Get best of the week

How untrained brains destroy the world in the era of coronavirus

Among the many articles about the virus and the economic crisis, disputes and battles, I would like to talk about how this can be filtered and how to improve your own skills.

  • About false dichotomy - quarantines vs economics
  • The real goal of models
  • About fake news, attention span and memory holes
  • Confirmation bias, or facts don't matter
  • The crisis and who predicted it
  • Skill stack
  • Cognitive Distortion and Loserthink
  • About future



UFO Care Minute


COVID-19 — , SARS-CoV-2 (2019-nCoV). — , /, .



, .

, , .

: |

— vs


Articles are published one by one all over the Internet, including on Habré. Quarantine is needed, they write alone. No, it’s not needed, collective immunity will help us, others say. Still others say that more damage will be done to the economy than from the virus.

All of these opinions are usually written by smart and competent people. Serious controversy erupts in the comments. However, few give a broader view of the situation, considering it in several variables, rather than formulating the quarantine vs economy problem.

This is a very common problem when a powerful intellect that does not have a specific training formulates the problem so that it falls under the Escobar axiom .

In my opinion, an additional dimension (time) and some nuances (a delay in the reaction by the authorities of various countries and inaccuracy of the initial data) should be added, and the chronology becomes more interesting, moving away from the indicated duality.

  1. Taleb and several other authors write in late January about the need to stop air links with China due to large unknown risks
  2. Authorities in developed countries ignore warnings
  3. The virus spreads to developed countries and begins to damage
  4. Under fog and high uncertainty, the worst case scenario is taken into account.
  5. Authorities are forced to introduce the only working tool besides vaccination - quarantine (the loss of life in the worst case is death for their careers, and perhaps a big blow to economies from fear and lost lives)
  6. Fog dissipates, economic damage becomes visible
  7. ( ), A/B


Of course, one could argue that from the very beginning one could understand that the virus is not so deadly (although it is very contagious). However, scientists have yet to find out, but for now, let's talk about models.

There is no doubt that the models have many goals and wide areas of application. I want to talk about models that were presented to the general public in various countries by experts.

In some countries, it was said that quarantines should not be taken. In others, there were terrible figures that scared the authorities and the population, and led to tough restrictive measures.

This alone should have made many people think that models do not predict the future. Who could do this (and who can) - he would earn on this fabulous state, like Beef on that almanac.

Many who prepared presentations or models and did it, earning a living, know that in wide uncertainty it is possible to adjust the indicators to a particular scenario. Because there is no future, it contains too many variables to be deterministic. But, of course, modeling gives some idea.

Here it should be noted that systems with feedbacks and real-time correction, working on the basis of certain models, are monitoring systems, and they have much greater predictive power. But we are not talking about them, but about the very exhibitors and schedules that we saw everywhere.

So, we can say that the models are in the hands of public experts on epidemiology the following two tasks

  1. Convincing leaders and people to act;
  2. Assess over a wide range of future challenges.

Moreover, the first is paramount. Persuasion - persuasion is the most important task of any bureaucrat and expert. Just relying on your authority - works poorly.

And to show a picture with scary numbers and to encourage the leader and the population to act - as we see, it works perfectly.

Moreover, experts rely on their experience, and, on average, are more often right than not. But it is the models that help convince the general public. Like investors, allocate funds. Boss - approve the project.

By the way, after the scary pictures about hundreds of thousands of deaths and after taking tough measures, Fauchi (one of the experts in the US in the anti-virus team) said almost directly
Fauci said he personally remains skeptical about models because they're “only as good as the assumptions you put into the model.”.

Here we can separately say about climate models, where a similar situation is observed. Models are used as a means of persuading the public and leaders because they turn experts and their identities out of discussion, creating the illusion of the objectivity of the future.

This is one of many examples of the problem, which will be discussed below, when even powerful minds, without skills and experience in a certain field, make mistakes in thinking. Just because they never developed this in themselves (but they can).

About fake news, attention span and memory holes


Many people receive information from the media - TV, YouTube channels, blogs, online publications, Telegram channels.

Unfortunately, apparently, few people think that in modern times most sources of information

  • have sponsors and owners with specific goals;
  • are commercial organizations aimed at profit and victory over competitors;
  • have bias, as they are led by people who recruit personnel according to a certain principle.

At the same time, once, as historians say, there were people who supplied information in the most objective way, and the competition was for the facts (google Walter Cronkite or New York Times Newspaper of Record).

