Cognitive errors is an aggregate term I use for biases in cognition, biases in memory, and fallacious logic. Cognitive errors are almost always interesting, and often illuminating. It's amazing how often they are incorporated into our everyday understanding of the world, from subtly affecting our opinions to blatantly causing them.
Some of these cognitive slip-ups can be harmless, some have horrible consequences, but most are somewhere in between. There are two main reasons for us to consider them, when discussing ethics (besides their presence just making stories more interesting). Cognitive errors affect how we act; if we are attempting an action in order to help others, we want to make sure what we are doing is actually the most helpful action. This aspect is similar to the law of unintended consequences: we really want to make sure what we are doing actually is a positive thing. The other main, albeit slightly overlapping, reason to consider these errors is to temper our judgments of others: the effects and intentions of another person's actions can be opposites.
Our first cognitive error is the availability heuristic.
The availability heuristic is basically the error we make when we assume that because something is more mentally available it is more likely. What make's something available, you might ask. Two major factors, which also influence each other, are the amount of attention that is naturally drawn to something (it's salience) and the amount we are exposed to it. Let's compare car and plane crashes. Car crashes are far more likely to kill us (since we are more likely to be in a fatal accident), but many people think of flying as more dangerous. An airplane crash is more salient to us than a car crash. When worrying about a car crash, we may think of it as a quick accident, whereas when we think of an airplane crash, we may be drawn into thinking about falling out of control with people panicking around us, and the longer time-frame of such a crash. Perhaps partially because of this, plane crashes generally get more focus in the news than car accidents, thus further increasing its availability. Since most of the time we don't logically compute the differences in risks, we are often easily fooled by availability of information.
There are many ways this relates to living a good life. If you wish to make a difference in the world, you may well be fooled into over-concentrating effort in one direction when you could do far more in another. A (fairly) recent example would be the tsunami in southern Asia. There was an outpouring of support to help provide disaster relief. The tsunami was covered widely in the media and was, apparently, a particularly salient event. However, other less salient and covered problems like those occurring in Darfur or Sudan which needed more help did not get it. The availability heuristic helps us fail when we try to help. (Luckily, relief groups like Doctors Without Borders limited the amount they would spend in one area to try to divert more help where it is needed.)
It also relates directly to how we decide what to do. Our naive understanding of outcomes is directly influenced by the availability heuristic as well. Some salient negative effects of a policy or decision can obscure much greater, but less obvious, positive effects.
It's always something to try to think around when making decisions or trying to understand the world.
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Friday, February 6, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
On Living A Good Life (or Stand Back! I'm Going to Try Science!)
This blog is devoted to philosophy and science. New discoveries and applications in science often lead to interesting new ethical questions and they also often lead to an interesting philosophical discussion of what the results mean. But the area that most interests me (and the reason this blog is titled the Ethics of Everything) is in the application of scientific advances and discussions to living a good life.
My view on personal ethics is a form of utilitarianism. While there are many types, utilitarians basically argue that something is good if it has good results. I describe my personal view as natural rights utilitarianism (there is probably another person who has posited this previously with a better name. There generally is). This form of utilitarianism argues that when calculating utility (the goodness of results) we must also include things like life, liberty, and property along with happiness. As an example of where this makes a difference, if I were kidnapped and drugged to be always happy, in most forms of utilitarianism, that would be a positive outcome, even if I would prefer (prior to drugging) to be less happy and retain my freedom. Once drugged, I might not care, but my liberty to chose would be completely overlooked. In my (and I imagine most of our common-sense) ethical frameworks, that would be a bad thing.
The problem with utilitarianism is that it is often hard to figure out what action to take for the greatest utility. This is true of classical "happiness" utilitarianism, and perhaps even more true when considering the other factors when determining utility. It's hard to know what effect each action we take will have on total utility, and it's easy to fall prey to our own cognitive errors and make the wrong decision, even if, when thinking rationally, we are capable of judging what would be the best, most moral choice.
Insight from social sciences, such as psychology, economics, and their child behavioral economics, helps us figure out how to focus our actions and thoughts in order to do more good in the world, and to lead a better life. They help us understand the results of what we do, and help us learn how to think about our choices to avoid pitfalls that lead us towards worse actions.
The title is referring to the best shirt ever, which can be found here.
