Coronavirus, Bias, Etc.

This year has changed my opinions on human nature, but it's hard to really explain how or why.

Mostly because I hadn't actually thought we were all that logical in the first place. I mean, I adore people. We're quirky, and weird, and have the potential for astounding acts of kindness and sinister acts of selfishness... but we're not actually all that good at logic. This is not to say we're terrible, we've got some great advantages in other ways. Pattern recognition, quick decision-making. All things that have allowed us to survive over the years. Logic is important, and worth striving towards, but mostly because we should try to be aware of when we're not being logical.

That's one of the first things Sudoku teaches you. When you're in there trying to figure out what number fits in the square, if you go with your instinct and put in a number that feels right - you're probably wrong. You absolutely have to have some basis for deciding what number fits in the square, if not you'll screw up the game and lose.

Pattern-recognition, giving personal anecdotes more weight than statistical analysis, confirmation bias and using emotions to decide which facts we believe (rather than science) - they're all pretty typical human behavior. Awareness of when we do this makes it easier to recognize and correct for it. And logic is ultimately better than the alternative. (There's a whole discussion I could have on belief systems, and the ways belief systems reinforce themselves when something seems to prove them wrong, and the role science can play as something different and also the same. That is, science has the potential to self-correct and focuses on evidence... but there are also scientists who use it more as a belief system, with all it's flaws, so that commonly accepted science is sometimes wrong. More research and experiments and scientific studies can eventually correct for that, though. Not in the way that evangelical Christians explain away something they assume God isn't behind - like a political loss - as 'the work of the devil', either.)

So anyways. We're not all that logical, and I've known that for a while, so I'm not exactly shocked by the multiple examples of this that 2020 has given us.

And yet...

And yet I had expected better. I don't know, I suppose I'd thought death and dying would be a huge wake up call. That all those biases and anecdotes and whatnot might affect people's thinking for politics in a normal year, but 250,000+ dead would matter.

Stalin said that "the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." I have never liked the cynicism, lack of empathy, and sheer evil behind a statement like that.

And yet, as goal posts have moved and the death toll continues to rise, I think there is more truth to that then I want to admit.

I have seen what I had previously thought were somewhat credible news sources publish the worst and stupidest assessments of coronavirus. I mean, I'm not an epidemiologist myself, so take it for what it's worth... but even though illnesses do appear to rise, and spike, and taper off that's generally either because it spread so far and wide that it's hard to find new people to infect, or because of actions taken to stop the spread. So when one of the earliest and most widely publicized predictions for coronavirus decided to use the Chinese experience to model the data, well. Our experience would only mimic the Chinese one if we had taken the same sorts of actions. 

If we weren't quarantining, and testing, and doing what China did to control the virus then why the hell would you think our coronavirus infection rate and death rate would follow the same trajectory?!?

And okay, again. I'm not an epidemiologist and the articles don't go much into the nitty gritty. Maybe the models took that into account? (Though given how wildly wrong the predictions I linked to were, it seems like they either didn't - or assumed the US would lockdown to a degree that hasn't happened.)

As with so much in life, these wildly inaccurate predictions have already been forgotten. And yet they served their purpose. That is, they were published during the height of uncertainty, and gave people looking for a reason not to freak out something to cling to. Gave decision-makers cover for saying 'it won't be that bad, don't worry'...

And here we are, over 250K dead. And it's just a statistic.

I know part of why that is. Part of it is our human tendency to rely more on anecdotes and personal experience. I mean, nobody in my immediate family has been diagnosed with covid yet. Nobody I'm close to. I think I had one facebook friend, a rather loose acquaintance, who tested positive and told everyone.

If all I went by was my own personal experience, I would probably think coronavirus was overblown.

However.

However, statistics matter. However, for as lucky as I have been (so far), there are others who have seen coronavirus sweep through their entire family. 

However, it shouldn't have to affect me personally for me to care, or take it seriously. With the way exponential growth works, by the time its hitting me and mine it'll be far too late. 

However, we all should be able to learn from other people's experiences, so that it doesn't take the loss of someone we care about to make us change our minds.

I don't know how much of our current situation is because of the absolute disaster of our national leadership and how much truly is human nature. I can't help but think it's worse, though. There probably would always be people who think it's overblown, and refuse to wear masks, and all that... I've seen some articles about the Spanish flu that show as much. I just don't think it would have been as widespread if we didn't have the President of the United States refusing to wear a mask and giving out massive amounts of disinformation. 

