Would You Kill a Fly for $1,000?

So I missed my Critical Thinking Thursdays post.  I had planned to write something about us poor, mixed-up millennials and our troubles finding work, but my research for it started to make me depressed and angry so I stopped (although it's a subject I plan to return to when my head cools).  I've also been a little under the weather the last couple days, so I spent most of my time away from the computer yesterday and watched some movies instead.

I have a Halloween tradition that involves binge-watching horror movies all October long.  This year, it started a little bit early (and I am never more grateful toward Netflix than I am on days I just want to laze on the couch).

One of the movies I watched yesterday actually had an interesting premise from a non-consumer POV, in a roundabout way.  It was called 13 Sins, and it revolved around a clever premise: A down-on-his-luck guy receives a mysterious phone call from someone who knows all sorts of details about his life and says that he's been volunteered for a new type of game show.  All he has to do is complete 13 challenges, each one with a certain pay-out.  If he makes it to the end, he becomes a multi-millionaire.

The challenges start off pretty simple: First he has to kill a fly for $1,000.  Then he has to eat that fly, for $3,000.  But, predictably, the challenges start getting increasingly twisted, and our poor protagonist becomes trapped: Either he can keep completing the challenges (to win the money and see his name cleared) or he can stop (losing all the money and facing charges for all the illegal things he's done).

It's a pretty excellent metaphor for the rat race.  I won't tell you more in case you want to watch it, but I would love to hear your thoughts.  When is money worth the strings that come attached to it?  How far would you go to earn more money?  Or, how far would you go to avoid the rat race?  Much to think about.

You can find 13 Sins on Netflix or click the poster up there to get it on Amazon. 

Critical Thinking Thursdays: Correlation, Causation and the Silliness That Ensues

Note: I was going to post this last Thursday, but it didn't really happen.  I ended up spending much more time away from home than I'd anticipated, and by the time I got back I was entirely too braindead to construct this post.  Besides, I'm glad I waited, because I woke up this morning to find this delightful graphic in my Facebook feed from my favorite page, I Fucking Love Science.

Now I have something to talk about today!

You can probably spot the problem with this statement, even if you're not familiar with logical fallacies.  There's an issue here with correlation (things that happen at the same time) and causation (one thing happens because of the other thing).

This problem crops up in a lot of places.  The human brain is trained to find patterns -- it's a survival instinct that helps to keep us alive -- but sometimes we find patterns that aren't actually there, or draw the wrong conclusions from patterns that do exist.

In this case, the causation is reverse:  Birthdays don't make you live longer.  Living longer, by definition, enables you to have more birthdays.

There are several other ways that correlation and causation can get screwed up:

• Reduction Fallacy:  The assumption that a single event was caused by a single factor, when in reality multiple factors are all partially responsible.  Unfortunately, life is rarely simple, so this happens a lot.  After a school shooting, for example, you'll get people saying, "This happened because of guns!" or "This happened because of mental health issues!" or "This happened because of violence in the media!" In reality, all of those factors may be at play -- and many more could also be responsible.  It's very rare that complex problems are ever caused by a single root issue.  
• Bi-Directional Causation: When A causes B, but B also causes A.  So, for example, imagine a bank account that gains interest.  The more money in the bank, the more interest it earns.  The more interest it earns, the more money in the bank.  If left alone, this causes a sort of "chicken or egg" feedback loop.  
• Spurious Relationship:  A and B are both caused by a third factor, C.  One of my favorite examples, courtesy of The Flying Spaghetti Monster:  A shortage of pirates causes global warming!  After all, as the pirate population decreases, global warming increases!  Of course, this is probably due to one or more outside factors, such as global industrialization, that cause both things to occur.  Of course, not all examples of this are so silly.  
• Affirming the Consequent:  The format for this is, "If P, then Q.  Q, therefore P."  In other words, if one thing were to happen, Q would be the consequence; since Q has happened, P must have caused it.  This is related to the reduction fallacy above in that it assumes that Q can only be caused by a single factor, therefore P must have happened.  Here's a (cynical) example:  "If Mary screws her boss, she'll get a raise.  She just got a raise, so she must be sleeping with her boss." 
• Denying the Antecedent:  This is the inverse of the above.  This one says, "If P, then Q.  Not P, therefore not Q."  So for example, "If I were rich, I'd be happy.  Since I'm not rich, I'm not happy."  This sort of neglects that you could be made happy by anything else.  