My view on personal ethics is a form of utilitarianism. While there are many types, utilitarians basically argue that something is good if it has good results. I describe my personal view as natural rights utilitarianism (there is probably another person who has posited this previously with a better name. There generally is). This form of utilitarianism argues that when calculating utility (the goodness of results) we must also include things like life, liberty, and property along with happiness. As an example of where this makes a difference, if I were kidnapped and drugged to be always happy, in most forms of utilitarianism, that would be a positive outcome, even if I would prefer (prior to drugging) to be less happy and retain my freedom. Once drugged, I might not care, but my liberty to chose would be completely overlooked. In my (and I imagine most of our common-sense) ethical frameworks, that would be a bad thing.
The problem with utilitarianism is that it is often hard to figure out what action to take for the greatest utility. This is true of classical "happiness" utilitarianism, and perhaps even more true when considering the other factors when determining utility. It's hard to know what effect each action we take will have on total utility, and it's easy to fall prey to our own cognitive errors and make the wrong decision, even if, when thinking rationally, we are capable of judging what would be the best, most moral choice.
Insight from social sciences, such as psychology, economics, and their child behavioral economics, helps us figure out how to focus our actions and thoughts in order to do more good in the world, and to lead a better life. They help us understand the results of what we do, and help us learn how to think about our choices to avoid pitfalls that lead us towards worse actions.
The title is referring to the best shirt ever, which can be found here.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Facecrime?
One of the nice fringe benefits of studying philosophy is that you get to take science-fiction literature and movies far too seriously. If you study the philosophy of mind, extraterrestrials, artificial intelligence, and non-organic intelligent life are all interesting areas to contemplate. If you study political philosophy, you get to compare the merits of Randian socialist dystopias with Huxleyian totalitarian dystopias, Heinleinian fascism with Heinleinian libertarianism, and well, Heinleinian anarchocapitalism, and everything inbetween. And if you study ethics, you get to worry about it all.
Many educated people are likely to recognize the concept of thoughtcrime from George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984. Perhaps less widely remembered is the concept of facecrime, the sin of showing an inappropriate emotion in public. I imagine the concept will become a larger part of the popular parlance if the new Fox drama Lie to Me takes off.
Lie to Me is loosely based on the research of Dr. Paul Ekman, a psychologist who has spent most of his career studying facial expressions. Some of Dr. Ekman's most famous work (and the show Lie to Me) is focused on our inability to totally conceal emotions. Microexpressions, brief facial or bodily expressions lasting mere milliseconds, often show our true emotional state. For example, if you and your girlfriend have a fight before friends come over, the two of you might put on a happy show as your friends arrive. If you're pretty good at it, they probably won't realize it's a sham. However, some small number of people, called Wizards by the researchers and Naturals in the show, naturally see these microexpressions. Instead of seeing two happy people, they might (probably unconsciously) notice that you made an extremely brief expression of anger when talking about your girlfriend. Or that she very slightly and briefly turned away from you as you and your friends entered the room. These cues let those that are natural emotion readers tell if someone is lying at a much higher rate than the average person, among other things.
The research is certainly interesting, and on a cool, practical topic of everyday interest. It also makes the far-fetched possibility of something like a facecrime that much more realistic. Dr. Ekman and his colleagues have worked with law enforcement to develop training so that law enforcement officers can perform their duties at a higher level. Of course, much like the results of a polygraph (lie detector) test, misinterpretations are possible. If you are interviewing an adult suspect that is accused of murdering their parents, they may try to hide fear while overtly showing sadness when asked questions about the murder. The suspect could be hiding the fear that the may be caught, but they also could be trying to hide that, even though they are an adult, they are afraid of going through life without parental guidance.
An area where the research may have more useful applications is in security. Perhaps the most interesting idea is harnessing the ability to scan for microexpressions into computer vision, enabling airports and other sensitive locations to automatically detect potential threats. The current system is incredibly ineffective. The possibility of marking people who look suspicious, especially those that may be trained well enough to avoid blatantly suspicious behavior, for further attention could provide a huge increase in security without a huge increase in personnel. Even those potential terrorists that are well trained are, as far as we know, unable to consciously control their microexpressions.
