Supermemo6 Flashcards
(98 cards)
Summary and conclusions–False Equivalence
False equivalence is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone incorrectly asserts that two or more things are equivalent, simply because they share some characteristics, despite the fact that there are also notable differences between them. An example of a false equivalence is saying that a person shouldn’t criticize a company for allowing a catastrophic oil spill to happen, because that person littered once. When responding to a false equivalence, you can show that the similarities between the things being equated are exaggerated, highlight the differences between the things being equated, present counterexamples that demonstrate the issues with the equivalence, or ask your opponent to justify why they believe that their proposed equivalence is reasonable. To avoid using false equivalences, you should make sure that whenever you equate two or more things with one another, you have proper justification as to why the things in question are equivalent, based on relevant criteria. It’s important to remember that not every comparison is an equivalence, not every equivalence is a false equivalence, and not every false equivalence is intentional, and to keep in mind that there is some subjectivity involved when it comes to determining whether an equivalence is reasonable or not.
Ipse Dixit
Ipse dixit (Latin for “he said it himself”) is an assertion without proof, or a dogmatic expression of opinion. The fallacy of defending a proposition by baldly asserting that it is “just how it is” distorts the argument by opting out of it entirely: the claimant declares an issue to be intrinsic, and not changeable.
It’s a self-referential appeal to authority.
Post-modernism
The persistent celebration of certain writers, artists, musicians, philosophers, historical figures for their non-Western “ways of knowing”. They’re venerated –NOT for what they are– but for what they are not: White, European male.Additionally, M.C. spews the doctrine declaring that a group traditionally “privileged” has no right to define reality for others. It goes further; the very state of being oppressed is somehow supposed to confer a greater clarity of vision, a more authentic view of the world, than the bourgeois trappings of economic, racial, and sexual hegemony.There is a paradox in the scorning of all (traditional) liberal, Western thought: In doing so, the postmodern left is clearly cutting away the roots, emotional as well as intellectual, that formed and sustained its most deeply held egalitarian ideals. In embracing the brittle skepticism of postmodern thought, would-be leftists are never more than an inch away from passivity, ineffectuality, and cynical despair. A criticism frequently advanced by opponents of postmodernism—justifiably, in our view—is that the doctrine, at its most virulent, is hardly distinguishable from the moral blankness, the Viva la muerte!, upon which fascism was erected in the first half of this century.It is, for instance, pretty suicidal for embattled minorities to embrace post-modern Leftist thought with its view that Truth is relative and constructed. The minority view was always that power could be undermined by truth … Once you read Leftists as saying that truth is simply an effect of power, you’ve had it … But American departments of literature, history, and sociology contain large numbers of self-described leftists who have confused radical doubts about objectivity with political radicalism, and are in a mess.
Ben & Jerry’s vs. Amazon
Choosing a Growth Model for Your Company When building a company, one of the most important decisions is choosing between two distinct growth models: organic growth or the “Get Big Fast” (GBF) approach. Each model has unique implications on strategy, competition, capital requirements, and risks, and you must align your operations with your choice to avoid failure. ### Key Insights: 1. Organic Model (Ben & Jerry’s): - Slow, steady growth: This approach involves starting small, setting limited goals, and growing the business over time. - Requires less capital: The business aims for profitability early, avoiding massive upfront investments. - Competitive Environment: Typically used in markets with established competitors, where there’s no strong network effect or customer lock-in. - Risk mitigation: Mistakes are small and serve as valuable lessons. - High success rate: The chances of survival are strong, even if growth is slow. 2. Get Big Fast Model (Amazon): - Rapid scaling: The aim is to grow as quickly as possible, often in new markets with little or no competition at first. - Huge capital investments: Requires significant venture capital and a focus on growth rather than profitability in the early stages. - Network effects and lock-in: Success often depends on the strength of the network effect, where the more customers you get, the more valuable the service becomes. - Mistakes are overlooked: Large capital reserves allow companies to absorb costly mistakes. - Low success rate: There is a tiny chance of massive success (e.g., Amazon), but the risk of failure is very high. 3. Core Differences: - Capital Requirements: Organic companies need little capital and reach break-even faster, while GBF requires vast capital and delays profitability. - Mistakes: Organic companies learn from mistakes, while GBF firms might not notice them due to the rapid pace and abundant funding. - Long-term Success: Organic companies are more likely to succeed steadily, while GBF companies aim for a big win but face a higher likelihood of failure. 4. Key Decision: - Choosing your path: Not choosing between these models can lead to disaster. It’s crucial to fully commit to one model, as trying to mix them can lead to confusion, inefficiency, and eventual failure. The worst mistake you can make is failing to commit to either strategy, as it may prevent your business from gaining a solid foothold in the market.
