied,[1][2] not in response to any particular experimental manipulation.The term was coined in 1955 by Henry A. Landsberger[3] when analyzing older experiments from 1924-1932 at the Hawthorne Works (a Western Electric factory outside Chicago). Hawthorne Works had commissioned a study to see if its workers would become more productive in higher or lower levels of light. The workers' productivity seemed to improve when changes were made and slumped when the study was concluded. It was suggested that the productivity gain was due to the motivational effect of the interest being shown in them. Although illumination research of workplace lighting formed the basis of the Hawthorne effect, other changes such as maintaining clean work stations, clearing floors of obstacles, and even relocating workstations resulted in increased productivity for short periods. Thus the term is used to identify any type of short-lived increase in productivity.
41
Rule 3: Make Friends with People Who Want the Best For You
Dysfunction is contagious. Think of it this way: When well-meaning counsellors place a delinquent teen among comparatively civilized peers. The delinquency spreads, not the stability.Down is a lot easier than up. It's like a cockroach on a bowl of cherriesHere’s something to consider: If you have a friend whose friendship you wouldn’t recommend to your sister, or your father, or your son, why would you have such a friend for yourself?You should choose people who want things to be better, not worse. It’s a good thing, not a selfish thing, to choose people who are good for you. It’s appropriate and praiseworthy to associate with people whose lives would be improved if they saw your life improve.When you dare aspire upward, you reveal the inadequacy of the present and the promise of the future.Don’t think that it is easier to surround yourself with good healthy people than with bad unhealthy people. It’s not. A good, healthy person is an ideal. It requires strength and daring to stand up near such a person. Have some humility. Have some courage. Use your judgment, and protect yourself from too-uncritical compassion and pity.
42
Omission bias
The Omission Bias is an alleged type of cognitive bias.It is the tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral than equally harmful omissions (inactions). It is contentious as to whether this represents a systematic error in thinking, or is supported by a substantive moral theory. For a consequentialist, judging harmful actions as worse than inaction would indeed be inconsistent, but deontological ethics may, and normally does, draw a moral distinction between doing and allowing.[1]Spranca, Minsk and Baron extended the omission bias to judgments of morality of choices. In one scenario, John, a tennis player, would be facing a tough opponent the next day in a decisive match. John knows his opponent is allergic to a food substance. Subjects were presented with two conditions: John recommends the food containing the allergen to hurt his opponent’s performance, or the opponent himself orders the allergenic food, and John says nothing. A majority of people judged that John’s action of recommending the allergenic food as being more immoral than John’s inaction of not informing the opponent of the allergenic substance.
43
Diversity Is a Weak and Stupid God....
… And yet, the median wealth of blacks is approximately zero, meaning these trillions upon trillions of value have been annihilated. Has any society ever sacrificed so generously and and so uselessly as ours has? Paul Kersey likes to say that we could have gone to the Mars but we chose to fund black-ism instead. That’s probably true, but it actually trivializes the matter somewhat. I don’t particularly miss Mars, but I did want a free and prosperous country. But each of these things has been a sacrifice to the Diversity god, a god who not only is never satisfied no matter how great the sacrifice, but who actually grows more angry with each offering. Ultimately, there is no appeasing this god. It will simply eat its worshippers and their countries alive. The tragedy is that Diversity is a weak and stupid god who, as everyone but its worshippers knows, can safely be ignored, even ridiculed. Neither logic, nor emotion, nor aesthetics recommends this silly religion. Yet today it reigns supreme, overruling law, custom and reason wherever it goes. Please let us throw off the yoke of this insane cult, tear down its monuments, and end its oppressive and poisonous institutions.
44
Adam Smith on confusing fleeting with permanent
The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life, seems to arise from over-rating the difference between one permanent situation and another. Avarice over-rates the difference between poverty and riches: ambition, that between a private and a public station: vain-glory, that between obscurity and extensive reputation. The person under the influence of any of those extravagant passions, is not only miserable in his actual situation, but is often disposed to disturb the peace of society, in order to arrive at that which he so foolishly admires. The slightest observation, however, might satisfy him, that, in all the ordinary situations of human life, a well-disposed mind may be equally calm, equally cheerful, and equally contented. Some of those situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others: but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardour which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice; or to corrupt the future tranquillity of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse from the horror of our own injustice. Wherever prudence does not direct, wherever justice does not permit, the attempt to change our situation, the man who does attempt it, plays at the most Unequal of all games of hazard, and stakes every thing against scarce any thing.
45
Retrospective deterrminism
Retrospective determinism is the logical fallacy that because something happened, it was therefore bound to happen; the term was coined by the French philosopher Henri Bergson. For example: When he declared himself dictator of the Roman Republic, Julius Caesar was bound to be assassinated.This argument gives no logical grounds to conclude Caesar's assassination was the only possible outcome, or even the most likely outcome of the circumstances. Simply asserting this is committing the fallacy of retrospective determinism. This type of fallacy is often used as a build-up to a hasty generalization: because something happened in given circumstances, it was not only bound to happen, but will in fact always happen given those circumstances. For example: Caesar was assassinated when he declared himself dictator. Sic semper tyrannis: this goes to show that all dictators will eventually be assassinated.This not only does not follow on logical grounds, but is false: a dictator may be murdered by a political rival, killed in a war with a foreign power, or simply die by accident or natural causes. Discounting these possibilities, it still does not follow that any dictator, if they lived long enough, would be assassinated because Caesar was assassinated. While the conclusion is correct, the premise is faulty. Caesar's assassination does not predict the inevitable assassination of all other dictators.
46
Denying the correlative
The logical fallacy of denying the correlative is an attempt made at introducing alternatives where there are none. More specifically, it's an attempt to introduce and alternative in order to distract from, or deny a legitimate correlative. [See example, below.] In a way, it is the opposite of the false dilemma, which is denying other alternatives.For example: Policeman: ".. either you stole the money or you didn't, which is it?". Suspect: "... you are assuming that the money really exists....". In the context of the question this is not a valid alternative[1]: regardless of the existence of the money, the suspect either stole it or didn't.In determining whether this fallacy is committed, a close look at the context is required. The essence of denying the correlative is introducing a false alternative into a context that logically admits none, but this itself could be taken as a statement (outside of logic) that the context is invalid. For example: Either all apples are green, or some apples are not green. But what about apples that are both green and red?The first statement is logically true, but this does not exclude the possibility of questioning whether the presented dichotomy is appropriate in the given context, e.g., some kind of fuzzy logic is more applicable to the issue, or some definitions may be questioned and must be clarified, or one of the alternatives must be further subdivided for fair context.
47
Converse accident aka the law of small numbers
AKA--The Law of Small Numbers. The logical fallacy of converse accident (also called reverse accident, destroying the exception or a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter) is a deductive fallacy that can occur in a statistical syllogism when an exception to a generalization is wrongly called for.For example: Every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are whiteThe inductive version of this fallacy is called hasty generalization. See faulty generalization.This fallacy is similar to the slippery slope, where the opposition claims that if a restricted action under debate is allowed, such as allowing people with glaucoma to use medical marijuana, then the action will by stages become acceptable in general, such as eventually everyone being allowed to use marijuana. The two arguments imply there is no difference between the exception and the rule, and in fact fallacious slippery slope arguments often use the converse accident to the contrary as the basis for the argument. However, a key difference between the two is the point and position being argued. The above argument using converse accident is an argument for full legal use of marijuana given that glaucoma patients use it. The argument based on the slippery slope argues against medicinal use of marijuana because it will lead to full use. A slippery slope argument, in addition, is not necessarily fallacious, where a converse accident is always a formal fallacy.
48
Therapeutic nihilism
Therapeutic nihilism is a contention that curing people, or societies, of their ills by treatment is impossible.In medicine, it was connected to the idea that many "cures" do more harm than good, and that one should instead encourage the body to heal itself. Michel de Montaigne espoused this view in his Essais. This position was later popular, among other places, in France in the 1820s and 1830s, but has mostly faded away in the modern era due to the development of provably effective medicines such as antibiotics, starting with the release of sulfonamide in 1936. A variant of the belief is still held by people who believe in homeopathy and other forms of alternative medicine.In relation to society, it was the idea that nothing can be done to cure society of the problems facing it. It was never mainstream thought and did not grow beyond its origins in early 20th century Germany. It had no main proponent save for the novelist Joseph Conrad whose writings reflect the theory.[citation needed]The phrase Theraputic Nihilism is also included in the modern version of the Hippocratic Oath, traditionally taken by Physicians upon graduation. The statement is 'I will apply for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and theraputic nihilism.'The modern version of the Hippocratic Oath was written in 1964 by Loius Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.
49
PARALIPSIS
Basically the same as apophasis. Just a little more extreme (and purposeful).PARALIPSIS is a rhetorical figure of speech wherein the speaker or writer invokes a subject by denying that it should be invoked. As such, it can be seen as a rhetorical relative of irony. Paralipsis is usually employed to make a [...] attack.The device is typically used to distance the speaker from unfair claims, while still bringing them up. For instance, a politician might say, "I don't even want to talk about the allegations that my opponent is a drunk."Proslepsis is an extreme kind of paralipsis that gives the full details of the acts one is claiming to pass over; for example, "I will not stoop to mentioning the occasion last winter when our esteemed opponent was found asleep in an alleyway with an empty bottle of vodka still pressed to his lips."[2]Paralipsis was often used by Cicero in his orations, such as "I will not even mention the fact that you betrayed us in the Roman people by aiding Catiline."Example: "It would be superfluous in me to point out to your lordship that this is war." —Charles Francis Adams, U.S. Ambassador to Britain: dispatch to Earl Russell, 5 September 1863, concerning Britain's relations with the Confederacy.A more positive usage of paralipsis/paralepsis embodies the narrative style of Adso of Melk in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, where the character fills in details of early fourteenth-century history for the reader by stating it is unnecessary to speak of them.subversive ad hominem
50
Door in Face Technique
he door-in-the-face (DITF) technique is a persuasion method. Compliance with the request of concern is enhanced by first making an extremely large request that the respondent will obviously turn down. The respondent is then more likely to accede to a second, more reasonable request than if this second request were made without the first, extreme request. Cialdini (Cialdini, 2000) suggests this as a form of reciprocity, e.g. the first request creates a sense of debt that the second request offers to clear. That debt can is analogous to a feeling of guilt. A person is also more likely to agree with the second request because they feel guilty for having rejected the first request. Alternately, a reference point (or framing) construal may explain this phenomenon, as the initial bad offer sets a reference point from which the second offer looks like an improvement.Classic experimentOne of the classic experiments to test the door in the face technique is where Cialdini asked students to volunteer to counsel juvenile delinquents for two hours a week for two years. After their refusal, they were asked to chaperone juvenile delinquents on a one-day trip to the zoo. 50% agreed to chaperone the trip to the zoo as compared to 17% of participants who only received the zoo request (Cialdini, Vincent, Lewis, Catalan, Wheeler & Darby, 1975).[edit] ExamplesOther examples of the door-in-the-face technique include:Will you donate $1000 to our organization? [Response is no].Oh. Well could you donate $10?''Can you help me do all this work?Well can you help me with this bit?''
51
Multi-armed bandit--exploit vs explore
In probability theory, the multi-armed bandit problem (sometimes called the K-[1] or N-armed bandit problem[2]) is the problem a gambler faces at a row of slot machines, sometimes known as "one-armed bandits", when deciding which machines to play, how many times to play each machine and in which order to play them.[3] When played, each machine provides a random reward from a distribution specific to that machine. The objective of the gambler is to maximize the sum of rewards earned through a sequence of lever pulls.[4][5]Robbins in 1952, realizing the importance of the problem, constructed convergent population selection strategies in "Some aspects of the sequential design of experiments".[6]A theorem, the Gittins index published first by John C. Gittins gives an optimal policy in the Markov setting for maximizing the expected discounted reward.[7]In practice, multi-armed bandits have been used to model the problem of managing research projects in a large organization, like a science foundation or a pharmaceutical company. Given a fixed budget, the problem is to allocate resources among the competing projects, whose properties are only partially known at the time of allocation, but which may become better understood as time passes.[4][5]In early versions of the multi-armed bandit problem, the gambler has no initial knowledge about the machines. The crucial tradeoff the gambler faces at each trial is between "exploitation" of the machine that has the highest expected payoff and "exploration" to get more information about the expected payoffs of the other machines.
52
Pseudocerrtainty effect
The pseudocertainty effect is a concept from prospect theory. It refers to people's tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but make risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes. Their choices can be affected by simply reframing the descriptions of the outcomes without changing the actual utility.Contents[show][edit] Example (Kahneman and Tversky)[edit] Scenario oneAn epidemic breaks out that's likely to kill 600 people if left untreated. Treatment strategy A will save 200 people. Treatment strategy B has 1/3 chance of saving 600 people and 2/3 chance of saving nobody.From 152 people questioned, 72% recommended strategy A and 28% recommended strategy B. Most respondents preferred the definite positive outcome of saving 200 people, over the conditional but larger positive outcome of saving 600 people.[edit] Scenario twoNext, 155 people were given the same data in a different way. They were told: under treatment strategy A, 400 people will die. Under treatment strategy B, there is a 1/3 probability that nobody will die, and a 2/3 probability that 600 people will die. With this formulation, 78% of the 155 respondents chose strategy B. They were willing to accept the risk of a larger negative outcome (600 people dying) to have a chance of averting an otherwise definite negative outcome (400 people dying).[edit] ConclusionScenarios one and two are exactly the same except worded in a different way, yet the respondents reach opposing conclusions for each scenario. Thus, the way a scenario is worded influences the decision of the respondent.
