Critical Bitz: Everyday Thinking

A blog exploring the kind of critical thinking that everyone does everyday.

[critical-bitz]

A Last Reflection (Probably)

I just started a new job, and it’s made me think about how social media posts often come back to bite people who are in prestigious positions. I wouldn’t consider my new job to be a “prestigious position” per se, but I decided to go back through my tumblr and “curate” it for posterity. I didn’t want to delete the account, because I’m actually really happy with what I’ve written, and even though I have copies of everything on my own computer, I’m much more likely to re-read it myself in its original blog form.

Anyway, as I was going through, I was actually kind of surprised that I didn’t cringe (very often, anyway) at what I had written five years ago. I thought I would (see this comic - and don’t forget the alt text), but I found that using soft and tentative language, which I think is important when it comes to reflective and critical thinking, really buffered the posts against self-criticism. It was kind of a neat lesson. I did delete a few posts, though. Mostly ones where I said something I thought was too harsh, or if I ended up “debating” with someone online - it’s not that I regretted those posts; they just left me feeling kind of uncomfortable, and it felt better to delete them.

I was also surprised at how often the ideas I’d written here had become an important part of something else I had written or done later, without me even realizing it. A couple of my posts ended up being subconsciously incorporated into a short article I wrote, and another one was the entire basis for an educational video game demo I worked on. And reading some the reflective posts (i.e. the year-end review for the first, and only full, year) reminded me of how useful an exercise this blog was.

I don’t know if I’ve said this before, but the main reason I started this blog was to “empty out my brain” so that I could focus on my PhD. In the short term, it probably distracted me a little bit from graduate work (i.e. the 2012-2013 year was definitely my least productive - a classic “doldrums” PhD block), but in the long term, I know that a lot of my important thoughts are fleshed out and written down (and where other people *could* read them no less), so I don’t have to worry about incorporating them into my “real-life” projects, unless they’re particularly relevant (in which case it’s great that I’ve already thought them through).

Well, I probably won’t post again, but I’ll try to log in once in a while. If, for whatever reason, and I know this is extremely unlikely, someone wants to re-read something that I deleted, you can contact me and I might give you a copy from my computer. Haha.

Oh yeah, I’m a dad now. Happy critical thinking!

[critical-bitz]

Uncertainty is Frustrating (re: Bees)

I read an article today about honeybee colony collapse. It's main argument was that banning neonicotinoids (a type of pesticide treatment to seeds) was not a good way to deal with the problem. Allegedly, we don't actually know how much of the problem is due to these chemicals, and it might shift farmers to pesticides that are actually more harmful. I did some reading around and found that these concerns have some merit, such that I don't really know what to believe anymore. I'm frustrated because I already signed some petitions about neonicotinoids and thought the problem was being addressed (at least partially) by such initiatives. It's so hard to be legitimately confident about complex science issues like these, but we can't just sit around waiting for the data to become more certain, can we? I guess the best we can do is encourage people to talk about these issues, support scientific research, and show those in power that we are concerned (and maybe sometimes that comes from participating in petitions and protests that later turn out to be poorly informed). As long as we're willing to change our minds when the scientific understanding improves.

[katy-133]

[critical-bitz]

freerice.com

Another one of those cool social impact games. The more you play and the better you do, the more rice that the game sponsors will buy for poor communities. It's owned by the UN World Food Programme, so it seems legit. Another cool thing about this 'game' is that it's educational - 'playing' basically involves answering very simple multiple choice questions in a subject of your choice. One cool feature is that, by default, the questions will get harder the better you do, and easier the worse you do. As well, if you get a question wrong, it will tell you the right answer and then ask you the same question a bit later. So it's got brain exercise, school-type learning, and feel-good social impact... not a traditional game but lots of nifty things about it!

[critical-bitz]

Guaranteed $20K Income for All Canadians Endorsed by Academics

So apparently guaranteed income might be getting a bit more traction in Canada. Lots of people have probably heard of the 1970s pilot project where they tried this out in Dauphin, Manitoba (with amazing results), but the idea seems to be getting popular again. What I find most interesting is that a policy this extreme seems intuitively unwise to people across the political spectrum (not just conservatives), but the evidence we have suggests that quality of life improves, most people don't stop working, and the economy doesn't shut down. How many of our political opinions are based on these sorts of subjective impressions or predictions instead of actual evidence (when it's available)? Too many, I think.

