Cognitive biology: A protocol for debiasing causal illusions in school children

Researchers in Spain are publishing results of a large scale experiment (n = 1668) to train high school students to resist forming cause and effect linkages when none exist. Such linkages, called causal illusions, are usually part of the reasoning that can lead many people to beliefs in pseudoscience, stereotypes and other unjustified, false beliefs. The researchers write:

Causal illusions consist of believing that there is a causal relationship between events that are actually unrelated. This bias is associated with pseudoscience, stereotypes, and other unjustified beliefs. .... [The research] included a pilot study (n = 287, grades 8-9), a large-scale implementation (n = 1,668; 40 schools, grades 8-10) and a six-month follow-up (n = 353). Results showed medium-to-large and long-lasting effects on the reduction of causal illusions. To our knowledge, this is the first research showing the efficacy and long-term effects of a debiasing intervention against causal illusions that can be used on a large scale through the educational system.

This ability to infer causal relationships in our environment has conferred important survival advantages to both humans and other animals, since it allows us to anticipate changes and adjust our behavior accordingly. However, our ability to detect causal patterns is not error-free. In some cases, it has been shown that individuals can erroneously infer a cause-effect relationship between events that are actually unrelated. This cognitive bias is known as causality bias, or causal illusion.

Causal illusions often lead to suboptimal decisions and can produce undesirable outcomes that underlie many social issues. For example, they have been associated with social stereotypes, ideological extremism, epistemically unwarranted beliefs such as paranormal, superstitious, and pseudoscientific beliefs, and the use of alternative and complementary medicine, among others.

There is evidence that not only adults but also children can show causal illusions. In fact, children and adolescents might be especially vulnerable to causal illusion as they lack the basic cognitive skills and background knowledge exhibited by adults, which are important characteristics involved in causal judgment. (citations removed for clarity)

In the face of these threats to human well-being that are associated with causal illusions as well as with other cognitive biases, the design of debiasing methods represents a major goal of modern psychology.

That accords with the intend behind pragmatic rationalism being an anti-biasing, anti-ideology ideology. This research is an example of the feasibility of teaching school children defense against the dark arts of dark free speech, crackpot reasoning in this case.

As usual, this research needs to be replicated and expanded to verify the results and to see if more effective protocols would give better results. The protocol amounted to a single 90 minute session with an initial bias induction phase, followed by a training (debiasing) phase. The bias-induction phase showed the students that they, not just other people, are vulnerable to forming causal illusions and the potential adverse consequences of holding false beliefs. That teaching was intended to motivate students about learning how to correct the problem in the second phase of the teaching protocol. The researchers described key parts of the induction of illusion phase protocol like this:

Thus, the induction phase was conducted with the aim of generating a biased judgment about the effectiveness of a target product among the participants, by using techniques that are common in advertising and pseudoscience. The target product was a metal ring (replacing the small piece of ferrite used by Barberia et al., 2013) that participants were asked to wear on their fingers. They were told that the product was made of a new material recently developed in a top research laboratory, which endowed it with special properties. They were explained that when the product contacted the skin, it increased the physical and cognitive capacity of the wearer. Following the strategy commonly used in pseudoscience, a hyper-technical explanation of the product was offered.

To increase their perception that the product was effective, participants were told that individuals in previous tests reported feeling that they had performed the tasks particularly well when using the ring. Second, participants engaged in two physical exercises (stability and flexibility), similar to those advertised by companies trying to show how some popular products improve sports performance, such as the Power Balance bracelet, which has been shown not to work.

The researchers described part of the training or debiasing phase of the 90 minute session like this:

This phase started by revealing the ineffectiveness of the ring. Then, an explanation was provided about the mistakes that were made when testing the ring, what could have been done to detect the fraud, and how to apply the experimental method and adequate control conditions when testing causal links. Specifically, we instructed participants in the importance of control conditions in order to evaluate a causal relationship. First, using the example of an alleged remedy against a common cold, they were educated on the necessity of comparing the probability of recovery from the cold when using the remedy with the probability of recovering spontaneously with no intake of the remedy. This comparison, and not simply the fact of recovery being very likely when taking the remedy, was presented as the key element to consider when evaluating its effectiveness.

