Yascha Mounk and Steven Pinker. Many thanks -- valuable discussion.
When I lived in New York we often had big sit down dinner parties around my cutting table (I was a fashion designer). They were really fun because people were from all places and enjoyed talking -- so much so that getting the food onto the table was almost an interruption. I played a game with myself by identifying those guests who were strong in mathematics and those not -- I spotted an amazing correlation. I give you an example exchange.
"Is it true that Volvo's are really safer than other cars? or is it simply a sales pitch?"
"Absolutely it's true! My uncle in his Volvo went over a bank and rolled over 4 times before hitting the bottom -- emerged completely unscathed"
Languages were where he excelled.
What is apparent now, as then, is a confusion of evidence as in facts, statistics, probabilities etc. with the anecdotal. That they are interchangeable -- and they are not. In the same way reporting and opinion often struggle even in reliable news outlets to be keep separate, but the free-for-all of much online doesn't have those rails as you point out. Throw some emotion into all this and you have apples, oranges and avocados all mixed.
I think this is an insightful comment. A friend of mine (who was a skilled mathematician -- I am certainly not) used to tell me that just as important as the accuracy of a fact is its relevance. Your anecdote about the Volvo anecdote shows just such an irrelevant fact: let's assume that the whole rollover story is entirely accurate. That makes it a fact. From a narrative point of view, it even *seems* relevant.
However, how does it help us to show that "Volvos are really safer than other cars"? We don't have a list of cars that went through the exact same roll with the same results of emerging unscathed. I'm absolutely sure I could find an example of a Volvo crash where the occupants were horribly maimed or died. In fact, that anecdote could just as effectively suggest that the Volvo is *less* safe: after all, it was the only car to roll over that embankment. Apparently none of the other cars left the road at that point. That irrelevant fact, no matter how accurate, does not help us determine the truth of the original question.
Inability to distinguish the value of statistics and probabilities versus anecdotes is only one problem in much of reporting, and to my mind, the lesser problem, since often the anecdotes are marshaled in support of an appeal that is inherently emotional. More worrying to me is the inability to determine which among the many available statistics and facts are actually relevant at all.
I think there are two primary reasons for this: 1) finding the truth through the process of winnowing the relevant facts and seeing what they tell you is boring reading (at least for most people), and 2) most writers have an inherently narrative bias (guilty as charged), and instinctively understand that most humans find emotional appeals more persuasive than factually-derived conclusions (or perhaps they find emotional appears more satisfying, and they merely replace "persuasion" goals with "satisfaction" goals).
The Volvo thing I think Dr Fauci would describe as an "N equals 1" when answering Donald Trump about his speedy recovery -- NYT 1/24 article "What working for Trump was really like".
As you point out the anecdotal is enormously powerful like "the picture paints a thousand words" thing and I use it all the time and is a fantastic companion but not evidence. It's the stuff that arouses the emotions -- kind of gets the scene in front of you but doesn't explain the story.
A brief and wonderful tour of the key ideas of one of my beloved public thinkers! I eagerly await the upcoming book on Rationality. It may be the umpteenth book I have read on the broad subject, but I suspect Prof. Pinker will serve up plenty of new wine with the old in a reliably readable bottle.
Thanks for a great discussion that got me introduced to Steven Pinker and contemporary thinking on rationality! I see that some of the discussions regarding rationality revolves around statistics versus anecdotes. Perhaps one way we could get more people emotionaly aroused by statistics would be to tell stories not based on "a true story", but on "statistics": A moving fictional yet representative report of a car crash (I know it might sound silly). Or maybe it would just be enough to situate an anecdote in the context of statistics, saying that what happened was against the odds which I think in some cases could still be a compelling way to tell a story. I.e. finding a compelling statistical angle to an interesting anecdote.
