Understanding Confirmation Bias in the Face of Irrefutable Facts

The last 18 months assaulted the American people with the concept of “alternative facts,” “fake news,” and “lies, lies and damn lies.” Stephen Fry attempts to explain just why it is that many have tied so much of their own identity in the erratic behavior of a questionable leader.

Media Literacy: Lessons in Bias

We get so many messages asking us if Left-Center and Right-Center are trustworthy sources. The answer is YES! Sorry to yell, but we have tried and perhaps failed to indicate that bias is separate from factual reporting. A left or right biased source may link to solid facts, but they will use words to influence you […]

via Media Bias Fact Check- The Purple Zone — Media Bias/Fact Checking

What the US President Reveals About Himself & Where He is Leading Us

When Donald Trump sat down for an interview with The Economist, it was like any of his many very, very revealing talks that say nothing, but reveal so, so much. It is such a very tremendous problem that he must take care of, but he is a negotiator like no other negotiator, who wins better…wait a minute. Maybe it’s not Russia or Putin that should worry us, but the dumbing down of the way in which we communicate. Words no longer matter, only what can be projected on the speaker’s meaning. Even with overt statements that would reach the level of impeachment hearings, he holds a consistent bottom 1/3 of the nation in support of his words & actions. He has even barred the American Press from a meeting with Russian diplomats, but gave exclusive access to the Russian TASS News Agency, something that should concern those Baltic NATO nations already dealing with state-sponsored hacking. Repeatedly, those that ask the tough–even the simple–questions are forced to ask them, well, repeatedly.

Peeling back the layers on the onion of Trump’s truth, we see a veneer of answers toward which he wishes the question to morph. There is a conflict between searching for the right words to provide a satisfactory answer and re-issuing the same words to exhaust the interviewer and the audience. There’s a theory afoot that describes this as a Trump tactic that acts as a foil to his real plans and activities occurring behind the scenes as he makes amazing progress. This is a theory easily graded not by watching President Trump in the media, but by examining the printed word, as in this transcript. There is no  parsing his comments, or spinning them into gold.

His words simply mean what they mean, nothing more or less. What they reveal is a man hitting far above his weight trying desperately to manage the place in which he finds himself. Fortunately, there is a provision that allows him a dignified means of returning to a space in which he feels more comfortable.

NEXT! What does this EO say?

President Trump signed yet another Executive Order today showing that he really might be unaware of the 3 branches of government. What does it say exactly? You can certainly read the link from the White House, or read on for a quick summation.

So what does this next one while we were looking the other way say?

Simple. It examines every agency in the Executive Branch of government to eliminate redundancy, which it equates to inefficiency. This seems like a good reason. The Beijing & Sochi Olympics are good examples. Beijing could not have cleaned its air so quickly if they couldn’t just order the energy plants closed and moved to villages in the countryside or other villages flooded when 3-Rivers Dam was completed. Redundant agencies act as a check to balance that kind of swift power. How could Putin have imprisoned homosexuals and protestors like Pussy Riot if he had to deal with redundancies in his administration? And by all accounts, these Olympics were at least in the same league as the famed Berlin Olympics of 1936.

 

This last little bit is analogous to a disclaimer (for you pharma folks), a safety harbor (for you financial folks), or a fictitious declaration (for you film folks). It says nothing but slows down lawsuits while the lawyers try to make sense of it:

 

“(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.”

There’s nothing to see here. Just another leader consolidating power into his own hands while no one is looking. Guess there’s no one to see here, either.

Media Literacy: Understanding Bias (Part 2)

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources. Factual Reporting: […]

via Daily Source Bias Check: Philippine Daily Inquirer — Media Bias/Fact Checking

Understanding Context in the Healthcare Bill: It’s Not What It Seems

by Charles Ornstein ProPublica, March 10, 2017, 5 a.m. Dismayed by the results of the 2016 election, Meg Godfrey decided she needed to do more than vote, share social media posts and sign online petitions. So she went to the website of Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and typed a note in support of the Affordable […]

via Fact-Checking Elected Officials on the Affordable Care Act Repeal — Media Bias/Fact Checking

Media Literacy Share

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources. Factual Reporting: HIGH Notes: In […]

via Daily Source Bias Check: Learn Liberty — Media Bias/Fact Checking

The Secret Behind “NAG Psych”

NAG Cohort 2006

In 2006, I pivoted in my career and entered the field of Media Psychology joining a cohort of 13, as we began a collegial relationship that continues today. The chemistry of our group was such that it demanded a brand, and that was given to us by a giant in the field, Dr. Bernie Luskin, when he said we seemed eager with our noses against the window as warriors for the field. The comment evolved ever-so-slightly and became “noses against the glass.” Thus, the NAG cohort was born.