There are other iterations, but they're all pretty similar.  The trick to figuring out the correlation/causation issue is to do a bit of investigating.  Things that seem obvious at first may not be so simple in reality, and making assumptions about them can lead you to try and solve problems in all the wrong ways.  After all, you can't really solve a problem if you don't know the real cause of it.  

Always ask yourself, "Could this have been caused by anything else?  Is there some other element that could be behind all of this?  Is it possible that the causation is actually inverted?"  

Critical Thinking Thursday: Movie Magic and the Power of Editing

Today, I want to talk a little bit about "movie magic," and especially about how the power of editing can make things appear different than how they really are.  This is a trick that's used for everything from movies to televised magicians and even the nightly news, and recognizing it in advance can help you keep a clear head any time you see something outlandish on a screen -- be it Criss Angel, Fox News or a YouTube video.  

What You Have to See to Believe

Humans are visual creatures.  Although we have four other senses that provide us with valuable information, our eyes are the thing we rely on the most. Take just a moment to appreciate how amazing the human eye really is.  This complex little organ takes in light, which then travels to your brain, which sorts through the light, converts it into images and assigns meaning to those images.  The simple act of reading these words on the screen is an impressive feat of nature's engineering.  We've evolved these eyeballs -- and the brains that go with them -- for milennia.  Cameras, on the other hand, have only been around for a few centuries, and motion-capture cameras have been around for just a few generations.  There are people alive today who were born in a time when there were no videos -- and now everybody can take a video with a device that fits into their pocket.  It's awe-inspiring.  

Now that we've got that out of the way, here's the thing about human brains.  Our brains are pretty much conditioned to believe that they can trust the information delivered by our eyes.  If we see something, our default state is belief.  Questioning that belief requires effort -- critical thought, in other words.  So if you're fooled by the things you see, it doesn't mean you're stupid.  It just means that your brain is having a hard time keeping up with these rapid changes in technology. 

Ways That Cameras Can Lie

There are a lot of ways that a camera can lie to you, and a lot of different applications for those lies.  Here are a few examples:  

• Shooting multiple takes.  For example, a television psychic approaches a man on the street and says, "Excuse me, is your wife named Mary?" and the astonished man says, "Why, yes, she is!"  What the audience doesn't know is that the psychic approached a dozen other people and asked that same question; this gentleman is the only one who said yes.  Since all of the unsuccessful attempts were cut, the psychic looks more successful than he really is. 
• Editing footage together.  A person on a reality TV show wins a storage unit.  You see the auctioneer cut off the lock, signifying that the unit hasn't been tampered with.  The winner walks inside, opens a box, and finds a priceless antique.  What you don't see?  Between the shot of the lock being broken and the winner walking inside, the camera is shut off and the camera crew places the valuable item inside to be "discovered."  When it's edited together, it appears that the item was there all along.  This was one of the very first "magic" tricks ever done with a camera.  The concept of an item appearing out of thin air was, at the time, inconceivable, and it fooled a lot of people.  Things don't just spontaneously appear in real life.  But they can and do in film, where a shot could have taken hours or even weeks to put together.  
• Cutting and cropping.  Like the picture above, you can take anything and make it look like something else by zeroing in on one small part of it.  The ability to focus and crop a photograph is one of the things that makes photography an artform, an expression of the person behind the camera, rather than just 'real life.'  But never forget that everything you see could have been manually put together or cut in a way that creates a reporting bias.  
• Post-production editing.  In the old days, people needed to do this sort of thing in a dark room.  Today, we have Photoshop.  However you do it, the premise is the same: you change a photograph or video after it's been shot to look different.  For example, you can airbrush a model to make her appear thinner.  You can combine human features with animals to create were-people.  Or you can use your iPhone to insert ghosts into cell phone pictures.  
• Claiming that natural events are supernatural.  This one doesn't even require editing -- just viewers who don't understand cameras.  Have you ever seen those photographs that supposedly have "spirit orbs" or other such things?  What the photographer isn't telling you is that those floating balls of light are actually just dust particles that are reflecting light into the camera lens.  