The Message of Antifragile
Everything gains or loses from volatility. Fragility is what loses from volatility and uncertainty. The glass on the table is short volatility.Remember: Time is volatility. As is entropy.Distributed randomness (as opposed to the concentrated type) is a necessity, not an option: everything big is short volatility. So is everything fast. Big and fast are abominations. Modern times don’t like volatility.
Iatrogenesis
The terms iatrogenesis and iatrogenic artifact refer to inadvertent adverse effects or complications caused by or resulting from medical treatment or advice. In addition to harmful consequences of actions by physicians, iatrogenesis can also refer to actions by other healthcare professionals, such as psychologists, therapists, pharmacists, nurses, dentists, and others. Iatrogenesis is not restricted to conventional medicine and can also result from complementary and alternative medicine treatments.Some iatrogenic artifacts are clearly defined and easily recognized, such as a complication following a surgical procedure. Some are less obvious and can require significant investigation to identify, such as complex drug interactions. And, some conditions have been described for which it is unknown, unproven or even controversial whether they be iatrogenic or not; this has been encountered particularly with regard to various psychological and chronic pain conditions. Research in these areas is ongoing.Causes of iatrogenesis include chance, medical error, negligence, social control and the adverse effects or interactions of prescription drugs. In the United States, from 120,000 to 225,000 deaths per year may be attributed in some part to iatrogenesis.
“But”
Everything before the “but” is meant to be ignored by the speaker; and everything after the “but” should be ignored by the listener.
Exception Paradox
Exception paradox:if every rule has an exception (this is the false premise), then there must be an exception to the rule that every rule has an exception.From the logical point of view, this can be taken as a proof that the sentence “every rule has an exception” is false - a simple example of a proof technique known as reductio ad absurdum. More formally, Every rule has an exception. (Statement) “Every rule has an exception” has an exception. (By 1) There exists some rule R without exception. (By 2) Since R is a rule, by the first statement it must have an exception. But by 3, it does not have an exception - an apparent contradiction.[edit] Variations on the Paradox The liar paradox has similar self-reference, with the added twist that rejecting it leads to another paradox. If everything is possible, then it is possible for anything to be impossible. The only rule is that there are no rules. The only thing certain is that there is nothing certain. If everything has an opposite, then the opposite of there being an opposite to everything, is that there is not an opposite to everything. If everything should be taken in moderation, then moderation should itself be taken moderately, meaning that not everything would be taken in moderation.
Foot-in-the-door technique–II
Foot-in-the-Door (FITD) Technique The Foot-in-the-Door (FITD) technique is a psychological compliance strategy where a person is first asked to agree to a small, modest request, which increases the likelihood of them agreeing to a larger request later. This strategy is rooted in the Consistency Principle, where individuals feel a need to remain consistent with their previous actions or beliefs. ### Key Insights: 1. Mechanism of FITD: - Successive Approximations: The technique works by creating a sense of commitment with small requests, which gradually leads the subject to agree to larger, related requests. The subject feels compelled to be consistent with their prior behaviors. - Bond Formation: Even if the subject initially agrees to a trivial request out of politeness, they might later rationalize this decision as a genuine connection to the requester or the cause, making them more likely to agree to subsequent, larger requests. 2. Relation to Other Psychological Concepts: - Consistency Principle: People want to behave consistently with their previous commitments, leading them to agree to larger requests. - Creeping Normalcy: Small changes or commitments over time gradually lead to bigger changes without the person noticing the escalation. - Franklin Effect: People who do a favor for someone are more likely to do another favor for that person, possibly due to the desire to view themselves as helpful and consistent. 3. FITD vs. Door-in-the-Face: - FITD starts with a small request and escalates to a larger one. - The door-in-the-face technique, by contrast, begins with an outlandishly large request, which is expected to be rejected, followed by a smaller, more reasonable request. The contrast makes the second request seem more acceptable. 4. Enhancing the Effectiveness: - Self-Perception Theory: FITD is successful because people begin to see themselves as the kind of person who agrees to requests, driving future compliance. - Adding a phrase like “you are free to decline” increases compliance by making the subject feel in control. - Online Application: FITD can be applied in digital settings, such as emails, where small requests (e.g., saving a file) are followed by larger ones (e.g., completing a survey). The anonymity of the internet can make this technique less anxiety-provoking. 5. Examples of FITD in Action: - Research: Asking individuals to place a small, unobtrusive sign in their window increases the likelihood of them agreeing to place a much larger, unsightly sign in their yard later. - Real-life scenarios: A child asking for a small favor, like staying at a friend’s house for an hour, followed by a bigger request, like staying the night. - Sales tactics: Offers like “six months interest-free” can lead to larger financial commitments down the road. 6. Commercial and Political Uses: - Companies and political campaigns often use FITD to build initial compliance with smaller actions (e.g., signing a petition) before moving on to larger asks (e.g., donating money or time). - FITD is also used in behavior change campaigns, such as promoting organ donation through small steps like completing a questionnaire, which increases the likelihood of the person becoming an organ donor. ### Conclusion: The Foot-in-the-Door (FITD) technique leverages human tendencies toward consistency and incremental commitment to achieve larger compliance over time. It is used in various settings, including marketing, politics, and personal interactions, and is enhanced by factors such as self-perception and delayed requests.