There would be false positives. But that, while regrettable, is probably worthwhile as long as nobody is arrested, charged, or generally mistreated based solely on the microexpressions they generate, and as long as the microexpressions are not treated as a form of evidence. If we avoid making facecrime a reality, further insight into the who might be a potential terrorist, murderer, or just a plain old liar is likely to protect the innocent, both from the bad guys and from unnecessary attention from the authorities. Of course, we must always be vigilant to prevent exactly that scenario: people's desire to be tough on crime can often lead to being tough on the truth as well.
If you are interested in reading a good (long) introductory article to some of Dr. Ekman's work, I highly recommend the one that first introduced me to it a few years ago.
The Naked Face by Malcolm Gladwell
Many educated people are likely to recognize the concept of thoughtcrime from George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984. Perhaps less widely remembered is the concept of facecrime, the sin of showing an inappropriate emotion in public. I imagine the concept will become a larger part of the popular parlance if the new Fox drama Lie to Me takes off.
Lie to Me is loosely based on the research of Dr. Paul Ekman, a psychologist who has spent most of his career studying facial expressions. Some of Dr. Ekman's most famous work (and the show Lie to Me) is focused on our inability to totally conceal emotions. Microexpressions, brief facial or bodily expressions lasting mere milliseconds, often show our true emotional state. For example, if you and your girlfriend have a fight before friends come over, the two of you might put on a happy show as your friends arrive. If you're pretty good at it, they probably won't realize it's a sham. However, some small number of people, called Wizards by the researchers and Naturals in the show, naturally see these microexpressions. Instead of seeing two happy people, they might (probably unconsciously) notice that you made an extremely brief expression of anger when talking about your girlfriend. Or that she very slightly and briefly turned away from you as you and your friends entered the room. These cues let those that are natural emotion readers tell if someone is lying at a much higher rate than the average person, among other things.
The research is certainly interesting, and on a cool, practical topic of everyday interest. It also makes the far-fetched possibility of something like a facecrime that much more realistic. Dr. Ekman and his colleagues have worked with law enforcement to develop training so that law enforcement officers can perform their duties at a higher level. Of course, much like the results of a polygraph (lie detector) test, misinterpretations are possible. If you are interviewing an adult suspect that is accused of murdering their parents, they may try to hide fear while overtly showing sadness when asked questions about the murder. The suspect could be hiding the fear that the may be caught, but they also could be trying to hide that, even though they are an adult, they are afraid of going through life without parental guidance.
An area where the research may have more useful applications is in security. Perhaps the most interesting idea is harnessing the ability to scan for microexpressions into computer vision, enabling airports and other sensitive locations to automatically detect potential threats. The current system is incredibly ineffective. The possibility of marking people who look suspicious, especially those that may be trained well enough to avoid blatantly suspicious behavior, for further attention could provide a huge increase in security without a huge increase in personnel. Even those potential terrorists that are well trained are, as far as we know, unable to consciously control their microexpressions.
There would be false positives. But that, while regrettable, is probably worthwhile as long as nobody is arrested, charged, or generally mistreated based solely on the microexpressions they generate, and as long as the microexpressions are not treated as a form of evidence. If we avoid making facecrime a reality, further insight into the who might be a potential terrorist, murderer, or just a plain old liar is likely to protect the innocent, both from the bad guys and from unnecessary attention from the authorities. Of course, we must always be vigilant to prevent exactly that scenario: people's desire to be tough on crime can often lead to being tough on the truth as well.
If you are interested in reading a good (long) introductory article to some of Dr. Ekman's work, I highly recommend the one that first introduced me to it a few years ago.
The Naked Face by Malcolm Gladwell
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Memory holes as a medical treatment
The President's Council on Bioethics has been critical, in the past, of some ongoing research in treating Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with a drug known as propranolol.
PTSD is a psychiatric disorder that some people suffer after experiencing an extremely traumatic event, such as being raped or abused, witnessing the death of a friend or loved one, or surviving a natural disaster. Individuals with PTSD suffer from a variety of symptoms including a persistent upsetting and invasive memory of the event and experience physiological arousal (such as a racing pulse) when they remember that event.
The controversy of using propranolol as a potential treatment revolves around the way propranolol is expected to combat PTSD. Propranolol is theorized to weaken the traumatic memory. Although the President's Council on Bioethics has come up with quite a few dystopian scenarios, in reality, propranolol is expected to only affect the emotional character of the memory, not the narrative (the memory of the event itself). If propranolol becomes an effective treatment, it would likely only weaken how often individuals remember the traumatic event and how upsetting it is to remember it, not whether they can remember exactly what happened.