Before the concept of Neo-Anthropogenic Psychology was fully formed, an internal conflict began bubbling to the surface on what would be a proper name that generally captures the concept, but doesn’t leave you breathless. I’m what you might call a shower thinker, as that is where the ideas flow for me. As a result, I would find myself writing on the fogged up glass of my shower random thoughts like puzzle pieces. Problem was it became difficult to transcribe! This is where a fellow NAG member, Dr. David Peck, comes to the rescue. It was no more than three days after I shared my quandary with him that I received shower crayons in the mail. Problem solved.

Now color coded writing covered every tile and any space that reflected the storm of thoughts in my head. Once a full view of the field was conceived, names began wrestling themselves out of my brain through the shower crayons much to the dismay of my wife. All sorts of ideas came out and many looked like winners. The die was cast, though, not in my shower, but at a speaking engagement for the American Psychological Association in Washington, DC in August of 2014. When I shared the concept with fellow speakers and friends and the potential names, they chuckled and threw in a bit of good-natured teasing with eye-rolls, as it became an obsessive topic for me. That challenge was all I needed to pluck the name Neo-Anthropogenic Psychology from my list and roll with it when I introduced the concept within my presentation on ethical concerns of life extension through the digital transfer of consciousness. Stepping up the challenge, I asked everyone in the audience to tweet the phrase with a hashtag. Happily, I watched thumbs dancing on smartphones while I continuing the presentation.

Once done, I checked my Twitter account and discovered a surprising number of tweets. Nearly every one of them had a different iteration of the phrase all the way to “#Neo-something-or-other.” They were right. It was a mouthful. The problem, though, was it really captures the concept and I couldn’t let it go. A more precise phrase would be “Neo-Anthropogenic Evolutionary Dynamic Psychology,” as it boils down to the impact on the psyche of new human-generated technologies that gain greater control over our own evolution. I made it simpler! And just like I’m nagging the gentle reader now, I nagged my peers, the very same peers that were part of the NAG cohort.

So, with the tiny adjustment of capitalizing the “G” in Neo-AnthropoGenic Psychology, “NAG Psych” made its way into the vernacular of this nascent field. And now you know something to stick in your pocket for a future game of Trivia Crack under the category of science.

Neo-Anthropo-Something-or-Other

Previously, the concept of Neo-AnthropoGenic Psychology, or NAG Psych, was considered as the natural outgrowth of a childhood filled with science fiction dreams and real science wonders. But where is the science? What is the science that can fuel this new engine for relevant study? Here’s barely a starting point, though a strong one. Over the years, I have given much attention to futurists like Ray Kurzweil and have been fascinated by the idea of exponential change that is largely proving true, as Moore’s Law continues to meet and exceed its namesake’s own predictions. Kurzweil’s record on predictions is exceptional, second only to his very optimistic and insightful promotion of a coming Singularity. He is not alone in painting this picture: Aubrey de Grey’s approach to death as a disease that needs an effective treatment, if not a cure; Peter Diamandis’ crowd sourcing incentives to press inventions and his positive outlook on a future with great abundance; Stuart Hameroff’s Quantum Consciousness Theory and its activist Amit Gotswami; Hiroshi Ishiguro’s work in robotics; George Church’s genomics and synthetic life creation, and so many more make up the parade of technology believers. This group, however, does not fulfill the criteria for a complete study in Neo-AnthropoGenic Psychology.

To the recipe there must be added the brilliant skeptics like Miguel Nicolelis, MIT neuroscientist and pioneer of brain-activated devices, who says a brain cannot as simple as an algorithm, which is at the the core of the Singularity; Joseph Weizenbaum, Rogerian psychotherapist and inventor of ELIZA, an early chatbot that behaved as a Rogerian psychotherapist would and fooled many, which made Weizenbaum a lifelong opponent to the development of AI, and still more. It should be noted that Nicolelis does believe that machines will be integrated into humans over time to augment their abilities, and Weizenbaum’s invention launched research leading to virtual therapists today that studies show people interacting with the VR therapist share deeper issues more readily. These are in keeping with NAG Psych’s mapping of two sometimes intersecting paths of human-generated evolution: machine-based (or AI) and bio-based.

