Substitution as a Lazy Narrative-Preserving Technique (Using Gays Against Groomers as an Example)

What are the policy positions of Gays Against Groomers? Many people won’t know because corporate media on the left (I checked the NYT and WaPo) refuse to mention the organization. I recently asked someone who considers herself to be on the political left. She cringed and responded by saying that it sounds like a Republican or conservative group and that there is no grooming going on in America’s schools.

That seems like an answer to the question, but it isn’t. What just happened is subtle, but it is critically important. The person I was talking to completely failed to answer my question. Her answer illustrates Daniel Kahneman’s principle of “substitution,” which he discussed at length in Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011).

[W]hen faced with a difficult question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution.

(p. 12).

In my experience, this is a go-to technique in the culture war conversations. Quite often, when people are asked factual questions about a person or organization they don’t like (or they assume they don’t like), they will substitute an easy question for the more difficult question of detailing the facts. The substituted easy question will often be something like “Do you like this person/organization,” even though that was clearly not the question asked. As Kahneman describes, the new simple question will be unconsciously inserted. With the new simple question substituted in, the answer is also simple. In culture war discussions, it often takes the form of an ad hominem attack. Consider this example:

Q: “What are the policy position of [a particular person/group]?”

This is a factual question that should either be “I don’t know” or it should be a listing of the policy positions of the person/group. If the is about an organization and the answer is anything other than “I don’t know,” it should fairly track the “About Us” page of the website the person or organization.

However, the hard question is often unconsciously brushed to the side and a new easy question is inserted. In my example, if the person thinks they don’t like the person or organization, they could be expected to substitute in a new simple question like this:

“Do you like [the person or group] and what detrimental things can your emotionally generate (e.g., what deplorable person/affiliation/ad hominem label can you reflexively pull out) to express your emotions?”

For people politically on the Left, the answer will often be something like: “That [person/group] is like Hitler, Republicans, Satan, etc.

On this topic of Substitution, here is another excerpt from Kahneman book (p. 101):

The idea of substitution came up early in my work with Amos [Tversky], and it was the core of what became the heuristics and biases approach. We asked ourselves how people manage to make judgments of probability without knowing precisely what probability is. We concluded that people must somehow simplify that impossible task, and we set out to find how they do it. Our answer was that when called upon to judge probability, people actually judge something else and believe they have judged probability. System 1 often makes this move when faced with difficult target questions, if the an¬swer to a related and easier heuristic question comes readily to mind.
Consider the questions listed in the left-hand column of Table 1.

These are difficult questions, and before you can produce a reasoned answer to any of them you must deal with other difficult issues. What is the meaning of happiness? What are the likely political developments in the next six months? What are the standard sentences for other financial crimes? How strong is the competition that the candidate faces? What other environmental or other causes should be considered? Dealing with these questions seriously is completely impractical. But you are not limited to perfectly reasoned answers to questions. There is a heuristic alternative to careful reasoning, which sometimes works fairly well and sometimes leads to serious errors.

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingSubstitution as a Lazy Narrative-Preserving Technique (Using Gays Against Groomers as an Example)

Does Psychotherapy Work?

Does psychotherapy work?

Millions of Americans engage in psychotherapy, women receiving treatment at approximately twice the rate of men. At Aporia, Bo and Ben Winegard discuss whether psychotherapy really works. They are extremely skeptical, based on a detailed analysis of the topic in search of reliable metrics. Their article is titled: "The Psychotherapy Myth: Contrary to the claims of the psychotherapy myth, humans can be resilient and tough-minded; they can suffer the slings and arrows of life without expensive interventions from “experts.”

Here is an excerpt from their conclusions:

Contrary to the claims of the psychotherapy myth, humans can be resilient and tough-minded; they can suffer the slings and arrows of life without expensive interventions from “experts.” . . .

Thus, a healthy culture should teach that life is often full of misery, dashed hopes, and thwarted desires; it should teach that agony, anguish, and despair are ineradicable parts of the human experience, not aberrant or fleeting intrusions; it should encourage more stoicism, more discipline, more sacrifice; and it should discourage cossetting, indulgence, and morbid contemplation. Reflecting obsessively upon grievances and hardships, like constantly fiddling with a wound, is unwholesome.

Furthermore, the idea that understanding the cause of one’s suffering is the key to curing it is dubious ...Often, the disease is not in the head, but in the society. And thus, even if psychotherapy were highly effective, it might be a dangerous distraction.

The idea that the good therapist is a highly skilled mental engineer who knows how to manipulate the complicated machinery of the human psyche has been memorably promoted in movies such as “Ordinary People,” and, if it were true, it might justify the exorbitant salary some therapists command. But alas, it is no truer than the Freudianism that spawned it; and despite its veneer of sophistication and scientism, psychotherapy ultimately remains a human interaction, purchased at great expense to the patient and perhaps to society.

People will always want to talk to other people about their miseries and insecurities, flaws and failures, hopes and dreams; and counselors and therapists will remain employed into the foreseeable future. Some may even do considerable good. But we hope they will drop the pernicious mythology, the exorbitant prices, and the complicated and often unnecessary licensing system and recognize the simple but tragic fact that many people are desperate for sympathetic social partners and will pay a lot of money for them. What is needed is not more expensively trained experts, but more real social relationships.

Continue ReadingDoes Psychotherapy Work?

False Facts Lead to Bad Legal Conclusions

In the recent affirmative action decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Jackson made a startling claim:

Dr. Vinay Prasad takes issue with the shoddy study on which Justice Jackson might well have relied upon in good faith. I will assume that neither she nor her law clerks have the necessary expertise for critically analyzing the study she cited for making the claim that Black doctors are twice as good at saving the lives of Black newborns. In this article, Dr. Prasad shows the skepticism one needs to show upon hearing such an extraordinary claim.

The paper in question is catastrophically flawed. First, consider that it is a bold claim that a white doctor is twice as likely to kill a black baby. The effect size (TWICE as likely!) is massive. . . .

Next, in my podcast from Aug 2020 I discuss why this paper is flawed (full podcast is 91 min. but relevant discussion runs from 1:31:00 to 0:52:00 mark). Those notes are also captured here.

  • If white doctors have so much worse outcomes, one would expect they are making different decisions in the care of neonates than Black doctors— but this paper cannot show the mechanism of the difference

  • The paper assumes doctor-baby pairings are quasi randomized, but that is unfounded assumption. It may not be quasi randomized and well off Blacks may be more likely to have Black doctors

  • A baby born is seen by a team of doctors— pediatricians, anesthesiologists, obs— which doctor is ascribed the ‘assigned provider’ per baby. What determines this assignment? (the authors do not provide this information)

  • Since, the paper was published it was revealed that some hospitals put a treating doctor on the form and others put the head of the unit. (massive bias)

  • A baby born is seen by a team— nurses, staff, doctors, etc— why are the races (and racial concordance) of these people not accounted for.

  • If a baby gets sick, and goes to NICU and dies, which doctor is ascribed responsibility. If NICU doctors have different racial make up than other doctors could this not bias results?

  • Broader issues of administrative data/ multiple hypothesis testing detailed in the episode.

Prasad also breaks down a second article claiming that Black doctors are substantially better at saving Black lives: "The Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision puts lives at risk."

Prasad sets forth the limitations on this second study, which also makes an extraordinary race-based claim:

Continue ReadingFalse Facts Lead to Bad Legal Conclusions