Overcoming Bias

Bad News Ban Is Very Bad News

The SEC ... said in a statement early Friday morning it is halting short selling on 799 financial stocks. The ban, which is effective immediately, is set to last for 10 days, but could be extended for up to 30 days.

That is, they have banned speculators from giving bad news about 800 finance companies.  Which seems to me to be very bad news about those companies - sell!  If not for the first amendment, would they also ban TV, newspapers, etc. from saying anything bad about these companies? 

'Anyone who thinks the Large Hadron Collider will destroy the world is a t**t.'

This week is Big Bang Week at the BBC, with various programmes devoted to the switch-on of CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) on Wednesday morning.  Many of these programmes are covered in this week’s issue of the Radio Times—the BBC’s listings magazine—which also features a short interview with Professor Brian Cox, chair of particle physics at the University of Manchester. Asked about concerns that the LHC could destroy the earth, he replies:

‘The nonsense you find on the web about “doomsday scenarios” is conspiracy theory rubbish generated by a small group of nutters, primarily on the other side of the Atlantic.  These people also think that the Theory of Relativity is a Jewish conspiracy and that America didn’t land on the Moon.  Both are more likely, by the way, than the LHC destroying the world.  I’m slightly irritated, because this non-story is symptomatic of a larger mistrust in science, particularly in the US, which includes things like intelligent design. [… A]nyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a t**t.’ (Final word censored by Radio Times.) [1]

Who counts as a nutter and a t**t on this reckoning?  It is true that anyone who thinks there is a 100% chance that the LHC will definitely destroy the world is confused—but it’s probably also true that not many people really think this.  On the other hand, if anyone who thinks that it is worth taking seriously the (admittedly very slim) possibility that the LHC will destroy the world is a t**t, then there are many apparently very clever t**ts knocking about in our universities.  Among these are several of my colleagues: Nick Shackel has previously blogged about the risks of turning on the LHC, as has Toby Ord; and Rafaela Hillerbrand, Toby Ord, and Anders Sandberg recently presented on this topic at the recent Future of Humanity Institute-hosted conference on Global Catastrophic Risks. And, despite having chatted to each of these people about the LHC at some point or another, I’ve never heard any of them express sympathy for the view that the Theory or Relativity is a Jewish conspiracy or that nobody landed on the Moon.  So, are they t**ts or not?

Cowen-Hanson Bloggingheads Topics?

Tyler Cowen and I, good friends who sometimes blog-spar, will tape a bloggingheads TV show this Monday.  What would folks like us to talk about? 

BloggingHeads Hanson & Wilkinson

My BloggingHeads discussion with Will Wilkinson was posted today.  We talked about overcoming bias, cryonics, social status, self-deception, disagreement, and more.  I obviously need a better camera setup and more reliable phone line.  Oddly I guess, an hour seems a short time to talk - I could enjoy going on like that for a whole day.

Charm Beats Accuracy

Freakonomics:

A seven-month study of weather forecasting at Kansas City television stations was conducted over 220 days ... One [station manager] said, "There's not an evaluation of accuracy in hiring meteorologists. Presentation takes precedence over accuracy." And when discussing accuracy (or the lack thereof) of a seven-day forecast, another station manager stated, "All viewers care about is the next day. Accuracy is not a big deal to viewers." ...

The data show that stations are so consumed with ratings that accuracy in weather predictions takes an irrelevant back seat to snappy patter and charm. When directly asked if accuracy mattered in forecasting, every station manager and meteorologist said it did. But when asked what steps they had taken to measure and ensure accuracy, they were without answers.

No meteorologist or television station kept records of what they predicted, nor compared their predictions to actual results over a long term. No meteorologist posts their accuracy statistics on their résumé. No station managers use accuracy statistics in the hiring or evaluation of their meteorologists.  Instead, the focus is on charm, charisma, and presentation. Their words say they care about accuracy, but their actions say they do not.

Why should we expect this to be any better for other kinds of news?  If viewers can watch the same person day after day making predictions about something they care about and personally verify day after day, and still not care much about accuracy relative to looks and charm, how much can we really expect people to care about accuracy of news on unrest in Thailand, the credit crisis, or a new medical study?  Can we really expect people to track the accuracy of advice from their doctors, lawyers, or interior decorators, relative to their looks, charm, and general impressiveness?

Against News

Bryan Caplan raises a neglected but important issue:  are important issues neglected for news of the moment?  Bryan quotes Delos Wilcox from 1900:

But we must deplore and, so far as possible, overcome the evils of habitual newspaper reading. These evils are, chiefly, three: first, the waste of much time and mental energy in reading unimportant news and opinions, and premature, untrue, or imperfect accounts of important matters; second, the awakening of prejudices and the enkindling of passions through the partisan bias or commercial greed of newspaper managers; third, the loading of the mind with cheap literature and the development of an aversion for books and sustained thought.