Which brings us to today, in a sense. Because the issue has become so polarized that there's pretty much no ability to talk to each other. We live in vastly different worlds, with vastly different ideas of what's going on, and it's hard to see how and when we'll ever have a shared reality again.

That's the strange part, to be honest. I had thought that people dying would be an indisputable reality. I had always thought the notion of 'truthiness' and a post-truth world was pretty much bullshit. It works for philosophical things ungrounded in reality, but again - dead bodies are pretty much indisputable. Dead is dead, you can't pretend that they didn't die (though you can apparently say that it was pneumonia, or the regular flu, or a stroke, and pretend that it wasn't actually covid that killed them. And most people aren't comparing the current overall mortality rates to previous years to realize that there's a ton of unaccounted for deaths. And if you do make that point, they then argue that those unaccounted for deaths come from the lockdown.... even though I think we would have noticed thousands more people dying of suicide or whatever it is they think the lockdowns are doing to get people killed.)

Florida, by the way, is one of the worst for fudging their data and pretending everything is fine. I've been monitoring the state because I'm wondering how long that will truly last. Surely people are noticing that a lot of people are dying? Even more than can be accounted for by the number of covid deaths? 

Then again, on an individual basis maybe there's no reason to. They don't know anyone who actually died, or accept that it was for non-covid causes, or something. (Whenever I check for Florida covid on twitter, there's almost always some sort of misinformation push. Most recently it was some Federalist article saying Florida is doing better than Illinois and wondering why mainstream media drags Florida so much... and it's no use telling them how badly Florida is lying with their statistics.)

It's the degree of willful blindness that bothers me, I think. I've long accepted that partisan bias and confirmation bias means that there's always someone extreme on the edges. But I've seen even people I thought were reasonably good at critical thinking buy into some of the worst arguments.

And, like... I sympathize. I really do. I hate sounding all doom and gloom (and considering we've gotten this far, I have considered revising my estimates. Then again, we seem to be facing the worst parts of the epidemic now. As expected, more and more hospitals are nearing capacity... and people have gotten exhausted of social distancing, the holiday season is coming up, the weather is turning colder. The crazy thing is that a vaccine is right around the corner, and if we'd had halfway decent leadership a lot more people would have survived long enough to see that... which is also maddening if you think about it. But there's almost no point dwelling on it right now. If things get bad enough that might change, but for now... well. Not a lot to do about it.)

Anyways. I remember how strange it felt in March, when I'd  investigated enough for my own satisfaction and expected a long period of lockdown to come. My Little had a school dance, and I had a sinking feeling I knew how awful the next few months would be and privately decided to hell with it all. I was going to help her and her friends make some good memories, something that hopefully would give them a bright spot to look back upon in the months to come. So one of her friends couldn't afford to get a manicure? I'll pay for it, why not? And they want to eat out for lunch? Sure... no problem. Kid needs a ride home after the dance? I gotcha. (I do think it worked, though I'm pretty sure none of the girls realized how much thought went into it. They were shrieking and giggling and goofing off and being teenaged girls just like they should be.)

It's sort of the same feeling now, tbh. I expected we'd reach a tipping point earlier. I mean, I knew we'd be in lockdown for months... but I hadn't really expected it would be eight months and counting. I hadn't expected it to take so long to get to the more remote parts of the US, either.

The vaccine is right around the corner, and maybe it won't ever get as bad as I fear. 

On the other hand - as I've said. More and more people are talking about hospitals that are maxed out. Staff members that are exhausted and unable to keep up. People who need treatment and no beds are free - not just for their hospital, but anything in a two hour radius. 

And we just had Thanksgiving, where there's still a large portion of the population that doesn't take coronavirus seriously. That's on top of election day, and people celebrating Biden's win (mostly masked, thankfully) and MAGA folks protesting...

All signs point to a terrible, horrible, and dark winter. 

And nobody wants to hear it.

Dipping My Toes in the Kavanaugh Mess, Rambling Thoughts

The world appears to have gone crazy, and I've been trying not to get sucked into it. This whole Kavanaugh nomination is getting out of control, and I'm not really happy with much of what I see.

But I didn't feel I had anything new to add, so I mostly left it at that.  I know my biases, you see. And I can see how this confirmation hearing is adding fuel to both sides, right now.

On the one hand, you have those who have seen privileged white men get away with crap, over and over and over again, and are sick of it. Who see Kavanaugh as yet another...and even worse, one that is rallying support from all the other privileged white boys (members of a Good Ol' Boys Club) who see nothing wrong with what happened and are whining and complaining because they can't get away with their crap any more.

