A fascinating interview with neuroscientist and author David Eagleman. I found most interesting the section on the sub parts of the mind and how it may be possible to strengthen certain areas in order to encourage better longer term decision making.
The presentation touches on many sensitive areas and will leave you to consider some pretty deep issues. Whether you agree or disagree, it is worth a view. (click text to go to the video)
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
Post-hoc
The post-hoc or more formally the post-hoc ergo propter hoc, is a logical fallacy where one event precedes another event and is thus found to be the cause of the second event. The basic format can be expressed as:
P1. A came before B,
C. therefore A caused B.
A silly example would be "Roosters crow before the sun rises, therefore roosters crowing cause the sun to rise". A more common example would be "Bob installed some new software on his computer. The next time he turned on the computer it crashed. Bob concluded that the new software caused the computer to crash". Now it is entirely possible that the new software did cause the computer to crash, but it is also possible that a computer virus or possibly a power spike caused it to crash. The point is that a positive correlation alone is generally not sufficient evidence to prove causation. Post-hoc arguments are often even shakier than an incorrect inference from correlation to causation in that there is typically only one anecdote or event in which the inference is being made from.
P1. A came before B,
C. therefore A caused B.
A silly example would be "Roosters crow before the sun rises, therefore roosters crowing cause the sun to rise". A more common example would be "Bob installed some new software on his computer. The next time he turned on the computer it crashed. Bob concluded that the new software caused the computer to crash". Now it is entirely possible that the new software did cause the computer to crash, but it is also possible that a computer virus or possibly a power spike caused it to crash. The point is that a positive correlation alone is generally not sufficient evidence to prove causation. Post-hoc arguments are often even shakier than an incorrect inference from correlation to causation in that there is typically only one anecdote or event in which the inference is being made from.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The Price of Education
Here is some interesting data from collegeboard.org on the ever increasing cost of college tuition. The data is in constant dollars, so the increases from year to year are in real dollar terms (adjusted for inflation). It's really amazing that the cost of tuition has almost tripled from 1980 to 2010. I feel sad for young people having to make the decision to incur large student loans, without fully realizing how it will effect them down the road. Most high school grads just haven't had enough life experience to understand the implications of their decisions in this area. That being said, one still has to wonder at what point does it become cost prohibitive to pursue a college education? (please forgive the formatting, I was having major problems making it presentable).
TABLE 4: Average Published Tuition and Fees in Constant 2010 Dollars, 1980-81 to 2010-11 (Enrollment-Weighted)
Academic---Private
Year----------Noprofit----------Public-------------Public
----------------4Year--------------4Year-------------2 Year
2010-11---$27,293--3.2%---$7,605--6.6%---$2,713--4.8%
2009-10---$26,452--6.0%---$7,137--9.3%---$2,590--10.2%
2008-09---$24,953--0.4%---$6,532--0.8%---$2,351--2.1%
2007-08---$24,852--4.0%---$6,480--4.2%---$2,401--1.1%
2006-07---$23,899--2.1%---$6,218--1.5%---$2,428--0.3%
2005-06---$23,408--1.5%---$6,128--3.9%---$2,434--1.7%