53
Three men make a tiger
Three men make a tiger (Chinese: 三人成虎 ; Pinyin: sān rén chéng hǔ) is a Chinese proverb or chengyu (four-character idiom). It refers to the idea that if an unfounded premise or urban legend is mentioned and repeated by many individuals, the premise will be erroneously accepted as the truth. This concept is analogous to communal reinforcement or the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum or appeal to the people.The proverb came from the story of an alleged speech by Pang Cong (龐蔥), an official of the state of Wei in the Warring States Period in Chinese History. According to the Warring States Records, or Zhan Guo Ce, before he left on a trip to the state of Zhao, Pang Cong asked the King of Wei whether he would hypothetically believe in one civilian's report that a tiger was roaming the markets in the capital city, to which the King replied no. Pang Cong asked what the King thought if two people reported the same thing, and the King said he would begin to wonder. Pang Cong then asked, "what if three people all claimed to have seen a tiger?" The King replied that he would believe in it. Pang Cong reminded the King that the notion of a live tiger in a crowded market was absurd, yet when repeated by numerous people, it seemed real. As a high-ranking official, Pang Cong had more than three opponents and critics; naturally, he urged the King to pay no attention to those who would spread rumors about him while he was away. "I understand," the King replied, and Pang Cong left for Zhao. Yet, slanderous talk took place. When Pang Cong returned to Wei, the King indeed stopped seeing him.
54
Quote on empathy
The more comfortable you are, the more difficult it is to empathize with the suffering of another.Background:A study from the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences suggests that our egos distort our perception of our empathy. When participants watched a video of maggots in a group setting, they could understand that other people might be repulsed by it. But if one person was shown pictures of puppies while the others were shown the maggot video, the puppy viewer generally underestimated the rest of the group’s negative reaction to the maggots.Study author Dr. Tania Singer observed, “The participants who were feeling good themselves assessed their partners’ negative experiences as less severe than they actually were. In contrast, those who had just had an unpleasant experience assessed their partners’ good experience less positively.” In other words, we tend to use our own feelings to determine how others feel.Here’s how that translates to your daily conversations: Let’s say you and a friend are both laid off at the same time by the same company. In that case, using your feelings as a measure of your friend’s feelings may be fairly accurate because you’re experiencing the same event. But what if you’re having a great day and you meet a friend who was just laid off? Without knowing it, you might judge how your friend is feeling against your good mood. She’ll say, “This is awful. I’m so worried that I feel sick to my stomach.” You’d respond, “Don’t worry, you’ll be okay. I was laid off six years ago and everything turned out fine.” The more comfortable you are, the more difficult it is to empathize with the suffering of another.
55
On Youth Culture
There is something strange going on in youth culture.Young people today are more porny and filthy than ever. There is no longer any barrier between Popular Culture and Porn culture. Lena Dunham, Miley Cyrus, and Minaj’s stuff would have been considered as adult-only porn not long ago.There is no effective means to protect kids from graphic sex imagery due to internet, and adults have given up. So, youth culture, even kid culture, is more ‘adult’ than ever before. And who can forget Emma Sulkowicz whose idea of protesting rape was making an ‘art porn video’? Her mother approved of it, LOL.On the other hand, youth have been so infantile, goo-goo, fragile, and arrested in development. Coloring books for college students? Cookies and milk offered to kids to de-stress them?When youth are encouraged to emotionally grown backward into childhood but hyper-accelerate into sexual adulthood, it’s like a schizo-form of auto-pedophilia.It tells teens to feel like 8 yr olds but act sexually like 30 yr olds. It’s like young people are acting out ‘baby porn’ as psychodrama.Also, thanks to rap/porn culture AND feminism, we have a culture that is both licentious and puritanical. We saw this with UVA rape hoax, with the whole Rape Culture hysteria. On the one hand, feminists are calling for ‘slut pride’ and total freedom to skank around. But they are also screaming about ‘misogyny’ and male beastliness. It’s fitting that Hillary attended a rap concert but then bitched about ‘misogyny’.This is dumb dumb culture. We used to learn more life-skills in kindergarten than the Millennials appear to be learning at universities. At least in kindergarten, they are teaching the kids how to restrain their impulses and avoid blaming others for their mistakes.
56
THE RULE OF THREE
I’m positive that sometime in your life you’ve been involved in a negotiation where you got a “Yes” that later turned out to be a “No.” Maybe the other party was lying to you, or maybe they were just engaged in wishful thinking. Either way, this is not an uncommon experience. This happens because there are actually three kinds of “Yes”: Commitment, Confirmation, and Counterfeit. Many people get very good at the Counterfeit “Yes. “ One great tool for avoiding this trap is the Rule of Three.The Rule of Three is simply getting the other guy to agree to the same thing three times in the same conversation. It’s tripling the strength of whatever dynamic you’re trying to drill into at the moment. In doing so, it uncovers problems before they happen. It’s really hard to repeatedly lie or fake conviction. When I first learned this skill, my biggest fear was how to avoid sounding like a broken record or coming off as really pushy. The answer, I learned, is to vary your tactics. The first time they agree to something or give you a commitment, that’s No. 1. For No. 2 you might label or summarize what they said so they answer, “That’s right.” And No. 3 could be a calibrated “How” or “What” question about implementation that asks them to explain what will constitute success, something like “What do we do if we get off track?” Or the three times might just be the same calibrated question phrased three different ways, like “What’s the biggest challenge you faced? What are we up against here? What do you see as being the most difficult thing to get around?” Either way, going at the same issue three times uncovers falsehoods as well as the incongruences between words and body language. So next time you’re not sure your counterpart is truthful and committed, try it.
57
Metaphor mongering
When the PC Patrol comes out and criticizes various disciplines as being racist or sexist, they are implying that the use of harmless sentences (ie in a math word problem: "Bob and Sue saved X dollars for Christmas..." which is criticized as promoting Christian/Heterosexual values), dissuades women and minorities from pursuing this study any further. Metaphor mongering is the principal strategy of much feminist criticism of science. It is invoked to accomplish what analysis of actual ideas will not. “Toward a Feminist Algebra” is a particularly childish example of this, although we shall see others, more sophisticated, shortly. The worst thing about this paper, however, is not its shoddy theory of mathematical epistemology. It lies, rather, in the fact that the ultimate aim of the authors is not really to advocate devices for improving the mathematical education of women and other disempowered classes. Rather, one finally discovers, the purpose is to justify the use of mathematics classrooms as chapels of feminist orthodoxy. The purpose of the carefully tailored feminist language and imagery is not primarily to build the self-confidence of woman students, but rather to convert problems and examples into parables of feminist rectitude. It is, at bottom, not different from an imaginary Christian fundamentalist pedagogy requiring that all mathematics problems illustrate biblical episodes and preach evangelical sermons. Campbell and Campbell-Wright really want mathematics instructors to act as missionaries for a narrow, self-righteous feminism. That is far more disturbing than bad philosophy of mathematics! Sermonizing—Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or feminist—is not the function of science instruction. It is a strange world in which two would-be pedagogues can advocate such a program, in the belief, doubtless justified, that some of their colleagues will take it seriously.
58
Fallacy of composition
A fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). For example: "This fragment of metal cannot be broken with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be broken with a hammer." This is clearly fallacious, because many machines can be broken into their constituent parts without any of those parts being breakable.This fallacy is often confused with the fallacy of hasty generalization, in which an unwarranted inference is made from a statement about a sample to a statement about the population from which it is drawn.The fallacy of composition is the converse of the fallacy of division.Example Atoms are not visible to the naked eye Humans are made up of atoms Therefore, humans are not visible to the naked eye[1][edit] ApplicationIn Keynesian macroeconomics, the "paradox of thrift" theory supposedly illustrates this fallacy: increasing saving (or "thrift") is obviously good for an individual, since it provides for retirement or a "rainy day," but if everyone saves more, Keynesian economists argue that it may cause a recession by reducing consumer demand.Followers of Keynes would argue that the following syllogism is fallacious:The thrift of any member of a group is beneficial to that member.Therefore, the thrift of the group as a whole is beneficial to that group as a whole.Other economists assert that Keynes's paradox of thrift is itself a fallacy. They claim that consumption is a destruction of wealth while savings increase investment which boosts production: the real source of increasing wealth.Another example from economics is the Tragedy of the Commons where an individual would benefit from his unlimited access to a finite resource but the collective unrestricted demand from the whole group would eventually doom the resource through over-exploitation.
59
Apophasis
Apophasis (Late Latin, from Greek ἀπόφασις from ἀποφάναι - apophanai, "to say no"[1]) refers, in general, to "mention by not mentioning". Apophasis covers a wide variety of figures of speech.Contents[hide] 1 Apophasis 2 In Christianity 3 Paralipsis 3.1 Proslepsis 4 Occultatio 5 Notes 6 References 7 See also 8 External links[edit] ApophasisApophasis was originally and more broadly a method of logical reasoning or argument by denial - a way of describing what something is by explaining what it is not, or a process-of-elimination way of talking about something by talking about what it is not.A useful inductive technique when given a limited universe of possibilities, the exclusion of all but the one remaining is affirmation through negation.A rhetorical term whereby the speaker "gets" to mention (or include) an item simply by asserting out loud that "they have no intention of mentioning" that which the speaker pretended he wanted to remain unstated. It's passive aggressive...whereby one gets to mention something "off limits" by disclaiming intention of mentioning it--or pretending to deny what is really affirmed.See also: Innuendo Occultatio Paralepsis SarcasmEtymology:From the Greek, "denial"Examples: "I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. And I’m not blaming this on President Obama. I just think it’s an interesting coincidence." (Republican Representative Michele Bachmann, April 28, 2009) "I don't want to say anything bad about another doctor, especially one who's a useless drunk." (Dr. Gregory House in "Acceptance," House, M.D., 2005) "Mary Matlin, the Bush campaign's political director, made the point with ruthless venom at a press briefing in Washington, saying, 'The larger issue is that Clinton is evasive and slick. We have never said to the press that he is a philandering, pot-smoking, draft-dodger. There's nothing nefarious or subliminal going on.'" (reported in The Guardian, 1992)
60
Hasty Generalization
Definition: Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy where an inductive generalization is made based on insufficient evidence, often from a small, unrepresentative sample. Opposite Fallacy: Slothful induction, where a valid inductive conclusion is denied as "just a coincidence." Examples: Person A sees 10 children in Town X and concludes there are no adult residents. Person B hears Person A say a pawn shop watch resembles his grandfather’s and concludes the grandfather pawned it, had expensive tastes, was ostentatious, or can’t tell time. Context in Mathematics: The Pólya conjecture illustrates hasty generalization; it holds for numbers up to 906,150,257 but fails at that point, showing that even a large sample (over 906 million) can lead to incorrect universal claims if not proven for all cases. Relation to Prejudice: Hasty generalization underpins racist beliefs, where attributes (e.g., greed for Jewish people or criminality for Black people) are wrongly applied to an entire group based on a small, unrepresentative sample. Alternative Names: Includes fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, generalization from the particular, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, law of small numbers, unrepresentative sample, and secundum quid.
61
Stochastic process
In probability theory, a stochastic process,or sometimes random process, is the counterpart to a deterministic process (or deterministic system). Instead of dealing with only one possible "reality" of how the process might evolve under time (as is the case, for example, for solutions of an ordinary differential equation), in a stochastic or random process there is some indeterminacy in its future evolution described by probability distributions. This means that even if the initial condition (or starting point) is known, there are many possibilities the process might go to, but some paths may be more probable and others less.In the simplest possible case ("discrete time"), a stochastic process amounts to a sequence of random variables known as a time series (for example, see Markov chain). Another basic type of a stochastic process is a random field, whose domain is a region of space, in other words, a random function whose arguments are drawn from a range of continuously changing values. One approach to stochastic processes treats them as functions of one or several deterministic arguments ("inputs", in most cases regarded as "time") whose values ("outputs") are random variables: non-deterministic (single) quantities which have certain probability distributions. Random variables corresponding to various times (or points, in the case of random fields) may be completely different. The main requirement is that these different random quantities all have the same "type".[1] Although the random values of a stochastic process at different times may be independent random variables, in most commonly considered situations they exhibit complicated statistical correlations.Familiar examples of processes modeled as stochastic time series include stock market and exchange rate fluctuations, signals such as speech, audio and video, medical data such as a patient's EKG, EEG, blood pressure or temperature, and random movement such as Brownian motion or random walks. Examples of random fields include static images, random terrain (landscapes), or composition variations of an heterogeneous material.
62
Inversion and the power of avoiding stupidity
Charlie Munger, the business partner of Warren Buffett and Vice Chairman at Berkshire Hathaway, is famous for his quote “All I want to know is where I’m going to die, so I’ll never go there.” That thinking was inspired by Carl Gustav Jacob Jacobi, the German mathematician famous for some work on elliptic functions that I’ll never understand, who advised “man muss immer umkehren” (or loosely translated, “invert, always invert.”) Inversion is a powerful mental model.“(Jacobi) knew that it is in the nature of things that many hard problems are best solved when they are addressed backward,” Munger counsels.While Jacobi applied inversion mostly to mathematics, the model is one of the most powerful thinking habits we need in our toolkit.It is not enough to think about difficult problems one way. You need to think about them forwards and backwards. “Indeed,” says Munger, “many problems can’t be solved forward.”Let’s take a look at some examples.Say you want to create more innovation at your organization. Thinking forward, you’d think about all of the things you could do to foster innovation. If you look at the problem by inversion, however, you’d think about all the things you could do that would discourage innovation. Ideally, you’d avoid those things. Sounds simple right? I bet your organization does some of those ‘stupid’ things today.Another example, rather than think about what makes a good life, you can think about what prescriptions would ensure misery.While both thinking forward and thinking backwards result in some action, you can think of them as additive vs. subtractive. And the difference is meaningful. Despite the best intentions, thinking forward increases the odds that you’ll cause harm (iatrogenics). Thinking backwards, call it subtractive avoidance or inversion, is less likely to cause harm.Inverting the problem won’t always solve it, but it will help you avoid trouble. You can think of it as the avoiding stupidity filter.So what does this mean in practice?Spend less time trying to be brilliant and more time trying to avoid obvious stupidity. The kicker? Avoiding stupidity is easier than seeking brilliance.