On the other hand, you've got people who believe Kavanaugh is innocent, see this all as a political smear campaign, something that has tarnished him in the court of public opinion, and resent the  notion that someone can make up a whole bunch of lies and destroy a good, solid man's life. Even worse, they are worried that if it succeeds this time it will open the door to even more accusations.

Before going too much further, I want to address that last sentence. See, I saw similar arguments on the left, regarding the many, many, MANY scandals/rumors etc about Hillary Clinton. Her supporters dismissed Republican accusations, and seemed to think she was a viable candidate (despite the baggage) in part because they believed anybody in her position would face the same sort of crap. That is, partisans are partisans, if they're out to get you they'll come up with something, and why would some unknown candidate (without baggage) be a better choice than someone they know and trust? (Which sort of makes sense, except that I believe Obama spent eight years in office without anywhere near the amount of scandals Bill Clinton had, so I don't think it's truly a case that 'any' candidate would face the same amount of crap. I have to admit I didn't want Hillary in office partly because I didn't want four to eight more years of that sort of political infighting. Not that I wanted Trump in office either, but that's a separate issue. Hillary's opponents really hated her, and would go after her to a degree that they wouldn't for someone else, and we'd have spent four to eight years of stupid political circuses distracting us from dealing with real issues - and instead we have a whole bunch of other political circuses going on, which is just plain depressing. Oh, and I am aware that Obama had his own share of problems (*cough* birth certificate conspiracy *cough* *cough*)...but most of his were, well...frankly so ridiculous that if you weren't already biased you wouldn't be buying into it. It was sort of like some of the picture/memes I saw about Michelle Obama.  She always struck me as a rather classy first lady, so some of the ones complaining about her seemed more a reflection of the sharer's prejudices and biases than anything about Mrs. Obama.)

Anyways.  Someone pointed out that Neil Gorsuch didn't face near the problems Kavanaugh has, and that makes me think this is an issue more particular to Kavanaugh than something that would face any nominee Trump puts forward. (And I'm not even getting into the whole political 'strategizing' on whether people are trying to delay nominations until after the mid-term elections, just as the Republicans delayed nominations until after the Presidential elections. The funny thing about political strategies is that whatever you use becomes fair game for your opponent to use, and if you're going to be playing those sorts of games you'd best be prepared to get it right back at you. Sort of like changing filibuster rules, and various other things one side or the other has proposed doing when it suits their purposes.)

So, let's ignore at least a little bit of the political fearmongering. Fearmongering that seems justified if you support Kavanaugh, and looks like yet another example of white male privilege being unable to handle life without their special status to those who don't.

I like the idea of an FBI investigation because it seems like the best way of getting a semi-unpolitical, unbiased look at the evidence. That is, our justice system (flawed as it is) gives us a systemic process for deciding who is guilty and who isn't. One that is better than mob justice, or 'they seem guilty to me' mindsets. So hey, at least that gives us an out that doesn't devolve into who you find more believable.

That's all just background thoughts/feelings...and I can throw a few more in there before getting to what truly triggered this post. I have my own biases and prejudices, you see. A friend on facebook was talking about some of the investigations she's dealt with regarding sexual harassment, and how many were not considered validated, and she took it as evidence that a lot of women make this stuff up and she supports Kavanaugh. I, on the other hand, remember my experiences with a friend of mine in Afghanistan. I remember her practically in tears, feeling stuck in a situation she didn't like, almost word for word everything they taught us about in prevention of sexual harassment training, and I encouraged her to use our processes to make a claim against our commander. I know the investigation said the allegations were unsubstantiated. That's all fine and dandy, the process went the way it did...

But I know how I read his body language, his interactions, and I sure as hell did not want to continue working for the guy. I know how strange his behavior towards my teammate was, and it was most definitely not what I'd have considered 'okay'. Those things, though, are friggin hard to explain to others. After all, who can say whether grabbing someone's wrist - an invasion of their personal space that, when you think about it, is actually pretty unusual. How often do you reach out and touch someone, if they're not family or a close friend, after all? And that's the first time, in real life, I've ever seen someone give what I'd honestly call a 'murderous look'.)

I don't really want to drag this into ancient history, suffice to say that there's a difference between being able to prove something in court and being convinced something happened. And I can acknowledge that there was no reason to fire him or otherwise penalize him, while still insisting that I did not want to work for him (and seriously, I'm in Afghanistan. Aren't I putting up with enough without adding a creepy, possible sexual harasser on top of that? Especially since the only reason I think he didn't try something with me is because I somehow come across as 'intimidating'...weird though it is to think so. Hooray for being an intimidating woman, I guess. Seems to have saved me from at least some of the grief women put up with on a regular basis.)