(Edit: worth noting that the Dauphin experiment received provincial and federal funding, instead of just being a tax re-adjustment in that one city - so it seems to show that work incentive isn't an issue, but doesn't necessary prove that the policy is perfect, simple, and affordable.)

[critical-bitz]

Stop 'Chilling' Activism

I've been noticing a trend on my Facebook feed. If there's a petition going around or a rally being organized, some people will inevitably post something shaming the participants. For example, 'all attending this would demonstrate is that you know nothing about the issue' or 'if you think signing this will have any effect at all, you are a fool'. Okay, it's fine to voice criticisms about a cause or concerns about its effectiveness, but I am worried that when it turns to shaming it 'chills' some people from engaging with social or political issues, because they don't want to risk looking stupid. It also creates an atmosphere where it's not okay to be wrong, so people defend their opinions arbitrarily instead of considering whether they should change. I say, as long as you are open to (non-shaming) correction and opposing viewpoints, you should feel free to tentatively endorse causes that appeal to you, even if you don't know every single thing about them just yet. Also, see my long posts on flaktivism, online politics, and gentle persuasion.

[critical-bitz]

Interesting post about critical thinking from a non-tumblr blog I follow. The author argues that it is impossible to be fully rational about absolutely everything. We have a limited budget of time and concentration, so it's unlikely that any person will ever be able to think critically in all aspects of their life at once (e.g. it's very difficult to be completely familiar with all the relevant arguments and evidence for more than one issue). This is an important observation, which suggests that we should prioritize our 'rationality budget' towards issues that mean the most to us (i.e. identify as a 'rationalist on issue X' rather than a 'rationalist in general') - if we refuse to acknowledge that our rationality is limited, we run the risk of assuming we are not biased when we actually are (which is a bias itself). Personally, I like the idea of prioritizing certain issues, and I think the best we can do for other issues is try to develop our general critical thinking habits (e.g. being skeptical, tentatively trusting experts/consensus/majority, reserving judgement, being less confident in our understanding of those issues). Also see the follow-up post.

[critical-bitz]

My Favourite Logic Puzzles - Light-Bulb Dungeon

(See the previous puzzle here.)

There are 100 people being thrown into a dungeon by an eccentric queen. Right now she is keeping them all in one big holding cell, but soon they will all be separated and placed in solitary confinement, where each person cannot see or hear anything happening outside their cell. After that, every five minutes, one prisoner will be selected at random to visit the 'secret room'. The room has nothing in it except for a light-bulb which can be turned on or off (let's say it's unbreakable and never burns out - the light-bulb starts out off). After visiting the secret room, a prisoner can choose to declare that all prisoners have been to the room. If they are right, everyone is freed, and if they are wrong, everyone is killed. There's no way to make a marking or leave anything in the secret room - the only thing they can do is toggle the light-bulb. While the prisoners are still in the holding cell, they can figure out a plan. This is not a question of probability - the prisoners must be 100% certain before they make their declaration (the queen might choose one prisoner to go every second time, and another might not go for a month). What should the prisoners do?

[critical-bitz]

A Canadian Network Is Covering a Mass Shooting in a Way American Outlets Won't - Policy Mic

Sun News is basically covering the Moncton shooting without making any real reference to the shooter (their name, motivations, picture, life story, etc) - though examining the causes, in some way, is often important for informing political discussions. They did this deliberately and also published an editorial to explain their decisions. I have always been interested in this approach to covering mass-murders (or attempted mass-murders), one which doesn't give any fame/infamy to the perpetrator, so it's really interesting to see a media outlet give it a try. Another important step would be to increase the coverage of victims.

[critical-bitz]

Lego Is Launching a Radical New Figurine after an Online Campaign - Policy Mic

This is awesome (though it's a little frustrating that it took so long). Lego just released figurines of female chemists, astronomers, and paleontologists. Much better, I think, than the stereotypical 'friends' set that was previously marketed towards girls (the figures didn't even look like Lego). The article also has highlights of the campaign and some accounts from children too.

[critical-bitz]

Aboriginal People and Alcohol: Not a Genetic Predisposition - CBC News

The stereotype that aboriginal people have a genetic intolerance to alcohol persists in Canada and around the world, but a Manitoba medical expert says studies show a possible predisposition to alcoholism really boils down to social conditions such as poverty.