A small comment on free will: The way Steven Pinker described free will made me think about the fact that the atoms making up our human body is not entirely a function of its surroundings as we have random occuring phenomenon within our bodies such as radioactive decay. Thus from this view our free will might be the sum of randomly occurring phenomenon that is not a function of our surroundings. Maybe the sum of those phenomenon are too small to affect consciousness and the experience of free will?
This could very well be true. Purely causal, purely random, some combination of both. It doesn't change the fact that we almost certainly don't have free will as we subjectively experience it and commonly define it.
But, that's ultimately of little consequence in our daily lives. If anything, it should make us more compassionate.
Yes, free will is determined. Or to be clearer, we are made to search freely for meaning; that is determined. The feeling of freedom and responsibility is determined, and that feeling is real, real freedom. Existence precedes essence? Yo Kierkegaard.
Solid pod, always nice to hear Pinker's perspective.
However, if Persuasion wants to be a non-ideological community anchored by the search for truth... lay off fawning over Biden and demonizing Trump. It betrays a misunderstanding of how government functions and does not move us toward a better understanding of our present situation. Also, don't use terms like "authoritarian" unless you understand them and are willing to apply that same analysis to all players.
Stop staring at the third rail - go ahead and touch it.
Pinker's closing identification of a "large, moderate, rational center" is his true faith. And mine. Sincere thanks to him, Yascha and others for helping that center hold.
Unfortunately, no such thing exists. At least as a cohesive political force. The center, the right, and anything in between or beyond stops nothing. Tempers nothing. Indeed, it all moves toward the same end. Just at varying speeds, fits and starts. This is clear from the history.
I have a question, naive to a relatively high degree: Is Charles Murray essentially wrong or right with his nature defeats nurture arguments in Coming Apart and Real Education, not to mention The Bell Curve. I simply do not have the sophistication in statistics to judge this, and I would so very much like it to be wrong, but I fear it may not be. I would genuinely appreciate insights any here have. As a teacher and professor of 40 years I have worried about this for years. I so much want nature to buckle under nurture. I want to believe a good teacher matters at least a bit.
Yascha Mounk and Steven Pinker. Many thanks -- valuable discussion.
When I lived in New York we often had big sit down dinner parties around my cutting table (I was a fashion designer). They were really fun because people were from all places and enjoyed talking -- so much so that getting the food onto the table was almost an interruption. I played a game with myself by identifying those guests who were strong in mathematics and those not -- I spotted an amazing correlation. I give you an example exchange.
"Is it true that Volvo's are really safer than other cars? or is it simply a sales pitch?"
"Absolutely it's true! My uncle in his Volvo went over a bank and rolled over 4 times before hitting the bottom -- emerged completely unscathed"
Languages were where he excelled.
What is apparent now, as then, is a confusion of evidence as in facts, statistics, probabilities etc. with the anecdotal. That they are interchangeable -- and they are not. In the same way reporting and opinion often struggle even in reliable news outlets to be keep separate, but the free-for-all of much online doesn't have those rails as you point out. Throw some emotion into all this and you have apples, oranges and avocados all mixed.
I think this is an insightful comment. A friend of mine (who was a skilled mathematician -- I am certainly not) used to tell me that just as important as the accuracy of a fact is its relevance. Your anecdote about the Volvo anecdote shows just such an irrelevant fact: let's assume that the whole rollover story is entirely accurate. That makes it a fact. From a narrative point of view, it even *seems* relevant.
However, how does it help us to show that "Volvos are really safer than other cars"? We don't have a list of cars that went through the exact same roll with the same results of emerging unscathed. I'm absolutely sure I could find an example of a Volvo crash where the occupants were horribly maimed or died. In fact, that anecdote could just as effectively suggest that the Volvo is *less* safe: after all, it was the only car to roll over that embankment. Apparently none of the other cars left the road at that point. That irrelevant fact, no matter how accurate, does not help us determine the truth of the original question.
Inability to distinguish the value of statistics and probabilities versus anecdotes is only one problem in much of reporting, and to my mind, the lesser problem, since often the anecdotes are marshaled in support of an appeal that is inherently emotional. More worrying to me is the inability to determine which among the many available statistics and facts are actually relevant at all.