Anyways. I'm biased towards believing the accuser, and not really liking Kavanaugh, and he really does come off as a privileged white male who doesn't even see his privilege (like how he got into Yale by 'busting his tail' when his grandfather went there. Typical problems with male privilege - you can work your butt off, and earn something, but that doesn't mean you weren't still benefiting from privilege. Saying someone was privileged isn't saying that they didn't have to work for it, it's saying that they had advantages that allowed them access (especially when they work for it) even though someone else, someone who may be just as talented, just as smart, and just as much of a hard worker, doesn't.)

But I do like to read various opinions, and see if someone can persuade me to another side, and that's why I had to stop and think after reading this article.  I do believe in the importance of assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty. I don't really like the online mob mentality, and how someone can face an unbelievable amount of pressure just because the public thinks they know what justice is in a certain situation. So even though things like the Stanford rapist bother me, and I really didn't like the sentence, I am also quite uncomfortable with the widespread hatred the sentence invoked. It's so decentralized and defused that only the target has any idea how much vitriol they have to deal with, and who can weigh how much of it is enough to be considered justice, anyway? Courts have a process, they look for evidence, and they come up with a sentence that is supposed to be appropriate to the crime. There's a ton of issues with our system, but it's a system. And when someone sentenced by that system has finished their time (or paid their fines, or whatever the sentencing says) then that's supposed to be enough. They did their time, it's done and over with unless/until they show that they didn't learn anything and commit another crime. (That's also part of why our attitudes towards ex-felons are so problematic. The Catholic sacrament of reconciliation is supposed to give you a path back, to reconcile with God after doing wrong. You honestly repent, do whatever penance is required, and God (and the public) forgives you. While the justice system is a civil institution, and not really the same, there's still supposed to be some way of showing you've finished your penance so you can move on. Prevent recidivism and all that.)

And there's another digression for you. So anyways, this article brought up some rather good points, I thought. Except I immediately found some counterpoints.

First - Kavanaugh is not on trial, and he's not going to go to jail. Unless someone is bringing charges to court, that is. So this is not exactly a legal battle... and although judiciary principles are important (that's how we're supposed to get past the political biases to find justice, see my previous comment about supporting an FBI investigation) the decision is really about whether or not he should be a Supreme Court justice.

So I think you can say 'no' to that without making any sort of presumption towards his guilt or innocence. It's a bit like how I can say "I don't know if that previous supervisor of mine was guilty or not, I am not asking that anyone say he's guilty or send him to jail. But I will not work for the man."

Innocent or guilty, can't we all agree that there are other potential candidates? Are we really so strapped for judicial nominees that he's the only one available? (If so, that's rather pathetic.)

Is not allowing him to be a Supreme Court justice truly 'punishment'? There are other potential candidates who've failed to get nominated, and everyone acknowledged it was just politics and not necessarily a 'punishment'.

The 'punishment' element seems more to do with that aforementioned internet mob mentality. I'm sure he and his family have already had some uncomfortable encounters with people who believe the worst of him, and it's probably going to get worse before it gets better. Especially so long as he's in the political limelight like this.

There is a part of me that does feel like...well...like it's a bit of self-centered whining when you compare the damage of dealing with the hatred of a few people, vs. the massive damage a woman undergoes when she's suffered a sexual assault. (Toughen up, privileged white boy! Grow a thicker skin. If you didn't really do what you were accused of then the ones who matter will know. And as for the rest of it, sticks and stones. Sticks and stones.) But we are social creatures, and the hatred of 'a few' people when you're talking about the internet and society at large can actually be quite...painful. It's not something I actually want to shrug off and say is acceptable.

Well, that and I guess it is a 'punishment' not to get a pretty awesome position. But whatever.

I have no idea what really happened. I'm inclined towards believing his accuser, and his overall behavior has struck me as all supporting the notion that he's a privileged prat who shouldn't be a Supreme Court Justice...but I'm biased, and I admit that.

I'm disturbed by how everyone is taking it, and hope that an FBI investigation gives us a way out of this mess that (if not necessarily pleasing to anybody) will at least seem somewhat fair and impartial.

Why I Don't Trust Elites

At work we sometimes discuss the PDCA process.  That is: Plan, Do, Check, Act.  You have to have a plan, but that plan will probably change as you go along.  You can't get too married to your plan, or you'll insist on executing it even when it won't achieve your goals.  You also can't just throw your hands up, and decide not to make a plan at all.