Just think about that. Marketers use known techniques to induce causal illusions in consumers so that consumers buy what is in essence, products that often do not work at all. They are literally selling an illusion. I could not find published data on the annual marketing value of inducing causal illusions by marketers, but it is probably worth tens of billions in sales each year. A fascinating 2023 research paper, Scarcity affects cognitive biases: The case of the illusion of causality, made the interesting observation that people with limited money tended to be more resistant to forming causal illusions than one with less money concern. Perplexity nicely summarized the results of that paper.

The importance of causal illusion on political ideology and extremism is not clear to me. A 2018 research paper commented:

Research on the related literature of “motivated cognition” suggests that people’s causal inferences can be either accurate or biased, depending on which outcome better fits previous beliefs, opinion, and worldview. Thus, we take this argument further and propose that the causal illusion will be developed selectively to favor those conclusions that align with previous beliefs and ideology. 

That paper found that people exhibit causal illusions selectively, especially in situations that favor their existing political views. Thus, people who identified as left-wing tended to form the illusion that a left-wing ruling party was more successful in improving city indicators compared to a right-wing party. Right-wing participants showed the opposite pattern. This selective causal illusion occurred despite all research participants being presented with the same information. It seems to be the case that pre-existing ideology or belief influences the kind of illusion a person will tend to generate, i.e., an illusion that distorts reality to fit pre-existing ideology. 

Regarding the interplay of privilege, fairness, oppression, and social structures

A commenter here said that I never have discussions about things like privilege, fairness, oppression, and social structures. I felt a needed to slam a cork in that bung. Perplexity (occasionally lightly edited):

Q: How does the interplay of privilege, fairness, oppression, and social structures influence life outcomes?

A: The interplay of privilege, fairness, oppression, and social structures has a profound influence on life outcomes across society.

Privilege and oppression operate through interconnected systems of power that create advantages for some groups while disadvantaging others. These power imbalances are deeply rooted in historical and structural inequalities related to factors like race, gender, class, and economic status.

People with more privilege tend to have better access to quality healthcare, more educational and career opportunities, greater economic resources and stability, and more political influence and representation. By contrast, oppressed and marginalized groups often face discrimination in healthcare, education, employment, etc., limited access to resources and opportunities, higher rates of poverty and economic insecurity, and underrepresentation in positions of power.

The effects of privilege and oppression compound over time and across generations. For example, racial wealth gaps stemming from historical discrimination continue to grow wider. Educational disparities lead to income disparities which then perpetuate educational disparities for the next generation.

Beyond individual interactions, privilege and oppression are reinforced through institutional policies, cultural norms, and societal structures. Even well-intentioned individuals operate within these larger systems that perpetuate unfairness. [the power of social structures to control lives is why today I re-posted my review of the 1963 book Invitation to Sociology]

While privilege can't be eliminated entirely, we can work to create more equitable systems that expand access to opportunities and resources for all. This involves ongoing efforts to dismantle oppressive structures and cultivate a more just society.

Another Perplexity commentary:

Q:  How do social structures shape perceptions of reality and behaviors?

A: Social structures play a significant role in shaping how individuals perceive reality and behave within society. This process occurs through several interconnected mechanisms.

Social Construction of Reality

Social constructionism posits that our understanding of reality is created through social interactions and shared meanings. Rather than being objective or fixed, our perception of the world is heavily influenced by the cultural context and social structures we inhabit

Self-fulfilling prophesies

Social structures can create self-fulfilling prophecies through the Thomas theorem, which states that if people define situations as real, they become real in their consequences. This can lead to the reinforcement of existing social categories and hierarchies.

Looking-Glass Self
Individuals shape their behavior and self-esteem based on how they believe others perceive them, using social interactions as a mirror to measure their own worth and values. By understanding how social structures shape our perceptions and behaviors, we can better recognize the constructed nature of many social categories and potentially work towards more equitable and inclusive societies. However, it's important to note that while socially constructed, these structures and their effects are very real and have significant impacts on individuals' lives and opportunities.