63
The most important ingredient of any successful partnership
The key to good partnerships, says Warren Buffett, is trust. They have complete trust, complete faith, and complete belief in each other. And that reverberates through every phone call they have, every deal they discuss, and every decision they make. “You cannot keep score,” says Warren. “It just doesn’t work with the best of human relationships. It shouldn’t be even suppressed—it should be something that doesn’t even exist.” And this bit was key for me. You can play the alpha-role in some parts of your life but you need to know your role in the partnership. Consider the Buffett-Munger partnership: Munger is not the standard model for the kind of partner who prefers to lie low and fade into the background. Everywhere else in his life, Charlie Munger plays the alpha role—with his family, in board meetings for the variety of companies and charities with which he’s involved, with me when I visited him at his office. I usually don’t have trouble getting a word into a conversation. Talking to Charlie Munger is different—I did a lot more listening than talking. “That’s one of the beauties of the partnership,” says Charlie. “I am in so many activities where I am the dominant personality. Most people do not ‘fit into’ that mode—they can only operate in that mode. Yet I am particularly willing to play the secondary role. Warren’s a more able man in doing what we’re doing, so it’s the appropriate response. There are some times you should be first, some times you should be second, and some times you should be third.”Partnerships also encourage humility. “It’s not letting ego or jealousy or your own personality take over,” Munger says. “Intelligence takes over.”Working Together: Why Great Partnerships Succeed argues that the values of effective partnerships run counter to the factors “that contributed to the sequence of economic messes of the past ten years.” Now, then, is the perfect time to encourage partnerships “devoid of envy, jealousy, and rivalry as a way to escape from the toxic culture that has given the business world a bad name, and to instead help people chart a new, often overlooked path toward a better way of working.
64
Antinomian
Antinomianism (from the Greek ἀντί, "against" + νόμος, "law"), or lawlessness (in the Greek Bible: ἀνομία,[1], "unlawful"), in theology,is the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality, and that salvation is by predestination only.[2] Antinomianism is the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law earns salvation.The term has become a point of contention among those opposed to religious authorities. Few groups or sects, outside of Christian Anarchism or Jewish anarchism, explicitly call themselves "antinomian", but the charge is often leveled by some Christian denominations against competing denominations, and for example, by the Jewish Encyclopedia against Paul of Tarsus[3], see also Paul of Tarsus and Judaism.The Latin term Sola fide ("[by] faith alone") refers to the foundational Protestant belief in salvation through faith alone, a concept preached intensely by Martin Luther, but who was also an outspoken critic of antinomianism, for example his Against the Antinomians (1539). See also Faith in Christianity.The use of the antinomian idea in a secular contextSee also: AnarchismIn his study of late-20th-century western society the historian Eric Hobsbawm[43] stated that there was a new fusion of "demotic and antinomian" characteristics that made the period distinct, and appeared to be likely to extend into the future. He did so without any particular focus on religion. He had started his academic life before World War II and is now and has always been a Marxist, and continued to see an historian's work as identifying causes of change. For him there is now a readiness by the mass of people to have little sense of obligation to obey any set of rules that they consider arbitrary, or even just constraining, whatever its source. This may be facilitated by one or more of several changes. These include: the tendency to live outside settled communities; the growth of enough wealth for most people to have a wide choice of styles of living; and a popularised assumption that individual freedom is an unqualified good.George Orwell was a frequent user of “antinomian” in a secular (and always approving) sense. In his 1940 essay on Henry Miller, “Inside the Whale”, the word appears several times, including one in which he calls A. E. Housman a writer in “a blasphemous, antinomian, ‘cynical’ strain”, meaning defiant of arbitrary societal rules.
65
Kavka's toxin puzzle
Kavka's toxin puzzle is a thought experiment about the possibility of forming an intention to perform an act which, following from reason, is an action one would not actually perform. It was presented by moral and political philosopher Gregory S. Kavka in "The Toxin Puzzle" (1983), and grew out of his work in deterrence theory and mutual assured destruction.Contents[show][edit] The puzzleKavka's original version of the puzzle is the following: An eccentric billionaire places before you a vial of toxin that, if you drink it, will make you painfully ill for a day, but will not threaten your life or have any lasting effects. The billionaire will pay you one million dollars tomorrow morning if, at midnight tonight, you intend to drink the toxin tomorrow afternoon. He emphasizes that you need not drink the toxin to receive the money; in fact, the money will already be in your bank account hours before the time for drinking it arrives, if you succeed. All you have to do is. . . intend at midnight tonight to drink the stuff tomorrow afternoon. You are perfectly free to change your mind after receiving the money and not drink the toxin.[1]A possible interpretation: Can you intend to drink the toxin, if you know you don't have to?One of the central tenets of the puzzle is that for a reasonable person There is reasonable grounds for that person to drink the toxin, since some reward may be obtained. Having come to the above conclusion there is no reasonable grounds for that person to drink the toxin, since no further reward may be obtained, and no reasonable person would partake in self-harm for no benefit.Thus a reasonable person must intend to drink the toxin by the first argument, yet if that person intends to drink the toxin, he is being irrational by the second argument.[edit] Examples in the real world This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (February 2010)The most familiar example of the Kavka's Toxin puzzle in the real world is the Political Manifesto. Before an election, a political party will release a written document outlining their policies and plans should they win office. Many of these promises may be difficult or impossible to implement in practice. Having won, the party is not obligated to follow the manifesto even if they would have lost without it.
66
Raven Paradox
The Raven paradox, also known as Hempel's paradox or Hempel's ravens is a paradox proposed by the German logician Carl Gustav Hempel in the 1940s to illustrate a problem where inductive logic violates intuition. It reveals the fundamental problem of induction. The paradox: (1) All ravens are black.In strict logical terms, via the Law of Implication, this statement is equivalent to: (2) Everything that is not black is not a raven. It should be clear that in all circumstances where (2) is true, (1) is also true; and likewise, in all circumstances where (2) is false (i.e. if a world is imagined in which something that was not black, yet was a raven, existed), (1) is also false. This establishes logical equivalence. Given a general statement such as all ravens are black, a form of the same statement would be generally considered that refers to a specific observable instance of the general class to constitute evidence for that general statement. For example, (3) Nevermore, my pet raven, is black is evidence supporting the hypothesis that all ravens are black.The paradox arises when this same process is applied to statement (2). On sighting a green apple, one can observe: (4) This green (and thus not black) thing is an apple (and thus not a raven). By the same reasoning, this statement is evidence that (2) everything that is not black is not a raven. But since (as above) this statement is logically equivalent to (1) all ravens are black, it follows that the sight of a green apple is evidence supporting the notion that all ravens are black. This conclusion seems paradoxical, because it implies that information has been gained about ravens by looking at an apple.
67
Modo hoc fallacy
Modo Hoc Fallacy: Informal error of assessing meaning based solely on material makeup, ignoring arrangement. Illustration: A living cow and chopped-up cow meat are the same matter, but arrangement determines different meanings. Exceptions to the Fallacy of Composition: Some properties are "expansive," meaning if all parts have the property, the whole does too. Examples: If all parts of a chair are green, the chair is green; if all parts of a table are wooden, the table is wooden. Expansive Properties: Defined by Nelson Goodman as properties of parts that can be ascribed to the whole. Must be absolute (e.g., green, wooden) and structure-independent, per Frans H. van Eemeren. Absolute properties: Meanings do not require comparison (e.g., green vs. fast). Structure-independent properties: Unaffected by whether the whole is a cohesive unit or unordered collection (e.g., green applies to both a chair and a pile of twigs). Non-Expansive Properties: Relative properties: Require comparison (e.g., fast, heavy, cheap) and are never expansive. Structure-dependent properties: Depend on arrangement (e.g., rectangularness may not persist if a rectangular object like a book is torn apart).
68
Vitamin B12
Vitamin B12, also known as cobalamin, is a water-soluble vitamin involved in metabolism.[2] It is one of eight B vitamins. It is required by animals, which use it as a cofactor in DNA synthesis, in both fatty acid and amino acid metabolism.[3] It is important in the normal functioning of the nervous system via its role in the synthesis of myelin, and in the circulatory system in the maturation of red blood cells in the bone marrow.[2][4] Plants do not need cobalamin and carry out the reactions with enzymes that are not dependent on it.[5]Vitamin B12 is the most chemically complex of all vitamins,[6] and for humans, the only vitamin that must be sourced from animal-derived foods or from supplements.[2][7] Only some archaea and bacteria can synthesize vitamin B12.[8] Most people in developed countries get enough B12 from the consumption of meat or foods with animal sources.[2] Foods containing vitamin B12 include meat, clams, liver, fish, poultry, eggs, and dairy products.[2] Many breakfast cereals are fortified with the vitamin.[2] Supplements and medications are available to treat and prevent vitamin B12 deficiency.[2] They are taken by mouth, but for the treatment of deficiency may also be given as an intramuscular injection.[2][6]The most common cause of vitamin B12 deficiency in developed countries is impaired absorption due to a loss of gastric intrinsic factor (IF) which must be bound to a food-source of B12 in order for absorption to occur.[9] A second major cause is age-related decline in stomach acid production (achlorhydria), because acid exposure frees protein-bound vitamin.[10] For the same reason, people on long-term antacid therapy, using proton-pump inhibitors, H2 blockers or other antacids are at increased risk.[11] The diets of vegetarians and vegans may not provide sufficient B12 unless a dietary supplement is consumed. A deficiency in vitamin B12 may be characterized by limb neuropathy or a blood disorder called pernicious anemia, a type of megaloblastic anemia, causing a feeling of tiredness and weakness, lightheadedness, headache, breathlessness, loss of appetite, abnormal sensations, changes in mobility, severe joint pain, muscle weakness, memory problems, decreased level of consciousness, brain fog, and many others.[12] If left untreated in infants, deficiency may lead to neurological damage and anemia.[2] Folate levels in the individual may affect the course of pathological changes and symptomatology of vitamin B12 deficiency.Vitamin B12 was discovered as a result of pernicious anemia, an autoimmune disorder in which the blood has a lower than normal number of red blood cells, due to a deficiency in vitamin B12.[5][13] The ability to absorb the vitamin declines with age, especially in people over 60 years old.[14]
69
Continuum fallacy
The continuum fallacy (also called the fallacy of the beard[1], line drawing fallacy, bald man fallacy, fallacy of the heap, and the sorites fallacy) is an informal logical fallacy closely related to the sorites paradox, or paradox of the heap. The fallacy causes one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity.The fallacy appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states. According to the fallacy, differences in quality cannot result from differences in quantity.In general, any argument against the Sorites paradox can also be used against the continuum fallacy. One argument against the fallacy is based on the simple counterexample: there do exist bald people and people who aren't bald. Another argument is that for each degree of change in states, the degree of the condition changes slightly, and these "slightly"s build up to shift the state from one category to another. For example, perhaps the addition of a grain of rice causes the total group of rice to be "slightly more" of a heap, and enough "slightly"s will certify the group's heap status.There are clearly reasonable and clearly unreasonable cases in which objects either belong or do not belong to a particular group of objects based on their properties. We are able to take them case by case and designate them as such even in the case of properties which may be vaguely defined. The existence of hard or controversial cases does not preclude our ability to designate members of particular kinds of groups.Examples[edit] Fred can never be called baldFred can never be called bald. Fred isn't bald now, however if he loses one hair, that won't make him go from not bald to bald either. If he loses one more hair after that, then this one loss, also does not make him go from not bald to bald. Therefore, no matter how much hair he loses, he can never be called bald.[edit] The heapThe fallacy can be described in the form of a conversation: Q: Does one grain of wheat form a heap? A: No. Q: If we add one, do two grains of wheat form a heap? A: No. Q: If we add one, do three grains of wheat form a heap? A: No. ... Q: If we add one, do one hundred grains of wheat form a heap? A: No. Q: Therefore, no matter how many grains of wheat we add, we will never have a heap. Therefore, heaps don't exist![edit] OthersOther uses of this fallacy seem to prove that: No man has a beard, no matter how long it is (or every post-pubescent male has a beard, no matter how cleanly shaven) because a beard can have varying lengths. A room is never either "hot" or "cold", because of the continuum of temperatures.
70
Naturalistic fallacy
The naturalistic fallacy is often claimed to be a formal fallacy. It was described and named by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica. Moore stated that a naturalistic fallacy was committed whenever a philosopher attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of one or more natural properties (such as "pleasant", "more evolved", "desired", etc.).The naturalistic fallacy is related to, and often confused with, the is-ought problem (which comes from Hume's Treatise). As a result, the term is sometimes used loosely to describe arguments that claim to draw ethical conclusions from natural facts.Alternatively, the phrase "naturalistic fallacy" is used to refer to the claim that what is natural is inherently good or right, and that what is unnatural is bad or wrong (see "Appeal to nature"). It is the converse of the moralistic fallacy, or that what is good or right is natural and inherent.Some people use the phrase "naturalistic fallacy" or "Appeal to nature" to characterize inferences of the form "This behaviour is natural; therefore, this behaviour is morally acceptable" or "This behaviour is unnatural; therefore, this behaviour is morally unacceptable". Such inferences are common in discussions of homosexuality and cloning.The term "naturalistic fallacy" is also sometimes used to describe the deduction of an "ought" from an "is" (the Is-ought problem), and has inspired the use of mutually reinforcing terminology which describes the converse (deducing an "is" from an "ought") either as the "reverse naturalistic fallacy" or the "moralistic fallacy." An example of a naturalistic fallacy in this sense would be to conclude Social Darwinism from the theory of evolution by natural selection, and of the reverse naturalistic fallacy to argue that the immorality of survival of the fittest implies the theory of evolution is false. Moralists Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant both indicated the is-ought problem in order to identify their theories of morality and law.In using his categorical imperative Kant deduced that experience was necessary for their applications. But experience on its own or the imperative on its own could not possibly identify an act as being moral or immoral. We can have no certain knowledge of morality from them, being incapable of deducing how things ought to be from the fact that they happen to be arranged in a particular manner in experience.Bentham, in discussing the relations of law and morality, found that when people discuss problems and issues they talk about how they wish it would be as opposed to how it actually is. This can be seen in discussions of natural law and positive law. Bentham criticized natural law theory because in his view it was a naturalistic fallacy, claiming that it described how things ought to be instead of how things are.