I think this process has gotten broken down somewhere along the way.  It's actually kind of crazy, when you think about it.  Certain things (like education) have widespread support.  How we achieve a quality education is very much open for debate, and you can discuss common core or school vouchers until the cows come home.  And yet we all agree our children should have a quality education.

So why, after decades of alleged interest in achieving this, do we seem unable to make it happen?  Why does it feel like education has gotten even worse?!?  If Americans are actually agreed that every American child deserves a quality education, then shouldn't we know by now what's working and what isn't?  A quick search shows that there are people out there trying to make exactly this sort of analysis.

I think many are so caught up in proving a particular ideology that they stop checking in with reality.  I'm trying to decide between going into that in more detail vs. moving on to strategy, and I figured I'd just link to some thought-provoking articles.  Not saying I agree with these 100%, but they can make us more aware of our own biases.

- First is an article discussing some American strategic mistakes
- Second is an article discussing how people react when they read something that goes against their beliefs
- Third goes a little further into the backfire effect
- Fourth is a substitute article, as I can't find the original I wanted here.  It's discussing what 'business friendly' public policies are.  The one I recall had a whole list of things we could do that were not tied to the corporate tax rate, but this one at least discusses the importance of good infrastructure to supporting businesses. 

So anyways.  In this partisan day and age, where battle lines are drawn and people tune out anything that doesn't agree with their pre-conceived notions, I find most politicians and mainstream media are playing to those ideologies and framing issues to fit in with those ideologies rather than truly focusing on solutions. 

In closing, I want to say "if it's a crazy idea, but it works...then it isn't crazy."

Democracy, Biases, Self-Interest

I think the Founding Fathers had a pretty good read on human nature, so they set a system up that tried to take our own foibles into account.

I am not so sure it works, in the long run.  It's amazing how we can laud democracy in the abstract sense, talk about how wise the public is in choosing who they do...

and in the more specific sense, there are a lot of people who don't seem to know what they are talking about, or are poorly informed, and it seems amazing that we get anywhere at all.

But I didn't start writing this post to go into all of the curious blend of optimism and pessimism I have when watching our political process in action.

I brought it up because I wanted to talk more about self-interest, and biases, and what makes our system work.

We have this whole separation of powers thing, all these different competing groups, because the whole idea was that the competition between these groups would prevent any one faction or branch from dominating.  Worried about the power of the presidency?  Let's appoint a Supreme Court justice for life.  And insist that Congress approve.  Worried about a legislature that's out of control? Give the president veto power.  Worried that public opinion will be easily swayed by emotions and poorly thought out yet popular programs?  Add in an electoral college, and a Senate that (originally at least) was appointed by state governments rather than popular vote.  Worried that your less populated states will dominate politics unfairly?  Make half your legislature based off population.

Worried that the effect of that will crowd out less populated states?  Give each state two senators in the other chamber of legislature.

This whole intricate system is supposed to keep government working, not because it's necessarily perfect (it can be messy, and slow), but because the self-interests of each different group should help balance out the growth in power in another group.

Students of American history apply this concept to all sorts of things.  They may decry the rise of presidential power, because they think we are losing that balance.  Or discuss the freedom of the press as yet another balancing force.  One not created in the Constitution, but one that plays its role.

We have a system where individuals can have a say, which is pretty amazing.  Yet more and more people feel like it's broken.  (Though many feel it's broken in different ways...so it's not like there's unity on which way we should be going)

How can a democracy work when people don't participate, and don't vote?  When political parties get a stranglehold on the system, making it harder for third parties to rise?  When parties seem to be more and more polarized, and cater to the extremes of each side?

I'm not even talking about the role of money here, though any internet search will find plenty of articles on it.

And how do we come to a consensus on good policy, when self-interest dictates certain policies even at the expense of the whole?

That's a problem that's been with us throughout all of human history...

It's too easy to get cynical and depressed, to think everyone is always out for themselves and that it's unrealistic to expect anyone to think of the greater good.  Especially when we can be so subtly biased. 

Take any class on human cognition, or logic, and you'll discover how horribly illogical we all are.  How easy it is to get biased, to jump to conclusions.  To only listen to those who agree with and confirm our existing beliefs, and to shut out and deny the ones who challenge what we think.

And yet somehow, history shows that this isn't always what happens.  That sometimes people do listen to evidence, and change their minds for clear and logical reasons.  That sometimes leaders do act for the greater good.

How did we ever come to value logic, and the role of the devil's advocate, and all these other things if human nature is so determined to be self-centered, illogical, and biased?