There are tons more tricks -- from using a green screen to computer-animated special effects -- and of course out-and-out faking (for example: the "stranger on the street" is actually a paid actor).  Here's what's important for you:  Don't trust anything you see on TV without thinking critically about it!  

Ask yourself whether some or all of these techniques could have been used on the footage you've seen.  Ask yourself whether the things you see seem plausible or if they seem to go against what you know about the rest of the world.  Determine whether there is any external way to validate a claim being made in a video you're watching.  For example: Are there other videos from other people that show the same thing?  Can you talk to a real witness who saw it happen?  Is there a paper trail or other history that backs up what you're seeing?  Is there any reason why the footage should have been faked?  

Not everything you see on TV is a lie, but learning how to spot a forgery is a good task to keep in your arsenal of critical thinking skills. 

Critical Thinking Thursday: Statistics Mean Nothing

Today's Critical Thinking Thursday post is a bit late as I was busy learning an important lesson:  Always check the oven before pre-heating it.  I had left something in it previously and completely forgotten about it.  I didn't notice this until turning on the oven to pre-heat for a pizza....and copious amounts of smoke began billowing from the oven.  Oops.  We retreated to Buffalo Wild Wings until the smoke cleared -- hence the late post.

Anyway, today I want to talk about this graphic:

I saw this kicking around on Facebook and it's a beautiful example of the way you can twist statistics around to say basically anything you want.  So, let's go step-by-step and see how you can critically examine this, shall we?

• First off, let's check that the figures are even accurate.  Since the graphic doesn't site a source for any of these numbers, we'll have to check them manually.  When searching, you'll want to find a website that doesn't have its own agenda (for obvious reasons), so we'll want something with some objective credibility.  
• Let's take a look at that 195,000 figure first.  First off, the data is 10 years old.  Second, the actual causes of death are "failure to rescue, bed sores, postoperative sepsis, and postoperative pulmonary embolism".  So now we have that figure explained a bit more clearly.  
• Now, the assault rifle figure.  It took some digging to find the primary source on this one, but it looks like it's from the FBI. (Interestingly, based on the FBI data, the figure quoted for knives is actually very low -- the figure quoted here is 1,694 for stabbing deaths).  
• The 12,000 drunk driver fatalities appears to be from this site here, which offers an average (not the exact figure).  

OK.  Now that we've found the source of each figure, let's look at a few interesting things about how the data is compiled and represented, shall we?

• By specifically choosing assault rifles, the graphic down plays the severity of gun violence in general.  According to the CDC, firearms account for 31,347 deaths.  Of these, according to the FBI, 12,664 were homicides.  The others could range from accidents (children handling guns, hunting accidents) to suicides.  
• This means that gun homicide (in general) is actually more dangerous than drunk driving.  Someone with a different political stance could make a different graphic using exactly the same sources and come to that conclusion -- more gun murders happen annually than drunk driving deaths.  
• Incidentally, according to the CDC, the total number of vehicle fatalities (not just drunk drivers) is 34,485, which is still higher than the total number of firearm fatalities.  Therefore, someone could, again, take the same data and make a new graphic showing that cars are more dangerous than guns (but the margin is much narrower).  

The point of all this isn't to take a side one way or the other about gun control.  The point is to show that this graphic -- which seems very straightforward -- presents its figures in a way that supports the point it wants to make.  This is the dangerous thing about statistics:  On their own, they don't actually mean anything.  The numbers have to be interpreted.  As you can see, different people can take the exact same data and extrapolate completely different interpretations from it.  

So the next time you're faced with a graphic or statistic, I invite you to take a few extra minutes to think critically about it before sharing.  Ask yourself:  Where are they getting these numbers?  Are they accurate?  Is the source reputable?  If you look at the data yourself, do you get a different interpretation?  How many other ways can those numbers be interpreted? 

Problem Solving Strategies from my Mom

Here's the first installment of what I hope to make a regular feature of the blog:  Critical Thinking Thursdays.

I was very fortunate to receive an excellent education.  I was home-schooled, and the curriculum came from Calvert, a top-notch private school in Baltimore.  When I went to college, I realized that I was better-prepared than most of my peers.  In large part, this is because Calvert's curriculum was focused largely on teaching critical thinking and problem-solving skills.  Instead of teaching us what to think, Calvert taught us how to think for ourselves.  And that's a skill that I noticed was sorely lacking in public school for the few years I did attend (three years of high school -- I graduated early).