2004-05---$23,073--2.7%---$5,900--7.2%---$2,393--5.7%
2003-04---$22,465--2.8%---$5,507--11.0%---$2,263--11.7%
2002-03---$21,862--2.4%---$4,961--7.2%---$2,026--2.6%
2001-02---$21,343--5.3%---$4,626--4.5%---$1,975--4.7%
2000-01---$20,277--0.1%---$4,426--.7%---$2,072--3.9%
1999-00---$20,295--3.3%---$4,397--1.4%---$2,157--3.9%
1998-99---$19,649--4.9%---$4,338--2.6%---$2,076--2.5%
1997-98---$18,724--3.8%---$4,226--2.3%---$2,128--4.6%
1996-97---$18,044--3.3%---$4,131--2.8%---$2,034--7.0%
1995-96---$17,464--1.4%---$4,019--1.1%---$1,901--1.2%
1994-95---$17,216--3.6%---$3,974--3.8%---$1,924--2.4%
1993-94---$16,618--2.5%---$3,827--5.7%---$1,880--8.5%
1992-93---$16,212--3.2%---$3,622--7.4%---$1,732 --7.6%
1991-92---$15,706--0.6%---$3,373--5.7%---$1,874--23.7%
1990-91---$15,615-- 2.9%---$3,190--7.3%---$1,515--2.8%
1989-90---$15,182--3.1%---$2,972--2.4%---$1,474--0.3%
1988-89---$14,725--9.1%---$2,903--2.0%---$1,470--3.8%
1987-88---$13,502--1.9%---$2,845--1.1%---$1,416--7.7%
1986-87---$13,256--7.1%---$2,815--5.6%---$1,314--1.4%
1985-86---$12,379--6.4%---$2,665--3.6%---$1,296--6.0%
1984-85---$11,636--4.7%---$2,572--2.7%---$1,223--6.1%
1983-84---$11,114--7.1%---$2,505--8.7%---$1,152--8.9%
1982-83---$10,373--6.0%---$2,305--6.6%---$1,058--2.4%
1981-82---$9,789--2.7%---$2,163--2.1%---$1,033--0.2%
1980-81---$9,535----------$2,119----------$1,031
Sources: 1987-88 and after: Annual Survey of Colleges, the College Board, weighted by full-time undergraduate enrollment; 1986-87 and prior: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, weighted by full-time equivalent enrollment.
This table was prepared in October 2010.
TABLE 4: Average Published Tuition and Fees in Constant 2010 Dollars, 1980-81 to 2010-11 (Enrollment-Weighted)
Academic---Private
Year----------Noprofit----------Public-------------Public
----------------4Year--------------4Year-------------2 Year
2010-11---$27,293--3.2%---$7,605--6.6%---$2,713--4.8%
2009-10---$26,452--6.0%---$7,137--9.3%---$2,590--10.2%
2008-09---$24,953--0.4%---$6,532--0.8%---$2,351--2.1%
2007-08---$24,852--4.0%---$6,480--4.2%---$2,401--1.1%
2006-07---$23,899--2.1%---$6,218--1.5%---$2,428--0.3%
2005-06---$23,408--1.5%---$6,128--3.9%---$2,434--1.7%
2004-05---$23,073--2.7%---$5,900--7.2%---$2,393--5.7%
2003-04---$22,465--2.8%---$5,507--11.0%---$2,263--11.7%
2002-03---$21,862--2.4%---$4,961--7.2%---$2,026--2.6%
2001-02---$21,343--5.3%---$4,626--4.5%---$1,975--4.7%
2000-01---$20,277--0.1%---$4,426--.7%---$2,072--3.9%
1999-00---$20,295--3.3%---$4,397--1.4%---$2,157--3.9%
1998-99---$19,649--4.9%---$4,338--2.6%---$2,076--2.5%
1997-98---$18,724--3.8%---$4,226--2.3%---$2,128--4.6%
1996-97---$18,044--3.3%---$4,131--2.8%---$2,034--7.0%
1995-96---$17,464--1.4%---$4,019--1.1%---$1,901--1.2%
1994-95---$17,216--3.6%---$3,974--3.8%---$1,924--2.4%
1993-94---$16,618--2.5%---$3,827--5.7%---$1,880--8.5%
1992-93---$16,212--3.2%---$3,622--7.4%---$1,732 --7.6%
1991-92---$15,706--0.6%---$3,373--5.7%---$1,874--23.7%
1990-91---$15,615-- 2.9%---$3,190--7.3%---$1,515--2.8%
1989-90---$15,182--3.1%---$2,972--2.4%---$1,474--0.3%
1988-89---$14,725--9.1%---$2,903--2.0%---$1,470--3.8%
1987-88---$13,502--1.9%---$2,845--1.1%---$1,416--7.7%
1986-87---$13,256--7.1%---$2,815--5.6%---$1,314--1.4%
1985-86---$12,379--6.4%---$2,665--3.6%---$1,296--6.0%
1984-85---$11,636--4.7%---$2,572--2.7%---$1,223--6.1%
1983-84---$11,114--7.1%---$2,505--8.7%---$1,152--8.9%
1982-83---$10,373--6.0%---$2,305--6.6%---$1,058--2.4%
1981-82---$9,789--2.7%---$2,163--2.1%---$1,033--0.2%
1980-81---$9,535----------$2,119----------$1,031
Sources: 1987-88 and after: Annual Survey of Colleges, the College Board, weighted by full-time undergraduate enrollment; 1986-87 and prior: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, weighted by full-time equivalent enrollment.