For more context, consider (1) how powerful an influencer a "little thing" like incivility usually is with most people (discussed in this blog post), (2) the low upward social mobility in American society compared to European societies, (3) deeply entrenched wealth inequality in America, (4) the precarious, insecure nature of many or most jobs for many or most Americans, e.g., the fall of labor unions and the rise of contract workers without benefits, and (5) shrinkage of the middle class.

Q: Is talk about privilege, fairness, oppression, and social structure just bleeding heart liberal gobbeldygook that distracts from the fact that if a person works and studies hard, they will nearly always get ahead and rise to or above, or stay in, the middle class?

Invitation to Sociology (re-posted)

Politics is a complex and important aspect of humanity. Even after decades of study through various branches of science, however, our understanding of the human elements of politics is still incomplete. Over time, however, a picture is slowly coming into a degree of focus. Research from Research from a variety of fields including history, evolutionary biology, cognitive biology, neuroscience, economics, political science, psychology and philosophy are all being brought to bear and, increasingly, all inform one another to some extent.

Another discipline that affords a different and important viewpoint through which one can analyze politics is sociology. That discipline attempts to understand the nature and origins of social institutions such as marriage, religion, law, and politics – or more broadly, society. In his 1963 book, Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective (Anchor Books, 176 pages), sociologist Peter Berger describes some basic sociological concepts and their social importance to literally invite students to consider sociology as a career. His book is thus not intended to be a textbook or to advocate new theory. As Berger puts it, “this book is to be read, not studied.” For people not familiar with sociology, this book can convey nothing short of a major epiphany about human society and the individual’s place in it.

The influence of Berger's work should not be overlooked. Writing in 1990 on the impact of Berger's book, sociologist Kevin Christiano writing in 1990 commented that “as a publishing feat, Invitation has proved monumental; as an intellectual statement, its impact has been felt around the world.” It may be the case that another introductory sociology book has come along, but after reading it from this non-sociologist’s point of view, it is hard to see how much more powerful and influential it could be. Invitation can fairly be called an outstanding work of nonfiction. It is still used as an introductory textbook in at least some universities.

Despite being published 61 years ago, Invitation presents a view of a discipline that was, from this reviewer’s point of view, surprisingly advanced and sophisticated. The fundamental concepts that Berger discusses remain valid, although they are probably more refined and may be viewed differently by modern professionals.

Berger offers one vision of society as a prison that imposes more constraints on perceived choice and even consciousness than most people realize. Berger describes mechanisms of social control and the role of social institutions in exerting control. For example, he cites a situation where an unmarried couple conceive a baby. In Western society, the marriage social structure dictates marriage as the accepted social norm with all the trappings including florist, church wedding, engagement and wedding rings and so forth. Berger points out that none of those are mandatory, but many people cannot see that or are trapped by social norms they do not want to violate. Society, as a general rule, discourages socially unacceptable options such as running from the ceremony, arranging to have the child brought up by friends, or entering into a common law marriage. Of course, these days non-traditional marriages have become more acceptable than was the case in 1963.

Here, Berger asserts that “society not only controls our movements, but shapes our identity, our thought, and our emotions.” Social institutions are therefore, to a significant extent, “structures of our own consciousness.” From a personal freedom point of view, that seems a rather harsh vision of society and social institutions. In this scenario, humans are puppets being moved by invisible social strings, and we have little control.

In another, more accurate vision of society, Berger describes society as a stage on which individuals play their roles and have choices within the constraints of social norms. People can game the system or can play as society intends the rule to work. There is more personal freedom. One can attempt to escape society's tyranny using tactics such as “manipulation”, which is the deliberate use of social institutions in unforeseen ways. Using work equipment and time for personal purposes is one such example. Another path to freedom is a “detachment” from society, which is a mental withdrawal from the social stage, wherein an individual retreats into a religious, intellectual, or another fulfilling, self-interested pursuit. By doing this, “it is possible, though frequently at considerable psychological cost, to build for oneself a castle of the mind in which the day-to-day expectations of society can be almost completely ignored.”

Although the limits that society and social norms impose are daunting, maybe even depressing, Berger asserts that achieving sociological self-awareness offers at least a partial way out. “Unlike puppets, we have the possibility of stopping in our movements, looking up and perceiving the machinery by which we have been moved. In this act lies the first step toward freedom.”