71
First they came...
"First they came ..." is a popular poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group. In Niemöller's first utterance of it, in a January 6, 1946 speech before representatives of the Confessing Church in Frankfurt, it went (in German):[1] First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.Contents[hide] 1 History 2 Controversy over origin and text 3 See also 4 References 5 External links[edit] HistoryMartin Niemöller was a German pastor and theologian born in Lippstadt, Germany, in 1892. Niemöller was an anti-Communist and supported Hitler's rise to power at first. But when Hitler insisted on the supremacy of the state over religion, Niemöller became disillusioned. He became the leader of a group of German clergymen opposed to Hitler. Unlike Niemöller, they gave in to the Nazis' threats. Hitler personally detested Niemöller and in 1937 had him arrested and eventually confined in the Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps. Niemöller was released in 1945 by the Allies. He continued his career in Germany as a clergyman and as a leading voice of penance and reconciliation for the German people after World War II. His poem is well-known, frequently quoted, and is a popular model for describing the dangers of political apathy, as it often begins with specific and targeted fear and hatred which soon escalates out of control.[edit] Controversy over origin and textThe poem was published in a 1955 book by Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free, based on interviews he'd conducted in Germany several years earlier. The quotation was widely circulated by social activists in the United States in the late 1960s. The poem's exact origin is unclear, and at least one historian has incorrectly suggested that the poem arose after Niemöller's death.[2] Later research traced the poem to a speech given by Niemöller in 1946.[1] Nonetheless, the poem's wording remains controversial, both in terms of its provenance, and the substance and order of the groups that are mentioned in its many versions. While Niemöller's published 1946 speeches mention Communists, the incurably ill, Jews or Jehovah's Witnesses (depending on which speech), and people in occupied countries; the 1955 text, a paraphrase by a German professor in an interview, lists: Communists, Socialists, "the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on," and ends with "the Church." However, as cited by Richard John Neuhaus in the November 2001 issue of First Things, when "asked in 1971 about the correct version of the quote, Niemöller said he was not quite sure when he had said the famous words but, if people insist upon citing them, he preferred a version that listed "the Communists", "the trade unionists", "the Jews", and "me".
72
Veblen goods
In economics, Veblen goods are a group of commodities for which peoples' preference for buying them increases as a direct function of their price, as greater price confers greater status, instead of decreasing according to the law of demand. A Veblen good is often also a positional good.Some types of high-status goods, such as high-end wines, designer handbags and luxury cars, are Veblen goods, in that decreasing their prices decreases people's preference for buying them because they are no longer perceived as exclusive or high status products.[2] Similarly, a price increase may increase that high status and perception of exclusivity, thereby making the good even more preferable. The Veblen effect is named after the economist Thorstein Veblen, who first pointed out the concepts of conspicuous consumption and status-seeking.[3] However, this 'anomaly' is mitigated when one understands that the demand curve does not necessarily have only one peak. The goods generally thought to be a Veblen good are still subject to the curve since the price cannot be raised infinitely. Demand may go up with price within a certain price range, but at the top of that range the demand will cease to increase before it begins to fall again with further price increases.[edit] Related conceptsA bottle of Louis Roederer Cristal (1993)The Veblen effect is one of a family of theoretically possible anomalies in the general theory of demand in microeconomics. Other related effects include: the snob effect: preference for goods because they are different from those commonly preferred; in other words, for consumers who want to use exclusive products, price is quality;[4] the bandwagon effect: preference for a good increases as the number of people buying them increases;These effects are discussed in a classic article by Leibenstein (1950).[5] The concept of the counter-Veblen effect is less well known, although it logically completes the family.[6]None of these effects in itself predicts what will happen to actual quantity of goods demanded (the number of units purchased) as prices change—they refer only to preferences or propensities to purchase. The actual effect on quantity demanded will depend on the range of other goods available, their prices, and their substitutabilities for the goods concerned. The effects are anomalies within demand theory because the theory normally assumes that preferences are independent of price or the number of units being sold. They are therefore collectively referred to as interaction effects.The interaction effects are a different kind of anomaly from that posed by Giffen goods. The Giffen goods theory is one for which observed demand rises as price rises, but the effect arises without any interaction between price and preference—it results from the interplay of the income effect and the substitution effect of a change in price.Recent research has begun to examine the empirical evidence for the existence of goods which show these interaction effects.[7] The Yale Law Journal has published a broad overview.[8] Studies have also found evidence suggesting people receive more pleasure from more expensive goods. see Bling-bling
73
A good story about the importace of getting to "That's Right"---which is more effective than trying to bludgeon a person into submission until they say 'You're right."
TRIGGER A “THAT’S RIGHT!” WITH A SUMMARYAfter four months of negotiations, Sabaya still refused to budge. I decided it was time to hit the reset switch.Benjie had gotten so good at extending the conversations that you could tell that there were times that Sabaya must have paced back and forth for an hour before calling Benjie, trying to figure out how to get what he wanted. He would call in and say, “Tell me yes or no! Just yes or no!”We had to get Sabaya off this war damages nonsense. No matter what type of questioning, logic, or reasoning we tried with him, he wouldn’t release it. Threats against Schilling came and went. We talked him down each time.I decided that in order to break through this phase we needed to reposition Sabaya with his own words in a way that would dissolve barriers. We needed to get him to say, “That’s right.” At the time, I didn’t know for sure what kind of breakthrough it was going to give us. I just knew we needed to trust the process.I wrote a two-page document that instructed Benjie to change course. We were going to use nearly every tactic in the active listening arsenal:1.​Effective Pauses: Silence is powerful. We told Benjie to use it for emphasis, to encourage Sabaya to keep talking until eventually, like clearing out a swamp, the emotions were drained from the dialogue.2.​Minimal Encouragers: Besides silence, we instructed using simple phrases, such as “Yes,” “OK,” “Uh-huh,” or “I see,” to effectively convey that Benjie was now paying full attention to Sabaya and all he had to say.3.​Mirroring: Rather than argue with Sabaya and try to separate Schilling from the “war damages,” Benjie would listen and repeat back what Sabaya said.4.​Labeling: Benjie should give Sabaya’s feelings a name and identify with how he felt. “It all seems so tragically unfair, I can now see why you sound so angry.”5.​Paraphrase: Benjie should repeat what Sabaya is saying back to him in Benjie’s own words. This, we told him, would powerfully show him you really do understand and aren’t merely parroting his concerns.6.​Summarize: A good summary is the combination of rearticulating the meaning of what is said plus the acknowledgment of the emotions underlying that meaning (paraphrasing + labeling = summary).We told Benjie he needed to listen and repeat the “world according to Abu Sabaya.” He needed to fully and completely summarize all the nonsense that Sabaya had come up with about war damages and fishing rights and five hundred years of oppression. And once he did that fully and completely, the only possible response for Sabaya, and anyone faced with a good summary, would be “that’s right.”Two days later Sabaya phoned Benjie. Sabaya spoke. Benjie listened. When he spoke, he followed my script: he commiserated with the rebel group’s predicament. Mirroring, encouraging, labeling, each tactic worked seamlessly and cumulatively to soften Sabaya up and begin shifting his perspective. Finally, Benjie repeated in his own words Sabaya’s version of history and the emotions that came with that version. Sabaya was silent for nearly a minute. Finally he spoke. “That’s right,” he said. We ended the call. The “war damages” demand just disappeared.
74
Mexico and the importance of civil society
There’s an interesting point made in Jorge Castañeda’s Mañana Forever, today’s book recommendation, on modern Mexican society and culture. One of the threads in his book which may have some unfortunate and concerning applications for the United States is that Mexico has struggled under what he describes as a “Hobbesian behemoth” of powerful government, which “simply never allowed civil society to flourish” as it persisted over the course of 500 years. Mexican society never developed anything like the "little platoons" of Burke, nor the network of associations that Alexis de Tocqueville credited with American democracy’s vitality – there was the government and the individual, with no civil society in between. This creates and fuels a patronage society, with the attendant social ills of corruption, cartels, crime, and more.Mexicans simply do not form lateral social bonds, writes Castañeda: they only form bonds upward and downward. As such, Mexican society is extremely difficult to organize.The ability of major questions to be democratically and peacefully adjudicated is severely constricted. As Tocqueville wrote of those citizens who have the attitudes of colonists: “They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law with the spirit of a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.” It’s possible that what we see in Mexico is the American future: that as our own civil society is pushed from the public square and supplanted by the power and force of government, it will replace organizations and communities in ways which impact the fundamental nature of the body politic. How big of an impact remains to be seen, but the religious liberty clashes in the wake of the upcoming Supreme Court decisions will likely lead to a greater test of this thesis. Castañeda gives a figure of the average American's social memberships, and contrasts it with that of the average Mexican: “In the United States, there are approximately 2 million civil society organizations, or one for every 150 inhabitants; in Chile there are 35,000, or one for every 428 Chileans; in Mexico there are only 8,500, or one for every 12,000, according to Mexican public intellectual Federico Reyes Heroles. Eighty-five percent of all Americans belong to five or more organizations; in Mexico 85% belong to no organization and, according to Reyes Heroles, the largest type, by far, is religious. In the United States, one out of every ten jobs is located in the so-called third sector (or civil society); in Mexico the equivalent figure is one out of every 210 jobs. In polls taken in 2001, 2003, and 2005 on political culture in Mexico, a constant 82% of those surveyed stated they had never worked formally or informally with others to address their community’s problems. In another series of polls already quoted concerning Mexican and world values, a robust and inverse correlation was detected between Mexicans’ happiness (which grew remarkably between 1990 and 2003) and their belonging to any type of organizations. In the words of the survey in question, “the more a Mexican joins an organization or belongs to any type of association, the lower the probability of his or her feeling happy.…"
75
Abilene Paradox
The Abilene paradox is a paradox in which a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of any of the individuals in the group.[1][2][3] It involves a common breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group's and, therefore, does not raise objections. A common phrase relating to the Abilene paradox is a desire to not "rock the boat". Contents [hide] 1 Origins 2 Groupthink 3 Applications of the theory 4 See also 5 References 6 Further reading 7 External links[edit] OriginsThe Abilene paradox was introduced by management expert Jerry B. Harvey in his article The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement.[4] The name of the phenomenon comes from an anecdote in the article which Harvey uses to elucidate the paradox: On a hot afternoon visiting in Coleman, Texas, the family is comfortably playing dominoes on a porch, until the father-in-law suggests that they take a trip to Abilene [53 miles north] for dinner. The wife says, "Sounds like a great idea." The husband, despite having reservations because the drive is long and hot, thinks that his preferences must be out-of-step with the group and says, "Sounds good to me. I just hope your mother wants to go." The mother-in-law then says, "Of course I want to go. I haven't been to Abilene in a long time." The drive is hot, dusty, and long. When they arrive at the cafeteria, the food is as bad as the drive. They arrive back home four hours later, exhausted. One of them dishonestly says, "It was a great trip, wasn't it?" The mother-in-law says that, actually, she would rather have stayed home, but went along since the other three were so enthusiastic. The husband says, "I wasn't delighted to be doing what we were doing. I only went to satisfy the rest of you." The wife says, "I just went along to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in the heat like that." The father-in-law then says that he only suggested it because he thought the others might be bored. The group sits back, perplexed that they together decided to take a trip which none of them wanted. They each would have preferred to sit comfortably, but did not admit to it when they still had time to enjoy the afternoon. Groupthink The phenomenon may be a form of groupthink. It is easily explained by social psychology theories of social conformity and social influence which suggest that human beings are often very averse to acting contrary to the trend of the group. Likewise, it can be observed in psychology that indirect cues and hidden motives often lie behind peoples' statements and acts, frequently because social disincentives discourage individuals from openly voicing their feelings or pursuing their desires. The Abilene Paradox is related to the concept of groupthink in that both theories appear to explain the observed behavior of groups in social contexts. The crux of the theory is that groups have just as many problems managing their agreements as they do their disagreements. This observation rings true among many researchers in the social sciences and tends to reinforce other theories of individual and group behavior. [edit] Applications of the theory The theory is often used to help explain extremely poor business decisions, especially notions of the superiority of "rule by committee." A technique mentioned in the study and/or training of management, as well as practical guidance by consultants, is that group members, when the time comes for a group to make decisions, should ask each other, "Are we going to Abilene?" to determine whether their decision is legitimately desired by the group's members or merely a result of this kind of groupthink. This anecdote was also made into a short film[5] for management education.