This table was prepared in October 2010.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Herd Mentality
Another prevalent decision making error, which goes by many names, is herd mentality. Herd mentality describes how people are influenced by their peers to adopt certain behaviors, opinions, trends, ideas, etc. There are thought to be many reasons why we as individuals may partake in herd mentality but the major influences are social acceptance, safety concerns, to avoid conflict (groupthink) and to avoid formal decision making (information cascade - if everyone is doing it, it must be ok).
The most common example I can think of is fashion. Every year new fashionable clothes come out and are adopted by a few celebrities only to be embraced by the majority shortly after. Though there may be other reasons for purchasing the new trend, I would say that the majority of people do it to be socially accepted. The funny thing about this is it causes people to wear clothing they would otherwise think was weird and would never pick on their own if it wasn't in fashion. Think about those pictures of yourself from years gone by (ow my goodness look at that outfit, what was I thinking!).
Herd mentality is often seen in the stock market. For example, in 1999 before the Internet bubble burst, people should have known that the build up was irrational and bound to collapse. Instead people kept pouring money in, in part because that was what everyone else was doing. This is fairly common in the markets (you know when your butcher and barber are talking about a stock, it is probably time to sell).
The thing about herd mentality is that following the herd doesn't necessarily mean that you are making a bad decision. Something I have noticed is that some people seem to have an anti-herd mentality. They automatically do the opposite of , or have the opposite opinions of the majority. I think the important point is that when making decisions, you need honestly ask yourself how much you are being influenced by this sort of thing vs. using more rational methods.
The most common example I can think of is fashion. Every year new fashionable clothes come out and are adopted by a few celebrities only to be embraced by the majority shortly after. Though there may be other reasons for purchasing the new trend, I would say that the majority of people do it to be socially accepted. The funny thing about this is it causes people to wear clothing they would otherwise think was weird and would never pick on their own if it wasn't in fashion. Think about those pictures of yourself from years gone by (ow my goodness look at that outfit, what was I thinking!).
Herd mentality is often seen in the stock market. For example, in 1999 before the Internet bubble burst, people should have known that the build up was irrational and bound to collapse. Instead people kept pouring money in, in part because that was what everyone else was doing. This is fairly common in the markets (you know when your butcher and barber are talking about a stock, it is probably time to sell).
The thing about herd mentality is that following the herd doesn't necessarily mean that you are making a bad decision. Something I have noticed is that some people seem to have an anti-herd mentality. They automatically do the opposite of , or have the opposite opinions of the majority. I think the important point is that when making decisions, you need honestly ask yourself how much you are being influenced by this sort of thing vs. using more rational methods.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Ad Hominem Fallacy
The ad hominem argument (Latin for "to the man") is an attempt to counter another's argument by making an irrelevant attack on the arguer rather than the argument itself. As such, there are two elements of a fallacious ad hominem: (1) the critic responds to an argument with a personal attack on the arguer, ignoring the argument itself. (2) The personal attack on the arguer is irrelevant to any assessment of the argument.
The fallacy generally takes on the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B attacks person A
3. Therefore A's claim is false or should be disregarded.
Types of ad hominems
Ad hominem's are commonly divided into various categories, two of which are the abusive and circumstantial.