Anyway.  Lack of critical thinking skills doesn't mean you're stupid.  It just means that you haven't been taught how to do it.  So I'm going to share some of the wisdom I have on the topic every week, hopefully, and maybe it'll make a difference in somebody's life.

Problem Solving Skills (As Taught By My Mother)

One of the very first things my mom taught me was how to approach problems logically and calmly.  I don't remember when we first learned this particular skill, but I was quite young -- so young that I hadn't yet learned the scientific method, which made it particularly delightful when I later discovered that the two processes were very similar. 

1. Step One:  Whose Problem is it?  This is a crucial first step.  Before you get worked up over something, ask yourself, "Is this my problem?  Is this something I can affect?"  If it's not -- if the problem is something that only someone else can solve or that doesn't actually affect you, don't even waste your time worrying about it.  For example: Your friend is having an argument with her boyfriend.  It's not your job to solve that problem.  You may want to offer a supportive ear, a couch to sleep on, or some advice -- but solving the problem is not actually your responsibility, and you shouldn't waste time trying to do so because you will only get frustrated.  Let it go.  
2. Step Two:  What, exactly, IS the problem?  Think through this carefully.  Write it down if you have to.  Figure out exactly what the issue is and why it's bothering you.  Dig beneath the surface.  Your emotional response to something may not be logical, but a logical event may be underlying it.  For example: Your husband fails to take out the trash in time for trash collection, and you get angry.  Are you angry because you now have smelly trash in your garage for another week?  Or are you angry because you asked him to do it and he didn't, so you feel disrespected?  Is it both?  
3. Step Three:  Brainstorm possible solutions to the problem.  Think up as many solutions as you can.  Some of them will be ridiculous, but that's fine.  It helps to write them all down.  If you're upset because the trash is in the garage, there are some solutions:  Take the trash to the dump yourself; put the trash somewhere you can't smell it; buy an odor-locking trash can; clandestinely dump the trash in someone else's dumpster.  If you're feeling hurt because your husband disrespected you:  Talk to your husband about your feelings; ignore him until you stop being angry; punish him in some way.  
4. Step Four:  Choose the appropriate solution.  After you've brainstormed all of your solutions, figure out which one is the best.  Maybe you just don't go into the garage this week, or maybe you send dear hubby out to the dump to get rid of the offending trash.  Whatever seems like the most reasonable, simple solution -- go with that one.  
5. Step Five:  Assemble any necessary materials to implement the solution.  Sometimes solving a problem seems insurmountable because you don't have the tools necessary to handle it.  Taking the trash to the dump can seem impossible if you don't have a car -- but do you have a friend who could take you?  Could you bribe them with beer and cookies?  Talking to your husband can seem impossible if you don't know what to say -- but would it be easier if you wrote it out first? Maybe you could email him all of the points you want to make so he'll have a primer before you start talking.  
6. Step Six:  Implement your solution.  Now that you have the materials you need and a plan for solving your problem, solve the problem.  Dispose of the trash.  Talk to your husband.  
7. Step Seven:  Did that solve the problem?  Look at the situation and see if you are satisfied with the solution.  If you only threw away the trash but didn't confront your husband, do you still feel angry?  Maybe the problem has multiple aspects that all need to be dealt with.  Repeat steps 1-6 as many times as necessary until your problem has been solved.  
8. Step Eight:  Plan for the future.  After you've solved the problem, brainstorm some ways to prevent it from happening again.  Put sticky notes on your husband's computer, or make him buy a whiteboard so he can keep track of his chores.  Store your trash in a way that won't be disastrous if it doesn't get picked up.  Start taking the trash out yourself.  Hire a neighbor kid to take your trash out for you.  Dump your husband and marry a trash collector.  Whatever -- it doesn't matter.  The important thing is that you take an active role in preventing the problem from happening again.  

And there you are, kids.  An eight-step problem-solving strategy.  As you gain more experience, you will be able to implement these steps without having to think too much about them -- they'll become second nature.  The important part is to remove your emotional response from the logical aspect.  Recognize that, yes, you're upset, and that's OK.  But being upset won't solve the problem.  Let yourself feel it, then let it go -- and work on fixing your problems.