76
Euphemism treadamill
Words originally intended as euphemisms may lose their euphemistic value, acquiring the negative connotations of their referents. In some cases, they may be used mockingly and become dysphemisms.For example, the term "concentration camp", to describe camps used to confine civilian members of the Boer community in close (concentrated) quarters, was used by the British during the Second Boer War, primarily because it sounded bland and inoffensive.[citation needed] Despite the high death rates in the British concentration camps, the term remained acceptable as a euphemism.[citation needed] However, after Nazi Germany used the expression to describe its death camps in the 1930s and 1940s, the term gained a widespread negative connotation, particularly in connection with the Holocaust.Also, in some versions of English, "toilet room", itself a euphemism, was replaced with "bathroom" and "water closet", which were replaced with restroom and W.C. These are also examples of euphemisms which are geographically concentrated. The term "restroom" is rarely used outside of the United States. As for "W.C.", where before it was quite popular in the United Kingdom, is passing out of favor there[citation needed], but becoming more popular in French and in German now as the polite term of choice.[edit] Words describing disability/handicapConnotations easily change over time. "Idiot", "imbecile", and "moron" were once neutral terms for a developmentally delayed adult of toddler, preschool, and primary school mental ages, respectively.[4] As with Gresham's law, negative connotations tend to crowd out neutral ones, so the phrase mentally retarded was pressed into service to replace them.[5] Now that, too, is considered rude, used commonly as an insult of a person, thing, or idea. As a result, new terms like "mentally challenged", "with an intellectual disability", "learning difficulties" and "special needs" have replaced "retarded".A similar progression occurred with the following terms for persons with physical handicaps: lame → crippled → handicapped → disabled → physically challenged → differently abled(However, in the case of "crippled", the meaning of the term has also broadened and is most commonly used in the late 20th or early 21st centuries figuratively not literally. The term crippled is also more semantically narrow than "disabled" or "differently abled"; a dyslexic or colorblind person, for example, would not be termed "crippled".)Another recent development is the use of person-centric phrases, which ascribe a particular condition to a person as opposed to the former conventions with used specific nouns or adjectives for persons so qualified. Examples of this convention include "persons with a disability," "persons with dyslexia," "persons with colorblindness" (as opposed to the disabled, dyslexics, the colorblind.)Euphemisms can also serve to recirculate words that have passed out of use because of negative connotation. The word "lame" from above, having faded from the vernacular, was revitalized as a slang word generally meaning not living up to expectations or boring. The connotation of a euphemism can also be subject-specific.In the early 1960s, Major League Baseball franchise owner and promoter Bill Veeck, who was missing part of a leg, argued against the then-favored euphemism "handicapped", saying he preferred "crippled" because it was merely descriptive and did not carry connotations of limiting one's capability the way "handicapped" (and all of its subsequent euphemisms) seemed to do (Veeck as in Wreck, chapter "I'm Not Handicapped, I'm Crippled"). Later, comedian George Carlin gave a famous monologue of how he thought euphemisms can undermine appropriate attitudes towards serious issues such as the evolving terms describing the medical problem of the cumulative mental trauma of soldiers in high stress situations:[6] shell shock (World War I) → battle fatigue (World War II) → operational exhaustion (Korean War) → posttraumatic stress disorder (Vietnam War)
77
Apophenia
Apophenia is the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data. The term was coined in 1958 by Klaus Conrad,[1] who defined it as the "unmotivated seeing of connections" accompanied by a "specific experience of an abnormal meaningfulness". While observations of relevant work environments and human behaviors in these environments is a very important first step in coming to understand any new domain, this activity is in and of its self not sufficient to constitute scientific research. It is fraught with problems of subjective bias in the observer. We (like the experts we study) often see what we expect to see, we interpret the world through our own personal lens. Thus we are extraordinarily open to the trap of apophenia. —A Cognitive Approach to Situation Awareness: Theory and Application, p.333.In statistics, apophenia would be classed as a Type I error (false positive, false alarm, caused by an excess in sensitivity). Apophenia is often used as an explanation of paranormal and religious claims, and can also explain a belief in pseudoscience[citation needed].Conrad originally described this phenomenon in relation to the distortion of reality present in psychosis, but it has become more widely used to describe this tendency in healthy individuals without necessarily implying the presence of neurological differences or mental illness.In the case of autistic spectrum disorders, including Asperger syndrome and individuals who are autistic savants, individuals may in fact be aware of patterns (such as those present in complex systems, large numbers, music, etc) that are infrequently noticed by neurotypical people. Rather than being aware of patterns that do not exist, autistic individuals may be aware of meaningful patterns within situations that appear meaningless to others[citation needed].Contents[show][edit] ExamplesThe identification of a face on the surface of Mars is an example of pareidoliac apophenia.[edit] PareidoliaMain article: PareidoliaPareidolia is a type of apophenia involving the finding of images or sounds in random stimuli. For example, hearing a ringing phone while taking a shower. The noise produced by the running water gives a random background from which the patterned sound of a ringing phone might be 'produced'.Recent real-world examples: the 'finding' of a cross inside a halved potato, the 'appearance' of Jesus and Mary inside a halved orange, or Jesus' face on a piece of toast or in the frost on a car window.[edit] FictionPostmodern novelists and film-makers have reflected on apophenia-related phenomena, such as paranoid narration or fuzzy plotting (e.g., Vladimir Nabokov's "Signs and Symbols", Thomas Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49 and V., Alan Moore's Watchmen, Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose and Foucault's Pendulum, William Gibson's Pattern Recognition, James Curcio's Join My Cult, Arturo Pérez-Reverte's The Club Dumas, The Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, and the films Conspiracy Theory, Darren Aronofsky's π, A Beautiful Mind, The Number 23 and The Nines). The conspiracy-obsessed superhero The Question is accused of suffering from apophenia in "Double Date,"[2] an episode of the animated TV series Justice League Unlimited. Originally, Alan Moore's character Rorschach, from the graphic novel Watchmen, is patterned after The Question. In the final issue of Batman R.I.P., the Joker explains to an organization trying to destroy Batman that there is no use trying because Batman is always so far ahead in figuring out every scheme against him. Joker attributes this to apophenia, saying that he has literally been driven insane by this alone.[3]As narrative is one of our major cognitive instruments for structuring reality, there is some common ground between apophenia and narrative fallacies such as hindsight bias. Since pattern recognition may be related to plans, goals, and ideology, and may be a matter of group ideology rather than a matter of solitary delusion, the interpreter attempting to diagnose or identify apophenia may have to face a conflict of interpretations.
78
The Law of Small Numbers...aka 'A Great way to fuck things up'
Carl von Clausewitz’s “Fog of War” (1832): Prussian analyst described war’s uncertainty, noting that three-quarters of factors are unclear. Skilled commanders predict opponent behavior despite limited information, but even they can misinterpret patterns. Law of Small Numbers: Mistake of assuming patterns in small data samples apply to larger ones, leading to faulty conclusions. World War II Examples: British Misinterpretation (June 1944): Experts observed bomb clusters in London (e.g., near Regent’s Park, Thames banks) and feared Germany had a precise new bomb. In reality, bombs were dropped randomly, and clusters were natural outcomes of random processes. German Misinterpretation (D-Day, June 1944): German commanders, expecting an Allied attack, relied on weather expert Karl Sonntag’s analysis of past Allied behavior, noting no major attacks in bad weather. Assuming rainy June forecasts ruled out an attack, they were unprepared for the Allies’ D-Day invasion on June 6 amidst poor weather. Why the Errors Occurred: Both sides overemphasized small data samples—British saw random clusters as signals; Germans saw past weather patterns as fixed Allied policy. Coin Toss Analogy: A fair coin tossed three times has a 25% chance of three heads or tails, which might falsely suggest bias. With more tosses (e.g., 1,000), results approach 50/50, showing no bias. Small samples can mislead; larger ones reveal true patterns. Probability of a consistent string (e.g., all heads) drops sharply with more tosses (1/16 after 5 tosses, 1/500,000 after 20). Broader Applications of Law of Small Numbers: Stereotypes: Judging groups based on traits of a few individuals. Hiring/Admission Decisions: Over-relying on single interviews to predict job or academic success. Stock Market: Seeing short-term patterns in stock charts, despite their unpredictability. Solution: Consider both the pattern and the sample size. Small samples are not just limited but can mislead due to false narratives.
79
Problems with rational decision making --or probabalistic decision making
Core Distinction: Tony views life through the lens of "sucker or nonsucker" rather than True or False, emphasizing practical outcomes over abstract truth. Exposure Over Knowledge: Decision effects (payoffs, consequences) are more critical than textbook knowledge or logical truths, which often miss the hidden asymmetry of benefits. Payoff Focus: The real-world impact (benefits or harm) of actions matters more than the event itself or its truth value. Fragility and Antifragility: People prioritize risks and rewards (fragility/antifragility) over philosophical notions of truth and falsehood, as payoffs dominate decision-making. Asymmetric Payoffs: Most decisions involve asymmetric consequences, where one outcome (positive or negative) has a much larger impact than the other. Examples of Fragility-Based Decisions: Airport security checks for weapons despite low terrorism probability due to high consequences of failure (fragility to terrorism). Nuclear reactor safety measures are implemented despite low explosion probability because of catastrophic potential outcomes. Avoiding untested medicine due to possible harm, even if harm is unlikely, reflects fragility-driven caution. Decision-Making Insight: Most real-world decisions are based on fragility (potential impact) rather than probability or True/False evaluations. Insufficiency of True/False: True/False judgments, tied to probabilities (e.g., 95% confidence level), are inadequate for decision-making, especially with extreme events, as they ignore the size of effects. Confidence Level Critique: A 95% confidence level may seem reassuring, but for high-stakes scenarios (e.g., plane safety), even a 1% risk is unacceptable; commercial planes operate with crash probabilities far below 1 in several hundred thousand. Limited Use of Probabilities: People rarely compute probabilities outside controlled settings like casinos, relying instead on payoff considerations. Green Lumber Fallacy: Confusing the event (e.g., a Black Swan) with its impact (e.g., financial or emotional consequences) leads to flawed responses; predictors focus on better event prediction rather than managing exposure. Practical Approach: Modifying exposure to risks (e.g., avoiding trouble) is more effective than improving probability calculations, a principle traditional heuristics and religions often handle better than science.
80
Clarity Paradox
“The clarity paradox,” which can be summed up in four predictable phases:Phase 1: When we really have clarity of purpose, it leads to success.Phase 2: When we have success, it leads to more options and opportunities.Phase 3: When we have increased options and opportunities, it leads to diffused efforts.Phase 4: Diffused efforts undermine the very clarity that led to our success in the first place.Curiously, and overstating the point in order to make it, success is a catalyst for failure.Background reading on the Clarity Paradox and on clarity/focus in generalWhat can we do to avoid the clarity paradox and continue our upward momentum? Here are three suggestions:First, use more extreme criteria. Think of what happens to our closets when we use the broad criteria: “Is there a chance that I will wear this someday in the future?” The closet becomes cluttered with clothes we rarely wear. If we ask, “Do I absolutely love this?” then we will be able to eliminate the clutter and have space for something better. We can do the same with our career choices.By applying tougher criteria we can tap into our brain’s sophisticated search engine. If we search for “a good opportunity,” then we will find scores of pages for us to think about and work through. Instead, we can conduct an advanced search and ask three questions: “What am I deeply passionate about?” and “What taps my talent?” and “What meets a significant need in the world?” Naturally there won’t be as many pages to view, but that is the point of the exercise. We aren’t looking for a plethora of good things to do. We are looking for our absolute highest point of contribution.HPOC_DR.jpgEnric is one of those relatively rare examples of someone who is doing work that he loves, that taps his talent, and that serves an important need in the world. His main objective is to help create the equivalent of National Parks to protect the last pristine places in the ocean — a significant contribution.Second, ask “What is essential?” and eliminate the rest. Everything changes when we give ourselves permission to eliminate the nonessentials. At once, we have the key to unlock the next level of our lives. Get started by: Conducting a life audit. All human systems tilt towards messiness. In the same way that our desks get cluttered without us ever trying to make them cluttered, so our lives get cluttered as well-intended ideas from the past pile up. Most of these efforts didn’t come with an expiration date. Once adopted, they live on in perpetuity. Figure out which ideas from the past are important and pursue those. Throw out the rest. Eliminating an old activity before you add a new one. This simple rule ensures that you don’t add an activity that is less valuable than something you are already doing.Third, beware of the endowment effect. Also known as the divestiture aversion, the endowment effect refers to our tendency to value an item more once we own it. One particularly interesting study was conducted by Kahneman, Knetsch and Thaler (published here) where consumption objects (e.g. coffee mugs) were randomly given to half the subjects in an experiment, while the other half were given pens of equal value. According to traditional economic theory (the Coase Theorem), about half of the people with mugs and half of the people with pens will trade. But they found that significantly fewer than this actually traded. The mere fact of ownership made them less willing to part with their own objects. As a simple illustration in your own life, think of how a book on your shelf that you haven’t used in years seems to increase in value the moment you think about giving it away.Tom Stafford describes a cure for this that we can apply to career clarity: Instead of asking, “How much do I value this item?” we should ask “If I did not own this item, how much would I pay to obtain it?” And the same goes for career opportunities. We shouldn’t ask, “How much do I value this opportunity?” but “If I did not have this opportunity, how much would I be willing to sacrifice in order to obtain it?”If success is a catalyst for failure because it leads to the “undisciplined pursuit of more,” then one simple antidote is the disciplined pursuit of less. Not just haphazardly saying no, but purposefully, deliberately, and strategically eliminating the nonessentials. Not just once a year as part of a planning meeting, but constantly reducing, focusing and simplifying. Not just getting rid of the obvious time wasters, but being willing to cut out really terrific opportunities as well. Few appear to have the courage to live this principle, which may be why it differentiates successful people and organizations from the very successful ones.
81
Availability heuristic
- **Concept Introduction**: The availability heuristic, identified by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, is a cognitive bias where people judge the frequency or probability of events based on how easily examples come to mind. - **Mechanism**: This heuristic suggests that if an example of an event is readily available in memory, people are likely to believe the event is common or important. - **Influence of Media**: Media coverage can exacerbate this bias by frequently reporting unusual or sensational events, such as plane crashes, leading people to overestimate their frequency compared to more common but less reported events like car accidents. - **Examples of Availability Heuristic**: - Overestimating the healthiness of smoking based on anecdotes of long-lived smokers. - Believing a specific group needs a subsidy because of a single, visible example. - Assuming red cars get more speeding tickets due to a known individual's experiences, despite lacking general statistical support. - Incorrectly estimating the frequency of words starting with certain letters based on ease of recall, overlooking more common but less accessible examples. - Using vivid anecdotes to support broad claims, mistaking the ease of recall for statistical representativeness. - **Imagining Outcomes**: Asking people to imagine an outcome can make it seem more likely to them, as demonstrated in experiments related to political elections and other scenarios. This shows how vivid or imagined examples can influence perceived likelihoods based on the availability heuristic.