But today, when everyone has a smartphone, and social networks allow you to replicate information instantly, and the number of players has increased millions of times, the situation has changed.

Moreover, with the development of real-time A / B testing and AI, the study of the human brain, and technologies for influencing people's opinions, they took a very long step forward (for marketing purposes), which, of course, was also reflected in the news business.

At the same time, with an increase in the abundance of information, people's concentration decreased (recall tl; dr) and the peculiarity of forgetting past events, not comparing them with what is happening now, was clearly manifested. Maybe it was always like that, it just became very noticeable - this is for sociologists.

However, many people still think and live in the old reality. In it, news programs or YouTube channels are organizations reporting facts.

Unfortunately, it is not. Using the example of the United States, here are the liberal media that downplayed the danger of the current virus.



And here is a selection of Fox News presenters doing the same.

And in the liberal media there were single presenters who warned of danger. And on Fox News, there was Tucker Carlson who warned about it.

Now the parties have accepted reality (they are on the same page, as they say in the USA), and went on to politicize the issue and blame game - point fingers at each other, look for jambs on the opponent’s team (and carefully keep silent about their own), and make ratings for themselves and get political points.

America is generally very interesting in this regard, where the population lives in its own bubbles, each of which considers its bubble to be reality, and aliens - fiction.

This topic is very deep, and it is difficult to reveal it. As you guessed, it is the media that play a decisive role in creating the mood among the population - including Internet users. Here you can give only one piece of advice -or do not look at anything, or look at the maximum number of sources to minimize their bias by superposition . Unfortunately, due to a number of peculiarities (there was an article about SEO and Google that destroyed the Internet on Habré recently), it is very economically unprofitable for one person to do fact checking for each news item , in the presence of other activities.

About how the media model has changed in the era of the Internet and social networks, there is an excellent book by Matt Taibbi “Hate, Inc” (in English).

I will add only two points in this section.

First, is it true that it is the media that shape the opinion of the population (this includes YouTube channels, opinion makers, and stars), and not vice versa. Of course, in some cases, the population itself sees the picture on the earth and the differences from the information coming from the irons, and draws the appropriate conclusions.

But, as a rule, it is the media that sets the tone. Verified by experiment. An event occurs to which the population, due to forgetfulness, has no established opinion (for example, the arrest of Assange). And the initial reactions on the Internet and among familiar Americans are incomprehensible. Then the media are determined and give a picture - the liberal media urge Assange for draining Clinton, and Fox News praises (although 10 years ago, when Assange soaked Bush, the liberal media praised him and Fox scolded him). And people immediately begin to repeat what influential YouTube personalities, TV presenters, and newspapers have reported.

Secondly, this happens not only in the United States, but around the world, where the authorities and private individuals with capital have an interest in forming the opinion of the population. Draw your own conclusions.

Confirmation bias, or facts don't matter


I’ll start right away with the economic damage that this problem is causing. It seems to me that holivars, political disputes and just heated discussions eat up a significant share of working and free time among people today.

And, as many smart people from Habr could see, not only do arguments in the form of numbers and facts do not convince opponents - they only generate a new stream of arguments and facts (at best) or transitions to a person, an attack on a source, and so on ( at worst), and do not stop the argument.

The fact is that there is a cognitive distortion that makes people choose facts according to their beliefs and reject those that do not fit into the picture of the world in their heads.

It should also be added that people confuse the picture in their head with objective reality (they do not share these two concepts), which also leads to debate (they think that the other person is mistaken, and not they themselves).

Here, my personal position is to argue with people who do not demonstrate a willingness to adapt their opinions - this is a waste of time. Especially if the author himself is not ready to change his mind and heed the arguments (which can hurt your eyes, but make you think), but catches yourself thinking after 10 exhalations that you just want to participate in the classic "someone is wrong on the Internet" .

It should be remembered that not everyone has an intelligence comparable to yours, and your time is expensive.

The crisis and who predicted it


In English-language Twitter, while there were battles about Iran, then about Trump’s impeachment, the following people said about upcoming problems with the virus and the need to act abruptly at the end of January (I’m sharing my list, of course, there are still people who turned out to be right - please put in the comments )


Skill stack


What unites people from the last section?

All of them have working skills in various fields, have achieved success in them, and have a very powerful intellect (and also, often, monetary status). It is useful to compare sources of information on a simple principle - if they make public predictions that come true, or reveal some high-profile news story before it is caught by the mainstream, for several weeks (or even years).