The abusive/direct ad hominem is a direct attack which irrelevantly questions or vilifies the arguer's character. It is argued that because the person's character is in someway defective, what they claim must be incorrect or unreasonable. This is generally thought of as being fallacious in that the character of a person does not (usually) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made.
Examples of abusive ad hominem:
"That claim cannot be true. Dave believes it, and we know how morally repulsive he is."
Tom says "I think we should stop affirmative action because it creates inequalities." Mike replies "You need to stop being so racist."
The circumstantial ad hominem attempts to refute the arguer's claim by questioning or criticizing their personal circumstance. It asserts the personal situation or circumstance as the reason the arguer puts forth their argument and as such the argument should be discarded. Typically this is done by attacking the arguer by asserting that they are simply making their claim for self-interested reasons. The fallacy with this line of thinking is that though the personal circumstances of the arguer may explain their motives, it does not affect the truth or falsity of the claim being made.
Examples of ad hominem circumstantial:
"Of course the Senator from Maine opposes a reduction in naval spending. After all, Bath Ironworks, which produces warships, is in Maine"
The fallacy generally takes on the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B attacks person A
3. Therefore A's claim is false or should be disregarded.
Types of ad hominems
Ad hominem's are commonly divided into various categories, two of which are the abusive and circumstantial.
The abusive/direct ad hominem is a direct attack which irrelevantly questions or vilifies the arguer's character. It is argued that because the person's character is in someway defective, what they claim must be incorrect or unreasonable. This is generally thought of as being fallacious in that the character of a person does not (usually) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made.
Examples of abusive ad hominem:
"That claim cannot be true. Dave believes it, and we know how morally repulsive he is."
Tom says "I think we should stop affirmative action because it creates inequalities." Mike replies "You need to stop being so racist."
The circumstantial ad hominem attempts to refute the arguer's claim by questioning or criticizing their personal circumstance. It asserts the personal situation or circumstance as the reason the arguer puts forth their argument and as such the argument should be discarded. Typically this is done by attacking the arguer by asserting that they are simply making their claim for self-interested reasons. The fallacy with this line of thinking is that though the personal circumstances of the arguer may explain their motives, it does not affect the truth or falsity of the claim being made.
Examples of ad hominem circumstantial:
"Of course the Senator from Maine opposes a reduction in naval spending. After all, Bath Ironworks, which produces warships, is in Maine"
“I think that we should reject what Father Jones has to say about the ethical issues of abortion because he is a Catholic priest. After all, Father Jones is required to hold such views.”
Other forms of the ad hominem fallacy include Poisoning the Well, Tu Quoque and Guilt By Association.
Legitimate Attacks on the Person
Due to the standard presentation of the ad hominem as being an informal fallacy, it can easily be mistaken to be a consistent error in reasoning. But the key question to ask before dismissing an ad hominem is whether the attack is relevant to the point being argued.
The classic example of it's legitimate use is when a cross-examining lawyer attacks the trustworthiness of a witness in order to cast doubt upon their testimony. In this instance, it would not be improper for the lawyer to point to a pattern of untrustworthy behavior on the part of the witness as it is directly relevant to the credibility of their testimony.
Logical Self-defense, Johnson & Blair
Fallacy Files: Ad Hominem
The Nizkor Project: Ad Hominem
The Nizkor Project: Circumstantial Ad Hominem
Informal Logical Fallacies: A Brief Guide
Scientific America: Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem
Formalization of the ad hominem argument scheme
Other forms of the ad hominem fallacy include Poisoning the Well, Tu Quoque and Guilt By Association.
Legitimate Attacks on the Person
Due to the standard presentation of the ad hominem as being an informal fallacy, it can easily be mistaken to be a consistent error in reasoning. But the key question to ask before dismissing an ad hominem is whether the attack is relevant to the point being argued.
The classic example of it's legitimate use is when a cross-examining lawyer attacks the trustworthiness of a witness in order to cast doubt upon their testimony. In this instance, it would not be improper for the lawyer to point to a pattern of untrustworthy behavior on the part of the witness as it is directly relevant to the credibility of their testimony.