82
Anosognosia
- **Definition and Origin**: Anosognosia is a condition where individuals are unaware of their own disabilities, a phenomenon not due to denial but resulting from physiological factors, such as brain injury. It was first identified by neurologist Joseph Babinski in 1914. - **Causes**: Common after brain injury, particularly in cases of stroke, anosognosia is thought to arise from damage to neurocognitive processes that integrate sensory information with bodily representations. It's often seen alongside conditions like unilateral neglect and can vary in awareness across different impairments. - **Relation to Psychiatry**: Anosognosia is also referenced in psychiatric contexts, particularly with conditions like bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, where individuals may lack insight into their mental illness due to potential frontal lobe damage. - **Treatment and Management**: - For psychiatric patients, anosognosia is linked to challenges like medication non-compliance and increased likelihood of hospitalization. Treatment may involve some form of coercion to ensure compliance due to the patient's lack of illness awareness. - In neurological cases, no long-term treatments exist. Temporary measures like caloric reflex testing can momentarily improve awareness. Cognitive therapy is used for long-term cases to help patients adjust, although they may still lack full awareness of their disability. - **Overall Impact**: Anosognosia significantly affects both the management of neurological impairments and psychiatric conditions by complicating treatment adherence and patient care, necessitating specialized approaches for each context.
83
Wozzle
- **Origin and Definition**: The term "Woozle effect" originates from a story in A. A. Milne's Winnie-the-Pooh, where characters mistake their own tracks for those of a fictional animal, the Woozle. The effect refers to the phenomenon where frequent citation of unsupported claims leads to misinformation and myth becoming accepted as fact. - **Historical Context**: The concept predates the term, with discussions on research errors in psychology and social science research hinting at the Woozle effect's principles. It was formally named by Beverly Houghton in 1979, though some attribute its popularization to Richard J. Gelles and Murray A. Straus in the 1980s. - **Characteristics**: A Woozle effect occurs when claims without evidence receive frequent citations, leading to the spread of false information. It's often exacerbated by changing language from speculative to definitive, contributing to belief perseverance and confirmation bias. - **Contribution to Bias**: The Woozle effect can significantly impact social sciences, where empirical evidence may align more with experiential reports than objective measurements. This tendency can skew research towards contemporary social justice ideals, introducing bias. - **Links to Pseudoscience and Propaganda**: The Woozle effect is associated with creating pseudoscience and can be likened to deliberate propaganda techniques. Warning signs include introductory phrases like "Everyone knows..." which may precede unsupported claims. - **Examples in Research**: - Misrepresentation of study sizes and samples in domestic violence research, as illustrated by Houghton's analysis of works by Gelles and Straus. - In human trafficking research, prevalence estimates were often found to be based on unsourced or weak scientific foundations, leading to misinformation. - Analysis of social anxiety communications revealed disease mongering and the presentation of one model as incontrovertible fact, despite the presence of competing theories. - **Educational Challenge**: Even when individuals are educated about identifying the Woozle effect, many still fail to recognize its signs in practical applications, underscoring the challenge of combating this form of misinformation.
84
Confabulation
- **Definition**: Confabulation involves creating false memories, perceptions, or beliefs, often due to neurological or psychological dysfunction. - **Distinction from other conditions**: It's challenging to differentiate confabulation from delusions and lying. - **Organic causes**: Associated with clear consciousness and organically derived amnesia, often resulting from brain damage, especially in prefrontal cortical regions or due to Korsakoff's syndrome. - **Types of confabulation**: - **Momentary**: Provoked by memory questions, may involve displacement of real memories. - **Fantastic**: Spontaneous, sometimes bizarre associations, potentially held with strong conviction. - **Influence of substances**: Certain military agents and drugs like BZ, scopolamine, and atropine can induce confabulation. - **Psychological causes**: Early studies showed that memory can be influenced by personal beliefs, scripts, and schemas, leading to both omission and commission errors in recalling information. - **Constructivist view of memory**: Suggests that reasoning affects memory retrieval, though this view has been criticized for being either false or untestable. - **Current theories**: Focus on distinguishing accurate memories from failures. Notable theories include: - **Source-monitoring framework**: Discriminates between internal and external memory sources, with false memories arising from misattribution. - **Fuzzy trace theory**: Assumes memory is encoded at various levels, with false memories often stemming from reliance on general "gist" rather than exact "verbatim" details. - **Memory encoding**: Memories are not stored uniformly but are encoded at multiple levels, leading to potential discrepancies and false memories when general interpretations override specific details.
85
God of the gaps
- **"God of the gaps" concept**: A critique of religious views where God is seen as the explanation for unexplained phenomena, thus filling the "gaps" in scientific knowledge. - **Derogatory term**: Generally used in a negative context to highlight a flawed approach to theology and science. - **Theological dissatisfaction**: Theologically, finding God in natural processes is considered more satisfactory than attributing unexplained phenomena to divine intervention. - **Historical origins**: The term traces back to the 19th century and was popularized by figures like Henry Drummond, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Charles Alfred Coulson. - **Retreat of religious explanations**: As science explains more, the domain traditionally attributed to God's direct action seems to shrink, leading to the perception of God retreating. - **Flawed argument**: The "God of the gaps" is a form of an argument from ignorance, positing God's action where knowledge is lacking. - **Criticism of the view**: Critics argue that this view limits God's role to unexplained phenomena and ignores the belief that God could act through natural laws and processes. - **Theological implications**: Some theologians assert that the "God of the gaps" approach weakens faith by making divine action dependent on the current state of scientific knowledge. - **Misconception of divine action**: The view may mistakenly assume that if an event can be scientifically explained, it cannot be attributed to God, overlooking the notion of a God who operates within the natural order.
86
Tragedy of the anticommons
- **Neologism by Michael Heller**: The term "tragedy of the anticommons" was introduced by Michael Heller to describe coordination issues when too many rights holders prevent a socially beneficial outcome, contrasting with the "tragedy of the commons" where too few rights holders cause a resource to be overused. - **Coordination Breakdowns**: Examples include patent thickets, submarine patents, nail houses, and bureaucratic red tape. - **Difficult Overcoming**: Resolving these issues can be challenging and sometimes requires forceful measures such as eminent domain or patent pools. - **Biomedical Research Implications**: The concept was highlighted as problematic in biomedical research by Heller and Rebecca Eisenberg, indicating that too many competing patents could hinder the development and distribution of new therapies. - **"Comedy of the Commons"**: The term counters the tragedy of the anticommons, highlighting the increased utility of a resource due to widespread use. - **Eastern European Example**: Post-Communism, the difficulty in consolidating property rights for store spaces in Eastern European cities led to many vacant stores despite high demand. - **Patent Issues**: Patents are a prime example where a product's creation can be hindered by the need to negotiate with multiple patent holders, raising costs and complicating production. - **Copyright Challenges**: Similar to patents, copyright issues can prevent the release of products like DVDs when multiple rights need to be negotiated. - **Eminent Domain as a Solution**: To prevent a single property owner from stopping large infrastructure projects, laws like eminent domain are used to allow the construction to proceed. - **Heller's Publications**: The tragedy of the anticommons is discussed in Heller's articles and his book, highlighting the complexities of property rights and their impact on innovation and public goods.
87
Turtles all the way down
- **Infinite Regress Problem**: The phrase "Turtles all the way down" humorously addresses the infinite regress problem in cosmology, where each element in a series requires justification from the preceding elements, ad infinitum. - **Popularized by Hawking**: Stephen Hawking brought attention to the phrase in his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time". - **Metaphorical Representation**: The "turtle" metaphor represents ancient mythological concepts of the earth's structure, like the flat earth supported on a turtle's back. - **Cosmological Paradox**: The expression relates to the "Unmoved mover" paradox, illustrating the issue of finding the initial cause in a chain of events that seemingly has no beginning. - **Related to Other Concepts**: The idea is akin to the "chicken and egg problem" and the "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" dilemma in different contexts, each dealing with the challenge of finding the first cause or the ultimate justification. - **Uncertain Origins**: While widely attributed to Hawking's reference, the origins of the "turtle" story are not definitively known. - **Attributions to Philosophers**: Versions of the story have been attributed to philosophers and psychologists, including William James and Bertrand Russell, though its exact origins are unclear. - **Hindu Mythological Connection**: Despite suggestions that the story has Hindu mythological roots, actual Hindu mythology does not contain this narrative; the connection seems to be a Western interpretation. - **Cultural and Philosophical References**: The story has been referenced by various thinkers and writers, including John Locke, Henry David Thoreau, Lewis Carroll, and Clifford Geertz, often to illustrate philosophical points about the nature of belief and justification. - **Variations in Storytelling**: Numerous variations of the story exist, with different scientists or intellectuals posed with the question about the earth's foundation, demonstrating the adaptability and enduring appeal of the metaphor. - **Internet Urban Legend**: The anecdote has become something of an urban legend online, with various versions circulating and the identity of the scientist changing across different retellings.
88
Framing--narrow vs broad
Imagine that you face the following pair of concurrent decisions. First examine both decisions, then make your choices. Decision (i): Choose between A. sure gain of $ 240 B. 25% chance to gain $ 1,000 and 75% chance to gain nothing Decision (ii): Choose between C. sure loss of $ 750 D. 75% chance to lose $ 1,000 and 25% chance to lose nothing This pair of choice problems has an important place in the history of prospect theory, and it has new things to tell us about rationality. As you skimmed the two problems, your initial reaction to the sure things (A and C) was attraction to the first and aversion to the second. The emotional evaluation of “sure gain” and “sure loss” is an automatic reaction of System 1, which certainly occurs before the more effortful (and optional) computation of the expected values of the two gambles (respectively, a gain of $ 250 and a loss of $ 750). Most people’s choices correspond to the predilections of System 1, and large majorities prefer A to B and D to C. As in many other choices that involve moderate or high probabilities, people tend to be risk averse in the domain of gains and risk seeking in the domain of losses.You were asked to examine both options before making your first choice, and you probably did so. But one thing you surely did not do: you did not compute the possible results of the four combinations of choices (A and C, A and D, B and C, B and D) to determine which combination you like best. Your separate preferences for the two problems were intuitively compelling and there was no reason to expect that they could lead to trouble. Furthermore, combining the two decision problems is a laborious exercise that you would need paper and pencil to complete. You did not do it. - **Decision Scenario**: The text presents two concurrent decisions involving risk and certainty: a guaranteed gain versus a gamble for a larger gain, and a guaranteed loss versus a gamble for a potentially larger loss. - **Prospect Theory Insight**: These decisions highlight the principles of prospect theory, showing how people tend to be risk-averse when it comes to gains and risk-seeking when facing losses. - **System 1's Influence**: The immediate, automatic reaction (System 1) influences most people to choose the sure gain and the riskier option to avoid a sure loss, without considering the combined expected values. - **Dominance of Combined Options**: When the two decisions are combined, the option that dominates (BC: 25% chance to win $250 and 75% chance to lose $750) is the one that most people originally rejected, demonstrating inconsistencies in decision-making. - **Broad vs. Narrow Framing**: The text distinguishes between narrow framing (viewing each decision in isolation) and broad framing (considering decisions together). Broad framing is often the superior strategy as it can lead to more rational and consistent choices. - **Human Rationality Limits**: The passage argues that humans are inherently "narrow framers," prone to inconsistent preferences due to the avoidance of mental effort and the influence of 'what you see is all there is' (WYSIATI). - **Advice on Rationality and Risk**: The text advises viewing each small gamble as part of a larger set of gambles, adopting a mantra that accepts both wins and losses, which can lead to closer economic rationality. - **Qualifications for the Mantra**: The mantra is effective when gambles are independent, the potential loss is not worrisome relative to total wealth, and it should not be applied to long shots with a very small probability of winning. - **Avoidance of Daily Investment Tracking**: For individual investors, less frequent monitoring of investments (e.g., quarterly) is recommended to avoid emotional reactions and poor decision-making driven by loss aversion. - **Investment Strategy**: Committing to not changing one's investment position for several periods can lead to better financial performance and avoid the pitfalls of emotional investment responses and unnecessary portfolio adjustments.
89
Münchhausen Trilemma
- **Concept**: The Münchhausen Trilemma, also known as Agrippa's Trilemma, highlights the difficulty of proving any truth with certainty in logic and mathematics. - **Origin of the term**: Coined by Hans Albert, it also refers back to Agrippa the Skeptic, a Greek philosopher. - **The Trilemma**: It presents three unsatisfactory options for justifying a statement: - Circular argument: where the proof and the theory support each other. - Regressive argument: where each proof necessitates a further proof ad infinitum. - Axiomatic argument: which relies on accepted precepts without further justification. - **Implications**: The Trilemma suggests that absolute certainty in knowledge is impossible because all attempts at justification eventually fail due to infinite regression, circularity, or unfounded assumptions. - **Philosophical Positions**: - Coherentists may accept the circular horn of the trilemma. - Foundationalists depend on the axiomatic argument. - Infinitism accepts an infinite regress of justifications. - **Greek Skepticism**: The trilemma is associated with five skeptical tropes outlined by Sextus Empiricus, which Agrippa supposedly adhered to: - Dissent: Disagreement over what is considered true. - Progress ad infinitum: Endless demand for further proofs. - Relation: Truth changes with perspective. - Assumption: Truths are merely hypotheses. - Circularity: The need for confirmation leads to a vicious circle. - **Albert's Formulation**: - All attempts at securing certain knowledge will fail due to infinite regression, circular reasoning, or stopping at arbitrary points without justification. - His approach suggests that seeking certain justification is a futile endeavor. - **Critical Reason**: - The trilemma does not necessarily lead to relativism; one alternative is fallibilism, which accepts the impossibility of certainty but still strives for near-truth. - Hans Albert acknowledges that his argument assumes certain rules of logical inference, which either must be accepted without certainty or subjected to the trilemma itself. - **Contemporary Relevance**: - The Münchhausen Trilemma remains a challenge in epistemology and the theory of knowledge, prompting debate on the nature of truth and justification.