Stoics on setbacks
Use setbacks in life as an opportunity to become a bigger and better person. Don’t wallow. Another thing of course is life will have terrible blows, horrible blows, unfair blows, doesn’t matter. And some people recover and others don’t. And there I think the attitude of Epictetus is the best. He thought that every mischance in life was an opportunity to behave well, every mischance in life was an opportunity to learn something, and your duty was not to be submerged in self-pity but to utilize the terrible blow in a constructive fashion. That is a very good idea.
Spotlight effect
The spotlight effect is the psychological phenomenon by which people tend to believe they are being noticed more than they really are. Being that one is constantly in the center of one’s own world, an accurate evaluation of how much one is noticed by others is uncommon. The reason for the spotlight effect is the innate tendency to forget that although one is the center of one’s own world, one is not the center of everyone else’s. This tendency is especially prominent when one does something atypical.[1]Research has empirically shown that such drastic over-estimation of one’s effect on others is widely common. Many professionals in social psychology encourage people to be conscious of the spotlight effect and to allow this phenomenon to moderate the extent to which one believes one is in a social spotlight.The spotlight effect is the psychological phenomenon by which people tend to believe they are being noticed more than they really are. Being that one is constantly in the center of one’s own world, an accurate evaluation of how much one is noticed by others is uncommon. The reason for the spotlight effect is the innate tendency to forget that although one is the center of one’s own world, one is not the center of everyone else’s. This tendency is especially prominent when one does something atypical.[1]Research has empirically shown that such drastic over-estimation of one’s effect on others is widely common. Many professionals in social psychology encourage people to be conscious of the spotlight effect and to allow this phenomenon to moderate the extent to which one believes one is in a social spotlight.
Adding vs Averaging in decision making
about the psychology behind how people evaluate options that are available to them when making choices.The information here comes from a research article on the topic (no open-access version, unfortunately).Here are the key practical points you should know:When we evaluate available options based on their attributes, we generally use one of two main strategies.Adding involves evaluating each option based on the sum of the value of its attributes.Averaging involves evaluating each option based on the average value of its attributes.For example, consider a situation where we assess a job offer that’s rated as a “3” on a scale of 1-5. If we’re offered additional benefits that are rated as a “2”, then we would consider the job more attractive if we’re adding the attributes, because the sum of its attributes goes up by 2. However, if we average the attributes, then we would now consider the job less attractive, because the value of the benefits (2) lowers the average value of the attributes for the job (3). In other words, adding those mediocre benefits can paradoxically make the job feel less attractive than if those benefits weren’t there at all, even if having the benefits is better than not having them.People tend to default to averaging when it’s hard for them to evaluate the available options, for example because they need to compare many options simultaneously.This is important for understanding people’s thinking, including your own, and for influencing people’s decisions where relevant.For example, if you’re a hiring manager, you might decide to prioritize a few great benefits over many mediocre ones, and also avoid having weak benefits entirely.