Logical Self-defense, Johnson & Blair
Fallacy Files: Ad Hominem
The Nizkor Project: Ad Hominem
The Nizkor Project: Circumstantial Ad Hominem
Informal Logical Fallacies: A Brief Guide
Scientific America: Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem
Formalization of the ad hominem argument scheme
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Mental Accounting
Why is it that some people have such a hard time saving money? One possibility is the use and abuse of mental accounting. Mental accounting refers to the theory which attempts to explain the way people sometimes subjectively frame monetary transactions. It looks at the inclinations people have to handle money differently depending one how it was acquired, where it is kept and/or what it's intended purpose is.
The simplest example of this would be how money won is treated differently than money earned. Say for instance you go to the casino with some friends and you take $50 with you to gamble with. You're down to your last $1 and you drop it in the slot machine and luckily win $300. So now what? Do you keep gambling? Buy a round of drinks for all of your friends? Contribute it to your IRA? Most people would continue gambling the money until all or most of it was gone. But why? The purchasing power of the $300 you won is no different than the $300 you had to work two or three days to acquire. But mentally it is treated differently. This is quite apparent if you ask yourself how much stress would you feel if you lost $300 cash you worked for vs $300 you won then lost at the casino.
Another example would be how purchase size can effect our decisions. Say for instance you are out shopping for a new coffee maker. You find the one you want for $70 at the store when a person comes up to you and says that you can get the same coffee maker on sale at a store 20 miles away for only $35. Would you go to the other store? Of course, that is a 50% savings, who wouldnt. But lets change the scenario and say that instead of a coffee maker, you're shopping for a new couch. You're at the store and you find the one you want for $2000. Someone comes up to you and says you can get the same couch at a store 20 miles away for $1965. Would you go to the other store or just buy the one at the store you're at? What if it was a car selling for $15000 at the place you're at and $14965 at the dealorship down the road? As you can see, as the purchase price goes up the $35 seems to be less valuable. But of course purchasing power of the saved $35 is the same no matter how it was saved.
Now I'm not trying to say that we need to stop using mental accounting and instead be completely rational about every single financial transaction we engage in. But it is something to ponder and it would probablly do us good to occasionally do a little self analyzing to determine how we go about making our decisions.
The simplest example of this would be how money won is treated differently than money earned. Say for instance you go to the casino with some friends and you take $50 with you to gamble with. You're down to your last $1 and you drop it in the slot machine and luckily win $300. So now what? Do you keep gambling? Buy a round of drinks for all of your friends? Contribute it to your IRA? Most people would continue gambling the money until all or most of it was gone. But why? The purchasing power of the $300 you won is no different than the $300 you had to work two or three days to acquire. But mentally it is treated differently. This is quite apparent if you ask yourself how much stress would you feel if you lost $300 cash you worked for vs $300 you won then lost at the casino.
Another example would be how purchase size can effect our decisions. Say for instance you are out shopping for a new coffee maker. You find the one you want for $70 at the store when a person comes up to you and says that you can get the same coffee maker on sale at a store 20 miles away for only $35. Would you go to the other store? Of course, that is a 50% savings, who wouldnt. But lets change the scenario and say that instead of a coffee maker, you're shopping for a new couch. You're at the store and you find the one you want for $2000. Someone comes up to you and says you can get the same couch at a store 20 miles away for $1965. Would you go to the other store or just buy the one at the store you're at? What if it was a car selling for $15000 at the place you're at and $14965 at the dealorship down the road? As you can see, as the purchase price goes up the $35 seems to be less valuable. But of course purchasing power of the saved $35 is the same no matter how it was saved.
Now I'm not trying to say that we need to stop using mental accounting and instead be completely rational about every single financial transaction we engage in. But it is something to ponder and it would probablly do us good to occasionally do a little self analyzing to determine how we go about making our decisions.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)