Sociology and politics: Looking at politics from a sociological point of view affords a useful way to understand politics. Sociology can shed light on the role of society including various groups or tribes, who invariably construct their own social norms, perceptions and ways of thinking.

The power of roles that people play to are shaped by social institutions. For example, military draftees have to assume a new role, which Berger describes as an identity change process: “The same process occurs whenever a whole group of individuals is to be ‘broken’ and made to accept a new definition of themselves. . . . . This view tells us that man plays dramatic parts in the grand play of society, and that, speaking sociologically, he is the masks he must wear to do so.” Berger asserts that identity-breaking is prevalent in totalitarian groups or organizations. That affords a glimpse of the power that manipulating or “breaking” society can have in service to the tyrant-kleptocrat.

Establishing a political and religious ideology can also shape politics to a significant extent. Berger comments: “Sociologists speak of ‘ideology’ in discussing views that serve to rationalize the vested interests of some group. Very frequently, such views systematically distort social reality in much the same way that an individual may neurotically deny, deform or reinterpret aspects of his life that are inconvenient to him. . . . . the ideas by which men explain their actions are unmasked as self-deception, sales talk, the kind of ‘sincerity’ that David Riesman has aptly described as the state of mind of a man who habitually believes his own propaganda.”

Social science research since Berger wrote in 1963 has continued to document and reinforce knowledge that adhering to political and religious ideologies is a powerful distorter of both reality and facts, influencing the logic we apply to what we think we see. The situation of people dealing with politics was recently described as “infantile”, not because people are stupid. Instead, politics is generally too complex and opaque for our minds to process reality as it is even if we were not so biased and socially constrained. Seeing politics through a lens of one or more ideologies frames reality and reason. In turn, that is a basis that allows simplifying matters to make them coherent and consonant with ideological belief. The process of simplifying and generating coherence and ideological consonance happens unconsciously for the most part. That is an aspect of innate human cognitive biology, not a criticism of the human condition.

When sociological effects and pressures are brought to bear by political leaders, that biology can be powerfully manipulated by social pressures to shape and reinforce false realities often based on flawed conscious reason. Berger argues that politicians know how to manipulate social conditions to achieve their ends. He argues that “sociological understanding is inimical to revolutionary ideologies, not because it has some sort of conservative bias, but because it not only sees through the illusions of the present status quo but also through the illusionary expectations concerning possible futures, such expectations being the customary spiritual nourishment of the revolutionary.”

The anti-revolutionary aspect of sociology is not lost on tyrants: “Total respectability of thought, however, will invariably mean the death of sociology. This is one of the reasons why genuine sociology disappears promptly from the scene in totalitarian countries, as well illustrated in the instance of Nazi Germany. By implication, sociological understanding is always potentially dangerous in the hands of policemen and other guardians of public order, since it will always tend to relativize the claim to absolute rightness upon which such minds like to rest.”

The power of ideology to distort and bias reality and reason, and to help pave a path to power for the tyrant-kleptocrat is not in dispute among cognitive and social scientists. Perfect anti-biasing is not possible, because the human mind cannot operate that way. Nonetheless, partial debiasing has been associated with what has been interpreted to be more rational and pragmatic, less ideological mindsets.

Berger speaks to the possibility of a ‘non-ideological’ mindset for politics: “One cannot fully grasp the political world unless one understands it as a confidence game, or the stratification system unless one sees it as a costume party. . . . . Finally, there is a peculiar human value in the sociologist’s responsibility for evaluating his findings, as far as he is psychologically able, without regard to his own prejudices likes or dislikes, hopes or fears. . . . . To be motivated by human needs rather than by grandiose political programs, to commit oneself selectively and economically rather than to consecrate oneself to a totalitarian faith, to be skeptical and compassionate at the same time, to seek to understand without bias, all these are existential possibilities of the sociological enterprise that can hardly be overrated in many situations in the contemporary world. In this way, sociology can attain to the dignity of political relevance, not because it has a particular political ideology to offer, but just because it has not.”[1] (emphasis added)

In other words, Berger could see in 1963 through the lens of sociology, what a psychologist like Philip Tetlock described in 2015 about the mindset among people best able to deal with reality. Apparently, others can envision that an anti-bias mindset could be helpful for politics.