Circular cause and consequence
There are many real world examples of circular cause-and-effect, in which the chicken-or-egg question helps identify the analytical problem: Expectation of economic downturn causes people to spend less, which reduces demand, causing economic downturn. Without a treadmill test, it is not possible to ascertain the health of the heart, but taking such a test can cause the heart to fail. More jobs cause more consumption, which requires more production, and thus more jobs. Jobs are not readily available to people who have little to no experience in the field, yet workers cannot get experience without getting a job. An individual with no credit history (not to be confused with poor credit history) has trouble getting credit, yet creditors are hesitant to give loans to people who have little to no credit history. An increase in production to feed a growing population leads only to a further increase in population. An actor cannot join the actor’s union unless he has played a role in a union film, but a non-union actor cannot get a role in a union film because he isn’t in the union.This would only be a fallacy when saying “only A causes B, and only B causes A.”. If the word “only” is removed then this would not be a fallacy. This might be understood as the “fallacy of begging the question”.ContradictionsCircular cause and consequence is often confused with mutually contradictory statements, such as the famous “Catch-22”, in which two mutually exclusive statements seem to send the reader back and forth in a cycle. Circular reasoning however is a problem of finding the ‘root cause’ (e.g. which came first) which is not the basis of the Catch-22 or any of the following examples of contradictions.For example, Lewis Carroll in Through the Looking-Glass, where the White Queen states “Jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, but never jam today”. Since every tomorrow becomes eventually today as the future turns into present, and past is gone forever, the result is that poor Alice will never have jam.A real-life mutual contradiction is that one cannot get a job without experience, but one cannot get experience without a job. In this respect, the initial move to the job market can be very challenging. However, as with many possible examples, this isn’t an absolute circular cause, since there are some jobs that require no experience, and people can get hired without experience for others in certain cases. In this way, a circular cause and consequence is usually short-circuited by extenuating circumstances.Mutual contradiction is much akin to No true Scotsman fallacy, but where “No true Scotsman” fallacy assumes the premise wrong in an exception, the “circular cause and consequence” implies an impossible outcome in an exception. This implication makes circular cause and consequence similar to a Catch-22, where two mutually exclusive premises are required to reach the conclusion, hence the conclusion is impossible.
Empathy and comfort
The more comfortable you are, the more difficult it is to empathize with the suffering of another. In other words, we tend to use our own feelings to determine how others feel.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.
A Study Looks At 2 Ways of Expressing Gratitude
One way of expressing gratitude isresponsiveness-highlighting, which involves conveying thatthe helper’s actions met your needs (e.g. “I wouldn’t have made it to the meeting on time if you didn’t drop me off at the office today”). Another way of expressing gratitude iscost-highlighting,which involves acknowledging that the actions were costly for your helper (e.g. “I know it was a hassle for you to drop me off at my office during rush hour”). The study found that, in the context of gratitude between romantic partners, responsiveness-highlighting is generally more effective than cost-highlighting, in terms of how helpers feel about the expression of gratitude and about the relationship in general.Because this study focused ongratitude in a very specific sample, and because of the substantial individual variability that may be involved, you shouldnot assume that responsiveness-highlighting is always going to be preferable to cost-highlighting.Rather, the key practical takeaways from this article are that it’s important to express gratitude to others where appropriate, and thathow you express gratitude is also important. Furthermore, this article highlights two approaches that you can use to guide your expressions of gratitude, and note that in some cases, you may find that it’s better to combine both rather than to use only one.
Contrast Principle
Rosser Reeves, an American advertising executive, is the subject of one of the most famous stories in advertising. While the precise details are unknown, the legend goes like this:One afternoon, Reeves and a colleague were having lunch in Central Park. On their way back to their Madison Avenue office, they saw a beggar holding a cardboard sign that read: “I am blind.”Reeves turned to his colleague and bet him that he could add more quarters to the beggar’s cup by adding four words to his sign. Doubtful, but intrigued, Reeves’s friend accepted the wager.Reeves then introduced himself to the beggar and explained that, due to his background as an advertising executive, he could help boost the man’s donations. The beggar accepted Reeves’s offer and handed him his sign.The “Mad Man” took a marker and added four simple words, changing to man’s sign to “I am blind,” to, “It is springtime, and I am blind.” Reeves, to his colleague’s chagrin—and the beggar’s delight—collected his winnings.***Depending on how it’s spun, much can be read into that legend.On the one hand, empathy is a powerful motivator. When passersby saw the beggar’s sign, they were more likely to compare to their own reality and donate.On the other hand, context drives clarity. When we see a problem in isolation (“I am blind”), it’s hard to see it for what it is, objectively. But when compared to something else (“It is springtime,”) the meaning that we ascribe to the event changes. This is “the contrast principle” at work, and it can trip up even the smartest of people.In moments of decision (a problem, a purchase, etc.), the most essential question you can ask, says Robert Cialdini, is, “Compared to what?” Your answer(s) will unearth perspectives that you would have otherwise overlooked. [2]The final word belongs to Epictetus:“Whenever you face difficult situations in life, remember the prospect of death and other major tragedies that can and do happen to people. You will see that, compared to death, none of the things you face in life is important enough to worry about.”