90
Flatland
- **Overview of "Flatland"**: - A satirical novella from 1884 by Edwin Abbott Abbott, known for its social commentary on Victorian culture. - Uses the concept of dimensions to explore perspectives and understanding. - **Setting and Characters**: - Set in a two-dimensional world inhabited by geometric figures. - The narrator is a Square who explores various dimensions and their inhabitants. - **Plot Summary**: - The Square dreams of a one-dimensional world and tries to educate its monarch about additional dimensions. - He is then visited by a three-dimensional Sphere, introducing him to the concept of a third dimension. - The Sphere shows the Square the world of Spaceland, and they observe Flatland's leaders who suppress knowledge of additional dimensions. - The Square, enlightened about dimensions, ponders the existence of more dimensions beyond the third but is rebuked by the Sphere. - After being returned to Flatland, the Square struggles to spread the knowledge of the third dimension and is ultimately imprisoned for his efforts. - **Social Commentary**: - Social hierarchy in Flatland is determined by the number of sides a figure has, paralleling Victorian class structure. - Women are depicted as line segments and have restricted movement and roles, reflecting gender inequality. - The novella also touches on themes like the danger of ignorance and the suppression of knowledge by those in power. - **Mathematical and Philosophical Themes**: - Explores the difficulty of understanding higher dimensions from a lower-dimensional perspective. - Discusses the concept of sight recognition and the perception of shapes and angles in two dimensions. - The novella is still appreciated for its relevance to mathematics, physics, and computer science. - **Cultural Impact**: - Considered a classic and enduring piece that provides an accessible introduction to higher-dimensional spaces. - Noted by Isaac Asimov as an excellent exploration of perceiving dimensions. See also - 📐 [Geometry and Dimensionality](https://www.google.com/search?q=geometry+and+dimensionality) - 🎩 [Victorian Culture](https://www.google.com/search?q=victorian+culture) You may also enjoy - 🚀 [Science Fiction Classics](https://www.google.com/search?q=science+fiction+classics) - 🧠 [Philosophy of Mind](https://www.google.com/search?q=philosophy+of+mind) - 🌌 [Concepts of Space and Dimensions](https://www.google.com/search?q=concepts+of+space+and+dimensions)
91
Sorites paradox
- **Sorites Paradox Definition**: - A paradox arising from vague predicates. - Example given is the paradox of the heap: removing grains from a heap of sand, questioning when it stops being a heap. - **Variations of the Paradox**: - Can be applied to many predicates like "tall," "rich," "old," etc. - Bertrand Russell suggested even logical connectives could be vague. - **Paradox of the Heap**: - Classic example involves removing grains from a heap of sand and questioning at which point it ceases to be a heap. - **Variations**: - The paradox can be extended to other concepts, not just heaps of sand. - **Proposed Resolutions**: - **Setting a Fixed Boundary**: Defining a specific number of grains that make a heap, but considered arbitrary and unsatisfactory. - **Unknowable Boundaries (Epistemicism)**: Suggests that the exact point at which a heap becomes a non-heap is unknowable. - **Supervaluationism**: A semantic approach addressing the vagueness by considering all classical valuations. - **Truth Gaps, Gluts, and Many-Valued Logics**: Introduces multiple logical states beyond heap and non-heap. - **Hysteresis**: The status of a heap is dependent on its history (how it started). - **Group Consensus**: Relies on a group's consensus to define what constitutes a heap. - **Criticisms of Proposed Resolutions**: - Most resolutions are criticized for not fully resolving the paradox, as they introduce new arbitrary boundaries or fail to consider how language is actually used. See also - 🤔 [Vagueness in Language and Logic](https://www.google.com/search?q=vagueness+in+language+and+logic) - 🧠 [Philosophical Paradoxes](https://www.google.com/search?q=philosophical+paradoxes) You may also enjoy - 📊 [Statistics in Philosophy](https://www.google.com/search?q=statistics+in+philosophy) - 🗣️ [Linguistics and Semantics](https://www.google.com/search?q=linguistics+and+semantics) - 🔢 [Many-Valued Logic](https://www.google.com/search?q=many-valued+logic)
92
Deontological ethics
- **Deontological Ethics Definition**: - Focuses on adherence to rules or duties to determine the morality of actions. - Also known as "duty-based" or "rule-based" ethics. - **Contrast with Other Ethical Theories**: - Different from consequentialism, which bases morality on the outcomes of actions. - Also distinct from pragmatic ethics, emphasizing practical consequences. - **Origins of Deontology**: - Term "deontological" first used in this context by C. D. Broad in 1930. - **Key Philosophers**: - Contemporary deontologists include Thomas Nagel, Thomas Scanlon, and Frances Kamm. - Kamm developed the "Principle of Permissible Harm" based on Kant's Categorical Imperative. - **Divine Command Theory**: - Subset of deontology linked to religious belief where morality is dictated by divine commands. - **Kantianism**: - Immanuel Kant is a primary figure in deontological ethics. - Argues morality is based on duty and the intrinsic goodness of a "good will." - Presents the Categorical Imperative as a foundational ethical principle. - **Moral Absolutism**: - Some deontologists believe in absolute moral truths, such as Kant's assertion that some actions are always wrong. - **Non-aggression Principle**: - Ethical axiom in deontological libertarianism stating that initiating force is inherently wrong. - **Criticisms of Deontology**: - Criticized for potential conflicts between moral rules and for lacking clear guidance on prioritizing principles. - Accused of being subjective and incomplete by philosophers like Bentham and Mill. - Shelly Kagan critiques deontology by arguing that it cannot coherently differentiate between constraints and options within morality. See also - 📜 [Categorical Imperative](https://www.google.com/search?q=Kant%27s+categorical+imperative) - 🕊️ [Non-aggression Principle](https://www.google.com/search?q=non-aggression+principle) - ⚖️ [Moral Absolutism](https://www.google.com/search?q=moral+absolutism) You may also enjoy - 🤔 [Ethical Dilemmas](https://www.google.com/search?q=ethical+dilemmas+in+deontology) - 📚 [Philosophy of Ethics](https://www.google.com/search?q=philosophy+of+ethics) - 🧭 [Moral Philosophy](https://www.google.com/search?q=moral+philosophy)
93
Prosecutor's fallacy
- **Prosecutor's Fallacy Definition**: - A fallacy in legal contexts where evidence's statistical significance is misinterpreted. - Assumes the context of the defendant’s situation is irrelevant in assessing evidence. - Equivalent to a base rate fallacy, ignoring prior probabilities in evaluating the likelihood of guilt. - **Common Errors**: - Misunderstanding of conditional probability and neglecting the defendant's prior probability of guilt. - Assumes that a small chance of evidence arising if innocent implies a similarly small chance of innocence. - **Contextual Importance**: - Selection of a defendant based on the evidence (like DNA) requires considering the larger group they were chosen from. - Failing to include this context can lead to overestimating how incriminating the evidence is. - **Multiple Testing Issue**: - When evidence is checked against a large database, the chance of a random match increases. - The probability of finding a match by chance alone rises with the size of the database. - **Origin of Terms**: - The terms "prosecutor's fallacy" and "defense attorney's fallacy" were coined by William C. Thompson and Edward Schumann in 1987. - **Prosecutor's Fallacy Examples**: - **Conditional Probability**: - Misinterpretation of the rarity of an event (like lottery winning) as proof of cheating. - Berkson's paradox, where conditional probabilities are mistaken for unconditional, leading to wrongful convictions. - **Multiple Testing**: - DNA evidence matched against a large database without considering the database size is misleading. - Probability of a match by chance among many samples can be high, reducing the evidence's significance. - **Impact on Legal Proceedings**: - Misuse of statistical evidence in court can be accidental or intentional prosecutorial misconduct. - Defense may also commit a fallacy by misrepresenting the significance of statistical evidence. - **Sally Clark Case**: - A notable instance where the prosecutor's fallacy contributed to the wrongful conviction. - Expert witness misused statistical evidence, leading to a false conclusion of guilt in multiple infant deaths. - The Royal Statistical Society intervened to highlight the errors made in statistical reasoning. - **Defense Attorney's Fallacy**: - Incorrect reasoning that statistical evidence implicating a defendant among many is irrelevant. - Overlooks that the evidence significantly narrows down the suspect pool, maintaining its relevance. See also - 📊 [Statistical Reasoning in Law](https://www.google.com/search?q=statistical+reasoning+in+law) - 🧬 [DNA Evidence in Courts](https://www.google.com/search?q=DNA+evidence+in+courts) - 🔢 [Base Rate Fallacy](https://www.google.com/search?q=base+rate+fallacy) You may also enjoy - 🧑‍⚖️ [Legal Misinterpretations of Science](https://www.google.com/search?q=legal+misinterpretations+of+scientific+evidence) - 📈 [Probability and Law](https://www.google.com/search?q=probability+and+law+interaction) - 📚 [Critical Thinking in Law](https://www.google.com/search?q=critical+thinking+in+law)
94
A good article on sleep
- Jet lag treatments: - Travel east: morning light, evening melatonin. - Travel west: evening light, morning melatonin. - Jet lag effects: - Can cause severe mood disorders in vulnerable individuals. - Proximity to airports (like Heathrow) sees higher instances of mania or depression in travelers. - Case study observations: - Changes in mood related to travel direction and jet lag, not just post-vacation blues. - Mood improvements with proper sleep and sunlight, not drugs. - Sleep, sunlight, and mood: - Strong correlation between these factors and mental health. - Morning light has an antidepressant effect. - Historical context: - Sleep manipulation has been considered for treating mental illness since the 1960s. - Sleep deprivation can improve mood in the short term. - Circadian rhythm insights: - Depressed individuals may release melatonin earlier and wake up earlier. - Most people's natural cycle is slightly longer than 24 hours. - Light's impact on circadian rhythm: - Human internal clocks are influenced by the solar day. - Exposure to light at the wrong time can worsen jet lag. - Strategies for adjusting the internal clock: - Manipulate exposure to light and timing of melatonin intake. - Chronotherapy involves controlled light exposure and sleep timing adjustments. - Modern research and treatment: - Wake therapy and triple chronotherapy show promise for treating depression. - The need for further research and mainstream adoption in medical practice. - The potential of chronotherapy: - May offer rapid relief for depression with minimal side effects. - Lack of financial incentive and education among clinicians limit its use. - Possibilities for future drug development to mimic sleep deprivation effects. See also - 🛌 [Sleep and Depression](https://www.google.com/search?q=sleep+and+depression+connection) - ☀️ [Sunlight and Mood](https://www.google.com/search?q=sunlight+and+mood) - 🕒 [Circadian Rhythm](https://www.google.com/search?q=circadian+rhythm) You may also enjoy - 🌏 [Managing Jet Lag](https://www.google.com/search?q=managing+jet+lag) - 🛫 [Effects of Long-Haul Flights](https://www.google.com/search?q=effects+of+long+haul+flights) - 🌙 [Melatonin and Sleep](https://www.google.com/search?q=melatonin+and+sleep)
95
Jevon's effect
- **Jevons Paradox Overview**: - Technological advancements increasing resource efficiency may lead to higher overall consumption of that resource. - **Historical Context**: - Identified by William Stanley Jevons in 1865. - Noted that coal use expanded with the adoption of more efficient steam engines. - **Rebound Effect**: - Efficiency improvements reduce the relative cost of a resource, thus potentially increasing demand. - The paradox occurs if demand increases enough to outpace efficiency gains. - **Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate**: - 1980s concept suggesting that energy efficiency gains increase overall energy demand in the economy. - Supported by neo-classical growth theory. - **Implications for Energy Conservation Policy**: - Efficiency gains alone may not reduce resource depletion. - Policies must consider additional interventions, such as green taxes, to offset increased demand. - **Modern Application**: - Used to argue against the efficacy of energy conservation efforts. - Critics counter that direct rebound effects are typically small and other benefits of efficiency remain. - **Policy Recommendations**: - To reduce actual resource use, efficiency improvements must be paired with demand-reducing interventions. - Suggestions include taxing savings from efficiency gains to fund environmental initiatives. See also - 💡 [Energy Efficiency](https://www.google.com/search?q=energy+efficiency) - 🌱 [Sustainable Energy Policy](https://www.google.com/search?q=sustainable+energy+policy) - 💰 [Green Taxes](https://www.google.com/search?q=green+taxes) You may also enjoy - 🚗 [Effects of Car Efficiency on Use](https://www.google.com/search?q=effects+of+car+efficiency+on+usage) - 🌍 [Sustainable Living](https://www.google.com/search?q=sustainable+living) - 🔋 [Renewable Energy Technologies](https://www.google.com/search?q=renewable+energy+technologies)
96
Necomb's paradox
- **Newcomb's Paradox Summary**: - A thought experiment where one player (Predictor) claims to predict the other player’s choices. - **Origin and Spread**: - Created by William Newcomb, popularized by Robert Nozick and Martin Gardner in the 1960s and 1970s. - Debated in philosophy, particularly in decision theory, but not extensively in mathematics. - **The Problem Setup**: - The Predictor is characterized by varying degrees of infallibility. - The game involves two boxes: A (transparent with $1,000) and B (opaque, contents based on prediction). - The player can take both boxes or only box B, with box B's content ($0 or $1,000,000) pre-determined by the Predictor's prediction. - **Paradoxical Decision**: - There are two main strategies, each yielding a different "logical" outcome. - The first strategy (two-boxing) argues for taking both boxes, always resulting in more money, regardless of prediction. - The second strategy (one-boxing) depends on the Predictor's accuracy and suggests taking only box B, potentially yielding a higher payout. - **Nozick's Observation**: - Noted the division of opinions among people on what the correct choice is. - **The Core Issue**: - Conflict between the belief that past events cannot be affected and Newcomb's proposal that one’s current choice can influence a past event. - **The Idle Argument**: - Related to fatalism, suggesting one's actions are predetermined, thus making efforts seem futile. - **Attempted Resolutions**: - Varying decision-making models lead to different conclusions. - The expected utility hypothesis vs. the Dominance principle. - Some reformulate the problem with Bayes nets, showing inconsistent assumptions. - **Philosophical Interpretations**: - Discussions around free will, determinism, and backward causation. - The paradox seen as highlighting the incompatibility of free will and perfect prediction. - **Relation to Machine Consciousness**: - Questions if a perfect simulation of a person’s brain can predict their choices. See also - 🤔 [Decision Theory](https://www.google.com/search?q=decision+theory) - 🎲 [Game Theory](https://www.google.com/search?q=game+theory) - 🧠 [Philosophy of Free Will](https://www.google.com/search?q=philosophy+of+free+will) You may also enjoy - ⏳ [Time Travel in Philosophy](https://www.google.com/search?q=time+travel+philosophy) - 🖥️ [Machine Consciousness](https://www.google.com/search?q=machine+consciousness) - 🔮 [Prediction and Futurology](https://www.google.com/search?q=prediction+and+futurology)