Culture Shock is Hard: If the aforementioned makes it sound like sociology is an unsettling and maybe dangerous point of view, it is. Berger was concerned about the ethics of even teaching it to college undergraduates: “What right does any man have to shake the taken-for-granted beliefs of others? Why educate young people to see the precariousness of things they had assumed to be absolutely solid? Why introduce them to the subtle erosion of critical thought?”

He answers his own questions in part by arguing that “the taken-for-granted are far too solidly entrenched in consciousness to be that easily shaken by, say, a couple of sophomore courses. ‘Culture shock’ is not induced that readily.” In other words, mindsets do not easily change. Teaching a couple of sociology courses to undergraduates will not faze them in their rock solid beliefs.

And therein lies a potential problem for the evidence-driven, anti-bias mindset advocated here. In essence, asking that people adopt an anti-bias mindset in an effort to partially rationalize politics could constitute a culture shock, at least for many or most political and/or religious ideologues. Maybe it is the case that few minds could ever accede to that mindset because it is so hard to override biology and social milieu. That leaves non-ideologues, moderates and pragmatists as minds most possibly open to at least hearing about a different way of seeing and thinking about politics.


Footnote:
1. Berger's observation of there being value in not having an ideology to bias or distort reality and reason and to defend helped me to arrive at my conception of pragmatic rationalism as an anti-biasing, anti-ideology ideology.


B&B orig: 10/24/18; DP 8/7/19, 3/29/20; 8/21/24

DORITOSGATE

“Every road trip needs a snack break. Doritos acquired. I got you, @KamalaHarris.”

CUE the OUTRAGE

CUE the OUTRAGE:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

“Cringe photo op. Btw no one can afford to do what you are doing”, wrote one person.

“Who the hell films sh*t like this? Look at me!! I’m so normal that I go into this store that has gas and sells things and buy minion food!! I’m relatable!!!!”, reacted one X user.

“Everything yall do is staged”, reacted another user.

“Everything you touched in that store is up at least 30% since she was illegally installed into the White House with Briben”, replied another user on X.

“Many American Citizens can't afford Doritos thanks to the Biden/Harris failed economic policies”, replied another netizen.

“Tim Walz should never give health advice to anyone”, commented another person on X.

PERSONAL OBSERVATION:

I hope rightwing fruitcakes keep up this line of attack, it makes THEM look like cringy, 

wouldn't ya say?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                                                        

                

“Cringe photo op. Btw no one can afford to do what you are doing”, wrote one person.

The mainstream media fails to deal with the flow of power and wealth in politics

Political science is the study of politics, and more precisely power. -- Political Science for Dummies, Marcus Stadelmann, 2020, Chapter 1, paragraph 1, first sentence

Wealth distribution Q4, 2022

Understanding that politics is overwhelmingly about distributing power and attendant wealth is useful. From what I can tell, the MSM (mainstream media) does a lousy job of reporting about the flow and distribution of power and wealth with various political, social and business policies. But that is just personal opinion. What about data on this point? Does any even exist? Perplexity comments:

Q: How well does the mainstream media cover the flow of wealth and power when covering political issues and policies?

A: The mainstream media's coverage of wealth and power dynamics in political issues and policies appears to be limited and often biased.

That accords with my understanding. So does this:

The mainstream media's coverage of wealth and power dynamics in political issues and policies appears to be limited and often biased. This reliance on officially-provided information has been described as the "biggest weakness" of the American press by prominent journalists. A study analyzing nearly 3,000 news stories in major newspapers found that nearly 80% of stories involved official sources. Critics argue this makes the media passive and susceptible to manipulation by political powers.

Studies have found significant imbalances in coverage of political candidates, with some receiving much more favorable treatment than others. State-owned media in particular tends to show strong bias in favor of incumbents and against opposition candidates. Critics argue the media is increasingly hostile to conservatives and Republicans compared to the past.