All this falls into one interesting concept - when you are not an expert in one at the world level, but are good enough in a number of areas, and your skills are complementary.

For example, Scott Adams - he had experience

  • work in the office (clerk at the bank, then manager, analyst);
  • Internet (was a programmer);
  • He knew how to draw a little.

Using his experience in office life, as well as feedback from readers (initially Dilbert was not about office), he made a comic about office life as a world brand, and made money from it.

The idea of ​​skill stack, therefore, is to take your current skills (good enough so that you can make money with this), and add on top additional ones that reinforce them. Until the combination becomes unique and allows you to create a product or service that cannot be copied, and you can earn money on it (or achieve fame, depends on your goals).

This is also what Naval Ravikant (author of angellist, also a dollar millionaire) talks about.

Here is an illustration on a small example about the importance of filtering information and having skills in various fields, which brings together almost all the previous sections.

A week ago, a picture started on English-language twitter (visualization, which, as you remember from the previous sections, has a high degree of conviction), which supposedly showed a decline in pneumonia, and concluded that the current problems with the virus are simply different diagnosis.

Scott Adams (author of the comic strip Dilbert, a man with an MBA, years of experience working in banks, work experience as a programmer, etc.) immediately noticed and suggested that this was a fake.


And then an engineer, a data scientist, a developer with versatile experience and skills, including in this field, made a visualization that explained why this is a fake


and the newly released CDC data confirmed this


loserthink


Almost all of us hear about cognitive biases very often in our lives.

I have been interested in this topic for a long time, and was interested from different angles (the nature of the brain, various psychology fundamentals, practical skills to optimize my habits in the field of management and time management) - you can look at long-standing posts on Habré.

Recently I discovered for myself what I stated above, and decided to share what I found with Habr. I always thought how to find a book or a course of lectures that would allow us to develop thinking skills. But at the same time with a maximum density of information and a minimum of water, with a focus on practice. He drew ideas and practices in autobiographies of famous people, stories about mistakes on Habré and in the west from businessmen, in interviews on Youtube from famous people, and even Karlin’s sarcasm.

It so happened that Scott Adams released such a book. She is called Loserthink. It tells how people of various professions think and what common mistakes they make. I do not advertise the book, since it is in English, and advertising is prohibited by Habré.

If you know similar books where typical mistakes of thinking would be stated and how to avoid them, please share in the comments.

Examples from the book

1. Comparison of complex systems in one variable

People are currently comparing countries in one parameter. At the same time, conditions vary in countries, and many changing parameters influence the results.

2. Lack of imagination and mindreading

When in an article or news post, an author, pointing to an act committed by some person, says "he did this only because he thought badly about medical experts."

In this case

  • the author pretends to crawl into another person’s head, concluding that he can read his thoughts (spoiler: no, cannot);
  • the author concludes that there is only one reason why the other person did just that.

3. Word-thinking

When the opponents in the course of the dispute, instead of relying on facts and figures, go on to redefine the words (the very thing “

let's agree on definitions first”) 4. Halfpinions

When politicians and just famous people state a problem and offer a solution outlining the prospects and not to mention the price. And vice versa, when they say that it is not necessary to do this, and point out the minuses, but omit the pros from the conversation. In general, cost / benefit analysis 5 is not presented to the public

. Incorrect comparison

This is a whole section, and it gives an example of how engineers and economists more often correctly compare various entities by identifying variables and presenting the whole range of possibilities. But they can make mistakes, due to professional interest or lack of experience in other areas.

An example is climate risk. As you already know, models are a means of persuasion and an assessment of the scale of the problem, but not the future.

And some economists said that the planet has many risks, and scoffing all the resources at solving one without thinking about the other is not the most optimal solution. At the moment, as you can see, such economists were right. True, they were in the minority, unfortunately.

About future


I hope this article opens the door to those who have never been interested in this issue, despite the fact that it has, without a doubt, strong mental abilities.

Those who are moving in a direction similar to mine, I hope they managed to learn something interesting and useful for themselves.

Whoever has advanced much further along this path will be glad to receive criticism and comments, advice and any useful information.

I express my hope that in the future, the study of information filtering skills and improving thinking will be more widespread, and the time saved in disputes, mankind will be able to spend on solving more pressing problems, and then proceed with new, grandiose achievements - new energy sources, for example, or the exploration of Mars.

The best is yet to come.

More articles:


All Articles