I love studies like this. For those of us that are generally opposed to discrimination (as subtle and systemic as it sometimes is), it's pretty intuitive that stereotyping is morally wrong. And then a researcher finds out that it's also factually wrong and I'm like 'WHAT A SURPRISE'. Of course, even if they found that there was some overall average genetic predisposition towards the stereotype, it would still make the act of stereotyping (i.e. assuming that any particular individual will fit the stereotype) wrong. I'd like to think research like this will encourage people to start to generally see poverty as the cause of problems like alcoholism rather than being caused by personal choices (e.g. over-consumption of alcohol) - and maybe support social programs that try to target poverty as the root issue.

[critical-bitz]

I shared a post about 'solar roadways' a few weeks ago - it seemed like a really cool new technology and was being funded on IndieGogo. I just came across this article, though, which raises a few important questions about the project and its costs. Now, I don't really know if I should trust the informal calculations of one blogger, but this brings up an interesting point. If everything is debatable, how do you know what projects or causes to support? If I've already supported the 'solar roadways' project, what do I do now? Investigate further to make sure the critics are wrong? Admit that I may have made a mistake and wasted my money? I guess we have to take risks on these sorts of things from time-to-time, and it's okay to be wrong. Maybe next time I'm feeling philanthropist-y, I'll support my pet cause, GiveWell, because it's really focused on evidence and responding to critiques.

(Edit: I've seen a number of other critical articles since this post, so I'm still pretty uncertain about the whole thing.)

[critical-bitz]

We Don't Have to Use Trigger Warnings, but We Can Learn from Them - Jezebel

Here's an article about the recent controversy over trigger warnings in education (particularly for university courses that might touch on potentially traumatic material). It's an interesting issue, especially since trigger warnings are quite widely used on tumblr (rightly so, I think), but what I really like about this article is that it isn't just a standard argumentative piece for one side or the other. It's a nuanced piece that examines the merits of both sides and comes to a reasonable conclusion. I wanted to point this out because it seems so rare to find articles on controversial issues where the author isn't trying to prove a one-sided thesis. Ideally, we think in a rational manner where we weigh arguments and evidence from both sides and come to nuanced conclusions like these, so I feel like these sorts of pieces should be much more common (the reason they aren't is because our psychology doesn't work in that ideal way - we make judgement errors and engage in 'motivated reasoning' all the time). Of course, we have to be careful to avoid the middle-ground fallacy, but that's a subject for another post.

[critical-bitz]

The Term 'Social Justice Warrior'

Yesterday, I wasted a bunch of time reading through tumblr posts with the 'feminism' tag. I say 'wasted' not because I think feminism itself is a waste of time (quite the opposite, actually) but because I didn't mean to spend that much time reading - it was kind of addictive. I couldn't stop myself from reading the anti-feminism posts on the list, even though they made my cognitive dissonance flare up. It was almost destructive, because the posts made be uncomfortable and frustrated, but I just kept reading them. Still, I think it's good to familiarize yourself with the arguments of people who you disagree with, not just to improve your ability to persuade them, but to open your mind to the possibility that they may make the occasional observation or argument that you do find to be persuasive, legitimate, and/or noteworthy.

Anyways, I want to talk about the term 'social justice warrior' (a lot of the anti-feminist posts were also tagged with the abbreviation 'sjw'). If I were to hear this term out of context, I would be like 'what a cool label - I am so a social justice warrior'. I wasn't really familiar with even the phrase 'social justice' until I started this blog, and now I take it to be sort of an umbrella term that covers all manner of tolerance and progressive advocacy (i.e. pro-LGBT, feminism, anti-racism, economic inequality, religious diversity, etc) - so a 'social justice warrior' sounds like a good thing to me. As I mention, though, it's often used negatively, not just in a regressive sense to dismiss anyone advocating social justice (e.g. 'haha, look at those silly people who want justice - systemic discrimination is all in their heads!') but sometimes to refer to a subset group or individual who hurts the social justice cause in their pursuit of it by making a tactical error in their advocacy (e.g. misinterpreting something and then over-reacting) or supporting one disadvantaged group only by bashing another. I wonder if maybe that latter use could actually be a useful term for us social-justice-advocacy-types, like for keeping each other accountable? Or is it too pejorative to be useful to us (e.g. like feminazi), and we should just avoid it or perhaps even reclaim it positively (because it just sounds so cool)?