97
Path dependence
- **Path Dependence Defined**: - Options in the present are limited by historical decisions. - Narrowly, it refers to self-reinforcing processes; broadly, it means "history matters". - **Illustration of Path Dependence**: - The VCR format war between Betamax and VHS illustrates path dependence. - Small initial advantages can lead to a bandwagon effect or network effects, resulting in one standard dominating due to early adoption advantages. - **Economics and Path Dependence**: - Originated in economics to describe technology adoption and industry evolution. - Path dependent processes can lead to multiple possible equilibria. - Early random events can significantly influence long-term outcomes. - Examples include the influence of the U.S. dollar exchange rate on manufacturing, standard entrenchment like QWERTY, and geographical clustering in industries. - **Critiques and Discussions**: - Some economists argue that path dependence can lead to inefficiencies, but these situations are rare. - Liebowitz and Margolis categorize path dependence into three degrees, only the third of which challenges neoclassical economics. - **History and Social Sciences**: - Human history is inherently path-dependent. - Path dependence is used to analyze the persistence of social, political, and cultural institutions. - Critical juncture framework: contingent choices during crucial periods set hard-to-reverse trajectories. - Reactive sequences: a primary event triggers an almost uninterruptible chain of events. - **Other Examples of Path Dependence**: - Typological vestiges in typography, such as U.S. punctuation inside quotation marks. - Biological evolution, where past mutations impact current life forms. - Legacy systems in computing, where current needs include compatibility with older systems. See also - 📊 [Evolutionary Economics](https://www.google.com/search?q=evolutionary+economics) - 🗳️ [Historical Institutionalism](https://www.google.com/search?q=historical+institutionalism) - 💾 [Legacy Systems in Computing](https://www.google.com/search?q=legacy+systems+in+computing) You may also enjoy - 📈 [Technology Adoption Life Cycle](https://www.google.com/search?q=technology+adoption+life+cycle) - ⌨️ [QWERTY Layout History](https://www.google.com/search?q=QWERTY+layout+history) - 🧬 [Evolutionary Biology](https://www.google.com/search?q=evolutionary+biology)
98
The spiral of silence
- **Spiral of Silence Theory**: - Developed by Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann. - Describes the tendency to remain silent when one believes their opinion is in the minority. - **Basic Framework**: - Initiated by fear of reprisal or isolation. - People have a quasi-statistical sense to gauge public opinion. - Mass media significantly influences perceptions of dominant opinions. - **Cross-Cultural Studies**: - Research has examined the theory in different cultural contexts. - A study between the U.S. (individualistic) and Taiwan (collectivist) showed Americans more likely to speak out, supporting the theory. - Another study on Basque Nationalism found people were reluctant to oppose the ETA publicly due to fear of isolation. - **Spiral of Silence and the Internet**: - The Internet challenges traditional notions of isolation, potentially undermining the spiral of silence. - Online anonymity and the absence of non-verbal cues can empower individuals to express minority opinions. - The Internet fosters heterogeneity and can equalize participation in discussions, counteracting the spiral of silence. - **Challenges to the Theory**: - The theory is less applicable where the fear of isolation is diminished. - Social cues that facilitate isolation offline are often absent online. - The Internet can serve as a platform for diverse and free expression of opinions. See also - 🌐 [Impact of Internet on Communication](https://www.google.com/search?q=impact+of+internet+on+communication) - 📢 [Public Opinion Formation](https://www.google.com/search?q=public+opinion+formation) - 🗣️ [Cultural Differences in Communication](https://www.google.com/search?q=cultural+differences+in+communication) You may also enjoy - 💬 [Online Anonymity Effects](https://www.google.com/search?q=online+anonymity+effects) - 📰 [Media Influence on Public Opinion](https://www.google.com/search?q=media+influence+on+public+opinion) - 🤐 [Psychology of Silence](https://www.google.com/search?q=psychology+of+silence)
99
Two envelopes problem
- **Two Envelopes Problem Summary**: - Also known as the exchange paradox, involving logic, philosophy, probability, and recreational mathematics. - **Origin**: - Variant of the necktie paradox, historical roots traced back to Maurice Kraitchik and Erwin Schroedinger. - **Basic Setup**: - Two indistinguishable envelopes, each with a positive sum of money; one contains twice the amount of the other. - You choose one envelope but can switch to the other before opening. - **The Switching Argument**: - Uses expected return calculations to argue for the benefit of switching envelopes. - This leads to an infinite regression paradox where it seems rational to keep swapping envelopes indefinitely. - **Multiple Resolutions**: - Solutions to the paradox differ, but common resolutions highlight logical fallacies or improper statistical assumptions. - Some solutions involve recognizing the error in treating the variable representing the amount in the envelope as a fixed quantity when it's actually a random variable. - Others point out that the paradox arises from an impossible distribution of money across the envelopes. - **Cultural Studies**: - Cross-cultural studies (e.g., between individualistic U.S. and collectivist Taiwan) explored the spiral of silence theory in the context of the two envelopes problem. - **Internet Impact**: - The Internet challenges the spiral of silence due to anonymity and the possibility of finding like-minded groups, which could potentially affect the two envelopes paradox by altering social pressures and perceived norms. - **Non-Probabilistic Variants**: - Raymond Smullyan proposed a version without probabilities, focusing on logical arguments leading to contradictory conclusions. - Solutions to this variant generally involve nuanced logical or semantic analysis, often pointing to issues with counterfactual reasoning. - **Relation to Economics**: - The paradox demonstrates limitations in mathematical economics and utility theory, especially regarding infinite expectations and unbounded utility. - **Extensions and Game Theory**: - Extensions to the problem consider looking inside one envelope before deciding to switch. - Game theory approaches suggest there is no solution to the game without knowing the arranger's strategy for envelope contents. - **History**: - The paradox has been discussed in various forms since the mid-20th century, gaining popularity through Martin Gardner's writings. See also - 🧠 [Decision Theory](https://www.google.com/search?q=decision+theory) - 📈 [Bayesian Probability](https://www.google.com/search?q=bayesian+probability) - 🎮 [Game Theory](https://www.google.com/search?q=game+theory) You may also enjoy - 🧮 [Recreational Mathematics](https://www.google.com/search?q=recreational+mathematics) - 🎲 [Probability Puzzles](https://www.google.com/search?q=probability+puzzles) - 🖥️ [Impact of the Internet on Decision Making](https://www.google.com/search?q=impact+of+internet+on+decision+making)
100
Solipsism
- **Solipsism Overview**: - Solipsism is the philosophical concept that only one's own mind is sure to exist. - It posits that knowledge outside one's direct experience is unverifiable. - The external world and other minds may not exist beyond one's perception. - **Key Points**: - Solipsism is not just the denial of a material existence; it specifically denies the existence of other minds. - Rooted in epistemology, it asserts that the only certain knowledge is "I am thinking, therefore I exist" (cogito ergo sum). - It challenges the notion of a conceptual link between the mental and physical. - **Historical Context**: - Traces back to Gorgias of Leontini, who claimed nothing exists, nothing can be known, and if it could, it couldn't be communicated. - Became prominent with Descartes' quest for indubitable knowledge. - **Variants of Solipsism**: - **Metaphysical solipsism**: Suggests the individual self is the entire reality. - **Epistemological solipsism**: Holds only the solipsist's immediate mental contents can be known. - **Methodological solipsism**: Argues that the self and its states are the only certain basis for knowledge and philosophy. - **Psychology and Psychiatry**: - Philosophical solipsism is often associated with pathological psychological states. - Solipsism syndrome refers to a dissociative mental state where a person feels detached from reality. - Infant solipsism suggests that infants initially believe they are the only conscious beings. - **Consequences and Critiques**: - Challenged by the fact that other individuals have expressed similar insights, suggesting a shared mental experience. - Questions arise about the imperfection of life if a solipsist has created his or her own reality. - Death of others does not disprove solipsism since the solipsist's own mind persists. - Language necessity for thought formulation implies the existence of other communicating minds. - Solipsism collapses into realism when one studies the unconscious mind scientifically. - **Relation to Other Philosophical Ideas**: - Contrasts with materialism, which posits an independent external world. - Overlaps with idealism, where ideas or the mind form the fundamental reality. - Related to Cartesian dualism, which distinguishes between mind and body. - Aligns with certain Eastern philosophies that view distinctions between self and universe as arbitrary. - May be compared to pantheism, where all is God or part of God, differing mainly in focus. - **Philosophical Responses**: - Solipsism has been criticized for being unfalsifiable and not allowing for empirical testing. - It has been deemed philosophically empty or stagnant, as it does not permit further analysis or growth in understanding 'reality'. See also - 🤔 [Epistemology](https://www.google.com/search?q=epistemology) - 💭 [Descartes' Cogito](https://www.google.com/search?q=Descartes+cogito) - 🧠 [Problem of Other Minds](https://www.google.com/search?q=problem+of+other+minds) You may also enjoy - 🌌 [Metaphysics](https://www.google.com/search?q=metaphysics) - 🏔️ [Idealism in Philosophy](https://www.google.com/search?q=idealism+in+philosophy) - 🧘 [Eastern Philosophy and Consciousness](https://www.google.com/search?q=eastern+philosophy+and+consciousness)
101
Monty Hall problem
- **Monty Hall Problem Overview**: - A probability puzzle from the game show "Let's Make a Deal", named after its host Monty Hall. - The paradoxical element lies in the counterintuitive solution that is mathematically true. - **Problem Scenario**: - Contestant faces three doors: one hides a car, others hide goats. - Contestant picks a door, host (who knows what's behind doors) opens another door, revealing a goat. - Contestant is asked if they want to switch to the remaining door. - **Common Misconception**: - Intuition suggests there's a 50/50 chance after one door is opened, so switching doesn’t matter. - Correct strategy: switching doors doubles the chance of winning the car, from 1/3 to 2/3. - **Public Reaction**: - Published solution in Parade magazine met with disbelief, many readers (including PhDs) insisted it was wrong. - Controversy arose from misunderstanding the host's behavior and the conditional probabilities involved. - **Relation to Other Problems**: - Mathematically similar to the Three Prisoners problem and Bertrand's box paradox. - Illustrates common difficulties in understanding non-intuitive probability distributions. - **Formal Explanation**: - If contestant's initial pick was correct (1/3 chance), switching loses; if initial pick was wrong (2/3 chance), switching wins. - Host’s action of opening a door to reveal a goat doesn’t change the initial probability, hence switching is advantageous. - **Psychological Studies**: - Studies show that even when the problem is clearly stated, many still resist the correct answer. - **Variants and Generalizations**: - Various interpretations depending on host’s behavior, door choices, and whether the host must always offer a switch. - Game theory and decision trees can be used to analyze different versions of the problem. - **Understanding Aids**: - Analogies with playing cards or a larger number of doors can help visualize why switching is beneficial. - Simulations and experiments demonstrate the 2/3 success rate for switching. - **Cultural Impact and Recognition**: - The problem has been discussed in academic papers, radio shows, novels, and TV programs. - Continues to be a popular example in teaching probability and decision-making. See also - 🚪 [Probability Puzzles](https://www.google.com/search?q=probability+puzzles) - 🎲 [Game Show Probability](https://www.google.com/search?q=game+show+probability+problems) - 🧠 [Decision-Making in Uncertainty](https://www.google.com/search?q=decision-making+in+uncertainty) You may also enjoy - 🧩 [Puzzlers and Brain Teasers](https://www.google.com/search?q=puzzlers+and+brain+teasers) - 🎮 [Game Theory](https://www.google.com/search?q=game+theory) - 📈 [Bayesian Probability](https://www.google.com/search?q=bayesian+probability)
102
A great quote on gun control
Want to stop drunk drivers from killing sober drivers? Ban sober drivers from driving. That's how gun control works.
103
Drunkard's Search Principle
An old parable (sometimes ascribed to Mulla Nasreddin, the 13th Century witty philosopher from today’s Turkey) tells of a drunkard searching under a street lamp for keys he has lost because the light there is better than where he thinks he lost them. A police officer sees a drunken man intently searching the ground near a lamppost and asks him the goal of his quest. The inebriate replies that he is looking for his car keys, and the officer helps for a few minutes without success. Then he asks whether the man is certain that he dropped the keys near the lamppost. “No,” is the reply, “I lost the keys somewhere across the street.” “Why look here?” asks the surprised and irritated officer. “The light is much better here,” the intoxicated man responds with aplomb. The “drunkard’s search” or the “streetlight effect” refers to the propensity for people to look for whatever they’re searching in the easier places instead of in the places that are most likely to yield the results they’re seeking. This is a widespread observational bias that manifests itself frequently in research and investigative methods. For instance, many Americans who lost their jobs during the two recessions of the ‘lost decade’ of the 2000s sought jobs in the same communities where their factories had closed. They were less inclined to seek long-term solutions to their joblessness and relocate to parts of America where jobs were not as scarce. They had kids in local schools, owned homes that had significantly devalued during the recession, and felt rooted in their communities. They found it more convenient to hope for a revival in their local economies and endure the recession.