As all the concepts began arranging themselves visually, it became clear in the works of the current technologists and futurists where optimism reigned that an objective study into the psychological impact of not only present-day media, but also predicted changes was lacking. The few psychological discussions dealt mainly with ethics–and that, too, remains a very essential element–but no one was testing theory under these new conditions with a specific goal to understand the effects of the current and coming advances, not as a means of measuring whether we should pursue these high technology goals of strong AI or longevity with the potential for immortality. Neo-AnthropoGenic Psychology seeks to understand how classical offline theory like Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Erikson’s stages of development, and many more apply to an online world.

My fundamental argument assumes these movements are inevitable. Our choice in the scientific and social communities is whether it will only be the fringes that follow these paths, or mainstream science will play the major role and as such have greater say in the ethical direction it takes. The human psyche is trapped within its physical constraints of evolution for the time being. We are learning the brain is far more plastic than once believed, but where do the limits lie? Will we be able to adapt to the world and lives we are developing in petrie dishes and assembly lines? How will we respond to strong AI (AGI) years hence when the supposed Singularity arrives? Will being “upgraded” become a necessity to stay competitive? If there is a growing income inequality gap now, how will that figure into a world where money can buy an improved brain? Finally, as noted in the TED e-book Homo Evolutis, are we witnessing speciation within the hominid family as Homo sapiens begins a new branch?

All these questions fit neatly under the umbrella of Neo-AnthropoGenic Psychology. Do you have any to add?

Conceiving Neo-AnthropoGenic Psychology

Ever wonder what it would be like if the science fiction of your childhood were real? Well, that’s the way it is for me and other members of my generation caught between the tidal waves of Boomers and Millennials. We didn’t have a war to rally behind or protest. Our war was Cold, and it was leftovers at that. We’ve generated few world leaders as yet who have risen to the heights of historical. Instead, we’re made up of a lot of impossible dreamers, weaned on Pong, PacMan and Space Invaders, and determined to get to Mars. Our future was laid out for us on the big screen in movies like Star Wars, RoboCop, 2010, and Blade Runner. And we took it seriously.

We were the dreamers turned explorers as we set out on ancient digital ships like the Commodore 64 and the Apple IIC, boards that would shake the confidence of any surfer today. We had no fear, and that served us well in navigating toward lands better left alone, trailing thread behind us, as we sewed together the Web envisioned by our forebear engineers. As more people came aboard, something wonderful happened. Instead of shrinking what was available, it only increased the possibilities. The framework may have been laid by others, but we built the Internet and an even larger “we” continues to define it today: A global intelligence. From this new speed-of-light collaborative intelligence have come new technologies across all fields that reach beyond the personal contribution. The possibilities in medicine, longevity, computer and space sciences, to name a few, have become whatever we can imagine collectively. We have taken control of our own evolution. And there are billions more waiting to join.

New technologies can increase physical and mental abilities. They can ease the rigors of life, and not only extend life, but make that extension more palatable and enjoyable. What it cannot do is accelerate the evolution of the psyche, or the mind. Understanding how these changes impact us as people is the central tenet of Neo-Anthropogenic Psychology. There have been decades of research devoted to the developmental bases of behavior, but somehow they forgot the chapter on the once-disabled, now-augmented super-human. Take Nigel Ackland. With a prosthetic hand that can hold an egg, turn 360 degrees, and shake (or crush) your puny human hand, it is hard to decide who is disabled. Perhaps as this technology progresses, there will be elective surgery for augmentation.

Neo-Anthropogenic Psychology seeks to understand why it is when we see a mechanical “dog,” we can alternately fear it and feel sympathy for it, despite its lack of resemblance to an actual dog. Further, after using drones and their partners on the battlefield, what happens when the robot soldier returns home from war? How do they find job satisfaction competing with other soldiers for jobs? There are calls for more autonomy in the field of war, yet are we ready to grant them their independence?

But NAG Psychology doesn’t concern itself with just the battlefield or the augmented human. There is also the prospect of the deep reaches of space, where many elements of new technology literally mean the difference between life and death. Even studying the impact of social media as the primary connection between a Mars-traveling spacecraft and their human family and friends at home can create a baseline of sanity necessary to complete the mission. As a species, we are moving further from the Earth in more than the literal form.

Technology is a fundamental learning, and building the foundation for what this does to our developing psyche can set us on a strong trajectory for this inevitable change. Ignoring it can leave our civilization open to the erosion seen onscreen only a short time ago, an erosion that cedes our temporary self-evolution to the machines we’ve built to enable it.