But what if there was such a drug that could weaken or erase traumatic memories? This question, which was brought up as an objection by the President's Council on Bioethics, has even been referenced in a movie (The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). Would it be such a bad treatment that research into such a drug should be discouraged?
One possible objection brought up is that individuals could misuse such a drug. A soldier or terrorist could kill innocents and forget the whole thing if he found it troubling, enabling him to go do the same thing again with no remorse. Furthermore, the potential for abuse abounds in using the medication on others. Witnesses to crimes could be forced to forget the crime, people could be "poisoned" to forget important events , and dictators could surely find applications to enhance control over their unsuspecting populace.
While these are all scary propositions, I think they pale in importance to the relief this drug could possibly give people. Except for the person choosing to take it themself, such as a repentant terrorist, even worse (but similar societal) effects currently happen all the time, but instead of just losing their memory, witnesses and the like lose their lives.
The other main objection is that using this drug, as a valid treatment, could have negative societal effects. The victim of a rape, for example, might not be able to testify against their rapist if they were given the drug prior to testimony, and the rapist may be able to go free and hurt others. This is a valid concern, but more a legal and practical issue than an ethical one. The legal system might need to adjust to such a drug, for example by scheduling trials or allowing lawyers to examine witnesses early, and tape these examinations so that the victim can then take the drug. Perhaps the law might force those that wish to take such a drug to complete their portion of the trial prior to treatment. Restricting the treatment possibilities of innocent victims, however, is not an appropriate way to address these concerns.
Note: I work on projects relating to propranolol and PTSD, so some may imagine a conflict of interest. As someone who supports this sort of research (and far stronger research as well), I prefer to see it as a nice confluence of interest instead.
PTSD is a psychiatric disorder that some people suffer after experiencing an extremely traumatic event, such as being raped or abused, witnessing the death of a friend or loved one, or surviving a natural disaster. Individuals with PTSD suffer from a variety of symptoms including a persistent upsetting and invasive memory of the event and experience physiological arousal (such as a racing pulse) when they remember that event.
The controversy of using propranolol as a potential treatment revolves around the way propranolol is expected to combat PTSD. Propranolol is theorized to weaken the traumatic memory. Although the President's Council on Bioethics has come up with quite a few dystopian scenarios, in reality, propranolol is expected to only affect the emotional character of the memory, not the narrative (the memory of the event itself). If propranolol becomes an effective treatment, it would likely only weaken how often individuals remember the traumatic event and how upsetting it is to remember it, not whether they can remember exactly what happened.
But what if there was such a drug that could weaken or erase traumatic memories? This question, which was brought up as an objection by the President's Council on Bioethics, has even been referenced in a movie (The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). Would it be such a bad treatment that research into such a drug should be discouraged?
One possible objection brought up is that individuals could misuse such a drug. A soldier or terrorist could kill innocents and forget the whole thing if he found it troubling, enabling him to go do the same thing again with no remorse. Furthermore, the potential for abuse abounds in using the medication on others. Witnesses to crimes could be forced to forget the crime, people could be "poisoned" to forget important events , and dictators could surely find applications to enhance control over their unsuspecting populace.
While these are all scary propositions, I think they pale in importance to the relief this drug could possibly give people. Except for the person choosing to take it themself, such as a repentant terrorist, even worse (but similar societal) effects currently happen all the time, but instead of just losing their memory, witnesses and the like lose their lives.
The other main objection is that using this drug, as a valid treatment, could have negative societal effects. The victim of a rape, for example, might not be able to testify against their rapist if they were given the drug prior to testimony, and the rapist may be able to go free and hurt others. This is a valid concern, but more a legal and practical issue than an ethical one. The legal system might need to adjust to such a drug, for example by scheduling trials or allowing lawyers to examine witnesses early, and tape these examinations so that the victim can then take the drug. Perhaps the law might force those that wish to take such a drug to complete their portion of the trial prior to treatment. Restricting the treatment possibilities of innocent victims, however, is not an appropriate way to address these concerns.
Note: I work on projects relating to propranolol and PTSD, so some may imagine a conflict of interest. As someone who supports this sort of research (and far stronger research as well), I prefer to see it as a nice confluence of interest instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)