I think there are two primary reasons for this: 1) finding the truth through the process of winnowing the relevant facts and seeing what they tell you is boring reading (at least for most people), and 2) most writers have an inherently narrative bias (guilty as charged), and instinctively understand that most humans find emotional appeals more persuasive than factually-derived conclusions (or perhaps they find emotional appears more satisfying, and they merely replace "persuasion" goals with "satisfaction" goals).
Many thanks Andrew for your thoughtful comments.
The Volvo thing I think Dr Fauci would describe as an "N equals 1" when answering Donald Trump about his speedy recovery -- NYT 1/24 article "What working for Trump was really like".
As you point out the anecdotal is enormously powerful like "the picture paints a thousand words" thing and I use it all the time and is a fantastic companion but not evidence. It's the stuff that arouses the emotions -- kind of gets the scene in front of you but doesn't explain the story.
Best to you
A brief and wonderful tour of the key ideas of one of my beloved public thinkers! I eagerly await the upcoming book on Rationality. It may be the umpteenth book I have read on the broad subject, but I suspect Prof. Pinker will serve up plenty of new wine with the old in a reliably readable bottle.
Thanks for a great discussion that got me introduced to Steven Pinker and contemporary thinking on rationality! I see that some of the discussions regarding rationality revolves around statistics versus anecdotes. Perhaps one way we could get more people emotionaly aroused by statistics would be to tell stories not based on "a true story", but on "statistics": A moving fictional yet representative report of a car crash (I know it might sound silly). Or maybe it would just be enough to situate an anecdote in the context of statistics, saying that what happened was against the odds which I think in some cases could still be a compelling way to tell a story. I.e. finding a compelling statistical angle to an interesting anecdote.
A small comment on free will: The way Steven Pinker described free will made me think about the fact that the atoms making up our human body is not entirely a function of its surroundings as we have random occuring phenomenon within our bodies such as radioactive decay. Thus from this view our free will might be the sum of randomly occurring phenomenon that is not a function of our surroundings. Maybe the sum of those phenomenon are too small to affect consciousness and the experience of free will?
This could very well be true. Purely causal, purely random, some combination of both. It doesn't change the fact that we almost certainly don't have free will as we subjectively experience it and commonly define it.
But, that's ultimately of little consequence in our daily lives. If anything, it should make us more compassionate.
Yes, free will is determined. Or to be clearer, we are made to search freely for meaning; that is determined. The feeling of freedom and responsibility is determined, and that feeling is real, real freedom. Existence precedes essence? Yo Kierkegaard.
Solid pod, always nice to hear Pinker's perspective.
However, if Persuasion wants to be a non-ideological community anchored by the search for truth... lay off fawning over Biden and demonizing Trump. It betrays a misunderstanding of how government functions and does not move us toward a better understanding of our present situation. Also, don't use terms like "authoritarian" unless you understand them and are willing to apply that same analysis to all players.
Stop staring at the third rail - go ahead and touch it.
Pinker's closing identification of a "large, moderate, rational center" is his true faith. And mine. Sincere thanks to him, Yascha and others for helping that center hold.
Unfortunately, no such thing exists. At least as a cohesive political force. The center, the right, and anything in between or beyond stops nothing. Tempers nothing. Indeed, it all moves toward the same end. Just at varying speeds, fits and starts. This is clear from the history.
I have a question, naive to a relatively high degree: Is Charles Murray essentially wrong or right with his nature defeats nurture arguments in Coming Apart and Real Education, not to mention The Bell Curve. I simply do not have the sophistication in statistics to judge this, and I would so very much like it to be wrong, but I fear it may not be. I would genuinely appreciate insights any here have. As a teacher and professor of 40 years I have worried about this for years. I so much want nature to buckle under nurture. I want to believe a good teacher matters at least a bit.