Motivated reasoning

Motivated reasoning is the phenomenon in cognitive science and social psychology in which emotional biases lead to justifications or decisions based on their desirability rather than an accurate reflection of the evidence. It is the “tendency to find arguments in favor of conclusions we want to believe to be stronger than arguments for conclusions we do not want to believe”. People can therefore draw self-serving conclusions not just because they want to but because the conclusions seemed more plausible given their beliefs and expectancies.

Motivated reasoning is similar to confirmation bias, where evidence that confirms a belief (which might be a logical belief, rather than an emotional one) is either sought after more or given more credibility than evidence that disconfirms a belief. It stands in contrast to critical thinking where beliefs are approached in a skeptical and unbiased fashion.
— Justapedia

Somehow I hadn’t really paid attention to the term “motivated reasoning”, but seeing it in Nate Silver’s “For most people, politics is about fitting in“, I can understand why it is such a good description:

The protestor was claiming that Palestine — where same-sex sexual activity is illegal and has sometimes been subject to execution — was literally less homophobic than the place where the rally was held. The punchline is that the rally took place in Northampton, Massachusetts, which is sometimes considered the lesbian capital of the world. You have to be engaged in an extraordinary degree of motivated reasoning to think that Northampton is literally more homophobic than Gaza. The sort of motivated reasoning that comes when there are social rewards both for being pro-Palestine and for being pro-LGBTQ+, enough that nobody in your bubble is really pressing you on the details.
— Nate Silver, “For most people, politics is about fitting in“

And there really can’t be much better example than “Queers for Palestine”. Except perhaps “Turkeys for Thanksgiving”?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The longest Over The Air update ever

I think it is worth mentioning that NASA, last month, managed to perform the longest OTA update, ever. After having received what was first considered gibberish from Voyager 1 for about 5 months, they had found the problem and sent an update to the probe.

Voyager 1 was launched in 1977 to study the Outer Solar System (and beyond). It is currently traveling through the heliosheath, more than 24 billion kilometers from the Earth. Or, about 22½ light hours from us.

On April 18, the software update was sent to Voyager 1 and, as it takes 22½ hours each way for the radio signals to travel, on April 20 the NASA team got the confirmation back that it was working.

There is still a couple of updates that need to be sent to Voyager 1 and they will then be the longest OTA updates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Iron Law of Institutions

It’s probably a good idea these days to remember Jon Schwartz’ Iron Law of Institutions:

[T]he people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution “fail” while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to “succeed” if that requires them to lose power within the institution.

This is true for all human institutions, from elementary schools up to the United States of America. If history shows anything, it’s that this cannot be changed. What can be done, sometimes, is to force the people running institutions to align their own interests with those of the institution itself and its members.
— Jon Schwartz

While Schwartz included corporations in the text above, I want to make it absolutely clear that they are: It is true for all human institutions. We could then add concrete examples of Stonewall, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Disney, and even the United Nations, to the list.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A great spectator sport

Not being Scottish I can safely sit back and enjoy the incredibly fun spectator sport of watching Scottish politics.

Most isn’t reported outside of Scotland, so go to Wings over Scotland if you want to follow along. And if you are actually in politics, you might draw a lesson from Scotland having lost two First Ministers in a row to the misogynistic altar of gender politics.

(previously)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is English a finer language?

This clip of Jorge Luis Borges is doing the rounds again and I think he has a point. Being Argentinian, he was obviously fluent in Spanish and here he expresses why he feels that English is a finer language:

(Youtube)

[…] English is both a Germanic and a Latin language. Those two registers – for any idea you take, you have two words. Those words will not mean exactly the same. For example if I say “regal” that is not exactly the same thing as saying “kingly.” Or if I say “fraternal” that is not the same as saying “brotherly.” Or “dark” and “obscure.” Those words are different. It would make all the difference – speaking for example – the Holy Spirit, it would make all the difference in the world in a poem if I wrote about the Holy Spirit or I wrote the Holy Ghost, since “ghost” is a fine, dark Saxon word, but “spirit” is a light Latin word.

While Danish gets a great many words from other languages I think it, too, lacks the finer resolution that Borges admires here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That’s not a conspiracy

Just because you are ignorant of most of history doesn’t mean there is a conspiracy to keep you in the dark.
— Peter Henlein

Henlein writes this in the context of one of the conspiracies du jour but it’s probably good advice generally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who doesn’t like irony?

Like, this article in The Atlantic:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cater to your audience

There’s a comic that is being shared again these days, so I’ll link to it here:

In the words of the artist:

Cater to your audience, not your detractors.
— Phillip M. Jackson

This is not the same as audience capture where a self-reinforcing feedback loop rewards you for telling your audience what they want to hear. It is focusing on the audience that is actually invested in your product, rather than in exercising their power over you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think this is one of those “better known for other work” situations

Like Ted Kaczynski, O.J. Simpson is probably best known for other … work.

(Youtube: 1 and 2)

Also, possibly an interesting link related to this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Random number generator

Before asking, I was aware that ChatGPT would most likely choose 42, even though I phrased it slightly differently:

This is of course a reference to Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’s “Deep Thought” computer.