False Equivalence: The Problem with Unreasonable Comparisons
False equivalence is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone incorrectly asserts that two or more things are equivalent, simply because they share some characteristics, despite the fact that there are also notable differences between them. For example, a false equivalence is saying that cats and dogs are the same animal, since they’re both mammals and have a tail.False equivalences, which generally exaggerate similarities and ignore important differences, can be used to equate a wide range of things, including individuals, groups, actions, or arguments, either implicitly or explicitly. Accordingly, false equivalences are frequently used in debates on various topics, especially when it comes to suggesting that there is a moral equivalence between two or more things that are being equated.Because false equivalences are so widely used, it’s important to understand them. As such, in the following article you will learn more about the false equivalence fallacy, see examples of how it’s used, and understand what you can do in order to counter it as effectively as possible.
Learning Chess Is A Good Metaphor On How toLearn Anything
Bruce (his teacher) began our study with a barren chessboard. We took on positions of reduced complexity and clear principles. Our first focus was king and pawn against king—just three pieces on the table….Layer by layer we built up my knowledge and my understanding of how to transform axioms into fuel for creative insight….This method of study gave me a feeling for the beautiful subtleties of each chess piece, because in relatively clear-cut positions I could focus on what was essential. I was also gradually internalizing a marvelous methodology of learning—the play between knowledge, intuition, and creativity. From both educational and technical perspectives, I learned from the foundation up. “Most of my rivals, on the other hand, began by studying opening variations … .Once you start with openings, there is no way out … It is a little like developing the habit of stealing the test from your teacher’s desk instead of learning how to do the math. You may pass the test, but you learn absolutely nothing—and most critically, you don’t gain an appreciation for the value or beauty of learning itself.”
Memory and imagination
Remembering is imagining what happened.There’s not much difference between reconstructing something that happened, and constructing something that has not yet happened (ie what you think might happen)
How most people (ie me) tend to listen
Most people listen with intent to do something – usually to defend themselves, or to solve a problem. Nearly everyone listens with the intent of having something ready to say as soon as the speaker is finished. Have you ever wondered how crazy that is? Shouldn’t there be a pause once in a while, as one of the speakers actually thinks about what to say, or even better, thinks about what has been said? Here’s a phenomenon you’ll observe repeatedly if you look for it: Two speakers, appearing to be carrying on a conversation, but really just giving two monologues, split up by each other, each one waiting simply for time on whatever stage he or she imagines to be on…Listeners usually can’t wait to leap to their own defense, and spend their time thinking like an attorney who’s planning a closing argument rather than hearing what’s being said. You can imagine how ineffective this is.”
When arguing remember!”
During an argument, accept that people are rarely willing to change their viewpoint. Instead of becoming enraged or frustrated, seek to develop a clear picture of the other person’s logic. Using the Socratic questioning technique can be helpful for drawing out this information. Using active listening, it is possible to turn an argument into a calm discussion, where you can explain your own thoughts. Adler explains: “The logically sensitive speaker will ask you to follow his reasoning by accepting his assumptions for the time being – accepting them to discern their consequences, to see how they lead to the conclusions he wishes to arrive at…they are not axioms or self-evident truths…your task is to be on the alert to detect the initial premises…that provide the ultimate grounds for what is being said.