The most convincing evidence that DJT and his GOP are authoritarian (autocratic, plutocratic, theocratic and kleptocratic) arguably rests in the overall effects of their policies on the distribution of power and wealth. At least some of the public seems to be aware of a power concentration issue:

For all issues I am aware of, none strike me as promoting flow of power to most individual citizens or the public interest generally. Instead nearly all authoritarian radical right policies, e.g., Project 2025, DJT's secret policies, etc., withdraw power and wealth (directly or indirectly) from the people. Power and wealth get channeled into various special interests in commerce, religion or politics. Examples help clarify the situation, which can be sometimes counterintuitive:

• Forced birth laws take power from affected women and families to choose an abortion and transfers it to politicians who are religious and theocratic or opposed to abortion for non-religious reasons.

• Voter suppression and election subversion laws take power from voters and transfer it to radical right authoritarians who want to neuter voter power and democracy itself.

• This one may seem counterintuitive: Obliteration of many or most gun safety laws by the authoritarian radical right USSC has given power to gun and ammo makers and people who want all kinds of weapons, including military assault rifles. That took power from governments to try to reduce gun violence, and deprived society of some measure of safety, while imposing enormous human and economic cost (~$557 billion/year by one estimate) on the people and our economy. Neither gun makers nor owners bear any or much of the gigantic costs of gun violence.

• Project 2025 calls for major tax cuts without offsetting spending cuts, thereby increasing the federal debt. Wealth directly flows mostly to wealthy elites and corporations. Eventually, the federal debt will be too large to sustain. Most of the ensuing pain will be felt by average people. With wealth comes power, so again, power flows to narrow interests at the expense of the public interest. The people are deprived of their power to protect their own long-term interests.

Similar arguments can be made about (i) LGBQT, atheist and ethnic minority rights, (ii) consumer, worker and environmental protections, and (iii) and reasonable business and religious regulations. Project 2025, nearly all authoritarian GOP elites and DJT all vehemently oppose all of that.

Q: Does the MSM fail to adequately report about power and wealth flows in reporting of politics and political issues?

Thinking about the mainstream media and how it fails to deal with authoritarianism

A matter of high importance strikes me as not reported or understood nearly enough is how the MSM deals with two very different concepts, conservatism and authoritarianism. In my opinion, (i) the MSM conflates the two concepts most of the time, and (ii) that amounts to a major failure of professional journalism. The MSM constantly fails to refer to DJT, MAGA politicians (election deniers, etc.), the Republican Party, Christian nationalism as authoritarian. That failure has great negative consequences for the survival of what is left of our fading democracy. In essence, the MSM normalizes and strengthens the radical American authoritarian wealth and power movement by usually referring to it as conservative.

Before the Republican Party radicalized and turned dominantly authoritarian some years ago, real conservatives supported and believed in democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties, pluralistic secularism, and facts, truths and sound reasoning, even when inconvenient. By authoritarian I mean some combination of (i) kleptocratic autocracy with DJT as the dictator, (ii) kleptocratic Christian nationalist theocracy, and (iii) kleptocratic, barely regulated plutocratic capitalism. This exemplifies what I mean about the GOP's radicalization and de-democratization, i.e., RINO hunting pro-democracy, pro-civil liberties Republicans out of the GOP and/or power:

In multiple important ways, the new GOP

is not much like the old GOP,

arguably it is more like the old Democratic Party

than the old GOP

Prominent Republicans and organizations like the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society, the MSM still routinely refer to as "conservatives" or "conservative." Those people and groups are usually ones who openly oppose or reject democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties (abortion, voting rights, free and fair elections), pluralistic secularism, and inconvenient facts, truths and sound reasoning. There is no way that DJT or most major Republican state or federal politicians can reasonably be called conservative any more. They are authoritarian.

So why does the MSM persist in putting nice conservative lipstick on an obviously authoritarian pig? The only meaningful response to that criticism, which I have sent to dozens of journalists, editors and opinion columnists, is this: We have to stay neutral.

That's it. The one and only response I've ever received back. I got no response when I followed up with this: Since when and how is fact-based truth and/or sound reasoning not neutral? 

Qs: Is the MSM correct that it needs to stay neutral and calling what America's radical right is doing conservative, not authoritarian? In other words, is it factually incorrect to refer to America's radical right as authoritarian, regardless of how non-neutral the GOP and DJT would vehemently claim it is?