[critical-bitz]

People Are Making This Mistake in Bed Every Day, and It's Making Us Sick - Upworthy

This is a short video explaining that people often misuse psychological 'heuristics' (i.e. shortcuts) to make decisions about sex. I haven't yet written quite so directly about sex on my blog, but the general logic of the video is a point I have tried to make about other issues many times: our intuition is often right, but it is occasionally wrong - critical thinking is about learning to identify those times and then thinking more systematically to solve the problem (e.g. non-verbal cues can be easily misread, so it is best to establish consent explicitly). It even talks about the halo effect. Also, there's a dog at the end.

[illusionaryish]

Imagine if the whole, beautifully paved world looked like this.

These are solar panels that, if placed in the place of roadways and other paving sites (parking lots, parks, etc) can produce more renewable energy than the entire country produces. 

It's currently in the prototype stage with amazing results. Plus, they can be used in all weather situations that will also make icy roads a thing of the past. Heating elements will melt any ice and snow that sits on top. Another thing, they come with LEDs inside so that you'll have a better view of the road as you drive. All powered by solar energy. 

I Fucking Love Science posted an article about it and it's also raising money on indiegogo, which is disgustingly far from the goal. They have some pretty sweet gifts, including bumper stickers, a necklace containing pieces of the prototypes, and an entire working prototype of the plates.

BONUS: The prototypes were made of 10% recycled plastic AND can still handle the heaviest trucks. Imagine what the final product could do.

I urge everyone to at least reblog and spread the message so that hopefully this reaches the goal at May 31st. Projects like this hit me right in the heart because of my passion for renewable energy, which is what I hope to deal with once I'm done with my Engineering degree. I would gladly work on this project if I could, but for now I'm going to settle with donating as much as I can and spreading the word as far as possible.

So, signal boost! <3

[critical-bitz]

Very cool. I'm always a little bit hesitant to contribute to indiegogo campaigns over kickstarter ones because your money often goes to the campaign whether it reaches its goal or not - so it feels a bit less secure. That being said, the indiegogo site seems pretty safe, and I think I'd be happy for this project to have my money even if it doesn't reach its goal (maybe it's a good thing, since it looks like they might not reach their lofty $1M goal by the end of May). Innovations in renewable energy are always exciting.

(Edit: there are apparently some criticisms/questions about this project - see my post here - so I'm actually feeling pretty tentative about the whole thing. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.)

[critical-bitz]

Why It Makes Sense to Bike without a Helmet - Howie Chong

An interesting argument for why it might actually be safer to cycle without a helmet, even though it's counter-intuitive. I'm always interested in viewpoints that debunk the intuitive perspective with evidence, because they show that we can't always rely on intuition and should know when to think critically. That being said, when I saw this shared on Facebook, it had generated quite a discussion - lots of people pointed out flaws in the argument or with the evidence used, so for the moment, all I really know is that helmet use is kind of controversial (but hey, that means this article may also work as an example for critical reading).

[critical-bitz]

Collisions of Written and Oral Communication

I was at a conference over the weekend. Even though I'm pretty sure most people in academia will have heard the advice "don't read your paper word-for-word and call it an oral presentation", nearly half of the presentations I saw were just that. Admittedly, some people are better at pulling this off than others (e.g. they make side comments, have a more dynamic reading voice, look up more often, etc.) and I can sympathize with people who don't feel they can turn their paper into an oral presentation with the time they have (although I think that's easier than we tend to perceive), but there's good reason that this strategy makes for a poor presentation.

The way we absorb things isn't usually neat and linear - we don't process a single word at a time. When we're reading, we can glance at entire sentences at once, anticipate changes in flow based on paragraph position, and re-read sections we didn't understand the first time. When we're listening to a flexible speaker (i.e. with notes instead of a script), they can gauge our reaction and also hear their own voice, which allows them to emphasize or repeat certain points and communicate things more informally. Reading a written piece out-loud word-for-word (when it wasn't designed for such a purpose, like a story-book or a speech) has none of these mechanisms, and requires much more effort on the part of the audience, who won't get as much out of it as they would have if they had simply read the paper or had listened to the writer summarize it. Sorry to sound rant-y, but if you are making an oral presentation, presumably you want your audience to get as much out of it as possible.