Analyst negotiating style
Analysts pride themselves on not missing any details in their extensive preparation. They will research for two weeks to get data they might have gotten in fifteen minutes at the negotiating table, just to keep from being surprised. Analysts hate surprises.They are reserved problem solvers, and information aggregators, and are hypersensitive to reciprocity. They will give you a piece, but if they don’t get a piece in return within a certain period of time, they lose trust and will disengage. This can often seem to come out of nowhere, but remember, since they like working on things alone the fact that they are talking to you at all is, from their perspective, a concession. They will often view concessions by their counterpart as a new piece of information to be taken back and evaluated. Don’t expect immediate counterproposals from them.People like this are skeptical by nature. So asking too many questions to start is a bad idea, because they’re not going to want to answer until they understand all the implications. With them, it’s vital to be prepared. Use clear data to drive your reason; don’t ad-lib; use data comparisons to disagree and focus on the facts; warn them of issues early; and avoid surprises.Silence to them is an opportunity to think. They’re not mad at you and they’re not trying to give you a chance to talk more. If you feel they don’t see things the way you do, give them a chance to think first.Apologies have little value to them since they see the negotiation and their relationship with you as a person largely as separate things. They respond fairly well in the moment to labels. They are not quick to answer calibrated questions, or closed-ended questions when the answer is “Yes.” They may need a few days to respond.If you’re an analyst you should be worried about cutting yourself off from an essential source of data, your counterpart. The single biggest thing you can do is to smile when you speak. People will be more forthcoming with information to you as a result. Smiling can also become a habit that makes it easy for you to mask any moments you’ve been caught off guard.
Boiling frog
Key Insights on the Boiling Frog Story 1. Story Premise: - The boiling frog anecdote suggests that a frog placed in gradually heated water will not perceive the danger and will eventually be boiled alive, while a frog placed in boiling water would immediately jump out. This is used as a metaphor for the failure to notice gradual but harmful changes. 2. Scientific Accuracy: - Modern biologists refute the literal truth of the story. Experiments have shown that frogs will jump out if they are able to, even if the water is gradually heated. Frogs become increasingly active as the water heats and will attempt to escape. 3. Historical Experiments: - In the 19th century, several experiments were conducted to test frog reactions to gradual heating. Some experiments (e.g., by Heinzmann and Fratscher) supported the idea that frogs stayed still when the water was heated gradually enough. However, the outcomes depended heavily on the rate of heating, and later research clarified the conditions under which frogs would attempt to escape. 4. Cultural and Metaphorical Use: - The boiling frog story is widely used in metaphorical contexts to illustrate the dangers of gradual changes that go unnoticed, such as climate change, erosion of civil rights, or slow societal decline. It is sometimes referred to as “boiling frog syndrome.” - Notable figures like Al Gore and Paul Krugman have used the story in their discussions, though some, like journalist James Fallows, advocate for abandoning the story due to its factual inaccuracy. 5. Philosophical Connection: - The boiling frog story has also been linked to the sorites paradox, which asks when removing individual grains of sand from a heap ceases to make it a heap, further emphasizing how gradual changes can escape clear demarcation. 6. Criticism and Clarification: - While scientists have debunked the literal story, some commentators, like Eugene Volokh, argue that the metaphor still serves a useful purpose in discussions of gradual change, similar to other metaphors like “an ostrich with its head in the sand.” 7. Enduring Popularity: - Despite its debunked literal premise, the story persists as a powerful metaphor. However, critics like Fallows suggest that when using the story, it is important to acknowledge that it is not scientifically accurate. ### Conclusion: Though the boiling frog story is scientifically inaccurate, it remains a popular metaphor for explaining how gradual changes can go unnoticed, often with significant consequences. However, it is important to recognize its limitations and not rely on it as a factual representation of frog behavior.
Insurance failures
Unfortunately, today we have an insurance system that doesn’t work like an insurance system. Megan McArdle just had a great post on this the other day, following up on Kathleen Sebelius’s criticism of catastrophic coverage as “not real insurance”: —- “Imagine what your car insurance would cost if it covered gasoline, routine maintenance, and those little air freshener trees you hang from the rearview mirror. Then stop asking why health insurance costs so much… Sebelius’ response is apparently that catastrophic insurance isn’t really insurance at all—which is exactly backwards. Catastrophic coverage is “true insurance”. Coverage of routine, predictable services is not insurance at all; it’s a spectacularly inefficient prepayment plan.” I typically use the example of your homeowner’s insurance policy being used every time a lightbulb busts. Imagine if you had to go to a housing clinic that was in your plan, wait for an advisor to tell you the proper lightbulb which you already know you need, go to another hardware store to pick up the lightbulb, pay a copay for the lightbulb, etc. Who would do that? And yet we do it all the time in the health care space. Most spending is on the broken lightbulb equivalent of chronic diseases, and that’s exactly where things like Ken Thorpe’s work come in.