Bryan also quotes Thomas Jefferson:

Avertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper. ...
I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month, and I feel myself infinitely the happier for it. ...
The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.

Amazing Breakthrough Day: April 1st

So you're thinking, "April 1st... isn't that already supposed to be April Fool's Day?"

Yes - and that will provide the ideal cover for celebrating Amazing Breakthrough Day.

As I argued in "The Beauty of Settled Science", it is a major problem that media coverage of science focuses only on breaking news.  Breaking news, in science, occurs at the furthest fringes of the scientific frontier, which means that the new discovery is often:

• Controversial
• Supported by only one experiment
• Way the heck more complicated than an ordinary mortal can handle, and requiring lots of prerequisite science to understand, which is why it wasn't solved three centuries ago
• Later shown to be wrong

People never get to see the solid stuff, let alone the understandable stuff, because it isn't breaking news.

On Amazing Breakthrough Day, I propose, journalists who really care about science can report - under the protective cover of April 1st - such important but neglected science stories as:

• BOATS EXPLAINED:  Centuries-Old Problem Solved By Bathtub Nudist
• YOU SHALL NOT CROSS!  Königsberg Tourists' Hopes Dashed
• ARE YOUR LUNGS ON FIRE?  Link Between Respiration And Combustion Gains Acceptance Among Scientists

Against Polish

For our academic "knights in shining armor," do we care more that their suits shine, than that they are armor?   From a recent Science:

[Journal peer] reviewers make two common mistakes. The first mistake is to reflexively demand that more be done. Do not require experiments beyond the scope of the paper, unless the scope is too narrow. Avoid demanding that further work apply new techniques and approaches, unless the approaches and techniques used are insufficient to support the conclusions. ...The second mistake ... Do not reject a manuscript simply because its ideas are not original, if it offers the first strong evidence for an old but important idea. Do not reject a paper with a brilliant new idea simply because the evidence was not as comprehensive as could be imagined. Do not reject a paper simply because it is not of the highest significance, if it is beautifully executed and offers fresh ideas with strong evidence.

Most buildings have "load-bearing" beams and struts, and also extra "flourish" parts and "polish" on those parts, to help the building look good and protect it from the elements.  Similarly, intellectual writings contain both content and polish/flourish. 

My Guatemala Interviews

Last month I visited Universidad Francisco Marroquín in Guatemala and gave a series of talks and interviews.  The two interviews are available, in high definition video:

• An 11 minute interview with Luis Figueroa, on medicine.
  
• A 70 minute interview with Carlisle Johnson, on everything.

This second interview is by far the most far ranging interview I've ever had or likely will ever have, out of 200 media mentions.  Quite a credit to Mr. Johnson. 

Precious Silence, Lost

In a classic debate, two people stand toe to toe and argue, free form, about a clear claim, for a fixed time of an hour or more, in front of an attentive audience.  The best moments in such a debate are awkward "silences":  X makes a good point, and the audience can clearly see Y has no good response.  Y may change the subject, but X may soon say "But what about that point I just made, what do you say to that?"  If Y changes the subject again, an attentive audience can see clearly: Y has no good response to X's point.  Y's silence speaks volumes. 

Unfortunately, precious silences get lost in non-classic debate formats.  If the debate has no fixed end time, Y may say "sorry, I have to go now."  If there are only a few back and forth rounds, it may take most of those rounds just to clarify the claim, leaving too few rounds to clearly show a silence. 

Debates in academic journals suffer this problem; usually X speaks, Y responds, X responds again, and the debate is over.  Debates between bloggers are little better; if blogger Y responds to blogger X, usually X says nothing more.  Even when bloggers have roughly equal status, they have too many good excuses to ignore someone's point.  So the fact that a point was ignored offers only weak evidence about its strength.  When the bloggers have unequal status, it is almost hopeless; high status people usually ignore low status people, no matter how good or bad their points. 

This issue was brought home in my recent medicine debate at CATO Unbound.  I wrote a lead essay, three health policy experts of far higher academic status responded, and then we had a one week "informal discussion."  I thought I made a sharp clear claim, that crude policies to "Cut Medicine In Half" are feasible and better than the status quo.  The three respondents, however, chose to discuss other not-yet-feasible policies they liked more.  My first informal comment tried to focus them back on my claim, but two of the three had little energy for further discussion.  While they all named reasons for opposition, there were too few rounds to show clearly the weakness of those reasons.  And from blogger reactions it seems no one reads the informal discussion anyway. 

This is why I so lament, and am puzzled by, the rarity of the classic debate.