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.

Iraq and Politics: What Story Will History Tell?

Iraq is unwinding, and except for the speed, surprising few. Like surrounding nations in the Middle East, European outsiders drew Iraq’s arbitrary borders less for the shared history within than for assured access for Western governments. The population only needed the lid of repression in the form of ruthless dictatorship removed for the pot of sectarian violence to boil over. What did President Obama expect to happen when he removed the last U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011?

This is the question being asked along with accusations of the President’s foolhardy invitation to Russian help in Syria and considering Iranian help in Iraq, according to Dick Cheney and his daughter, Liz, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece. What he fails to mention is Iran already aided the Bush administration following 9/11 in Afghanistan and was key to forming its new government, and there were also consultations to stabilize Iraq after toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime. Conventional wisdom suggests the onslaught from the north by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) will eventually be met with resistance from the Shia-dominated south and likely not trifle with the Pesh Merga in Iraqi Kurdistan. By the very nature of this conflict, the future boundaries are easily predictable with Iraq and Syria ceding adjacent territory to Sunnis, Kurds expanding westward into Kirkuk, and Shi’ite factions maintaining control over the South. The real question then becomes how moderate these future governments will behave, and how can the U.S. responses facilitate this transition versus the preferred status quo of an intact single state of Iraq.

Turning to our history of engagement with foreign powers where our mission is either not clearly defined or misrepresented, Vietnam looms large. Brian Castner, an Iraq War veteran with far more clout in his New York Times piece than either Dick or Liz Cheney, in my opinion, bemoans the ambivalence felt in this unraveling. Rather than leap to catastrophic hyperboles and finger-pointing, Castner shares his revelation at the similarity to the fall of Saigon and how Vietnam vets may have felt. His is not a politically desperate plea to secure the narrative, rather he seems to acknowledge the limits to which power–hard or soft–has a part to play in outcome when the stakes are also limited on one side while the other side has everything to lose. Like Vietnam. Yet when we finally did let our enmity toward Vietnam go, the possibilities opened.

So what story will history tell us about Iraq? There is no question the U.S. military accomplished its mission in ousting Saddam Hussein. It cannot be understated how much the lack of planning–or political failure to listen to its military architects–for a post-war phase led to the sectarian mess following that mission. Finally, once stabilized, the removal of U.S. forces certainly gave opportunity to ISIS’ incursion. Where does the Iraqi government’s responsibility begin? Will Iraq become Obama’s war that failed?

Again, history helps us. To whom does history tell us Vietnam belonged? Johnson or Ford?

Connecting the Dots: Technology, Futurists, and Humanity

Conceptual innovation pushes the envelope for human advancement. We see it every day passing by us in the shapes of cellphones, computers, televisions, etc. Ethical doctors consulted for elective surgery recommend putting it off for a few years, as a better, more improved procedure will likely be developed. No longer the province of wishes, hopes and prayers, we expect and anticipate breakthroughs. It is our unique ability as humans to pass on knowledge generation to generation that allows knowledge to build on knowledge, and the printing press was the initial fuel behind the exponential growth of technology by making information available far more cheaply and to greater numbers. Like today’s dire predictions of technology one day being the ruination of humanity, it was said Gutenberg’s invention would trivialize the stories once shared through an oral reading among a group. Instead, it spread information across the pipelines of trade into different regions and classes of people resulting in the cross-pollination of more ideas.

Those who worry over rapid advances in technology speak of an inevitable dystopian future that cannot maintain prosperity for the growing population seeking to enjoy standards of living enjoyed by developed nations. This group sees greater disparity between the classes, and greater strife as a result. Only the wealthiest classes benefit from new technologies and remnants of the scarce resources of a depleted Earth. In their vision of the future, paid workers–and the middle class it supports–are obsolete, as robots are evermore capable substitutes. Ironically, these visions tend to focus only on job displacement created in the manufacturing field when strong artificial intelligence and robotics are more recently making their greatest strides in professional fields and service industries. Even vices like prostitution are not immune.

Others who see a future perhaps too close to utopia counter these worries. Their’s is a concept that sees poverty and disease, even death obliterated. Technology, in their eyes, can meet the basic needs of the billions inhabiting our planet without infringing on the standards of living to which many have become accustomed. Strong AI operating at speeds greater than the human brain will attend to our planetary needs, and bring more assets of human creative thought to the collective intelligence on the Web from every corner of the world. Humankind may transcend itself as it takes control of its own evolution, and solves its greatest threats with a renewed sense of cooperation gleaned from an economy of abundance and not one of scarcity.

Both of these outcomes are possible, and–as with most possibilities–there remains a third. Whether you subscribe more to the dystopian or utopian view, humanity is the sole wild card. Make no mistake, the future and the technological advances it brings are inevitable. However, our past teaches us that technology is and always will be a tool. Whether it is our doom or savior depends on how we deploy that tool. Just ask Dr. Oppenheimer.

If not careful, the baggage of our past will squander the wonders of tomorrow. World events remind us it is not easy to trust our privacy and security in the hands of others, a prerequisite for all of tomorrow’s promises. The offline model of today creates the template for what lies ahead in our online universe, and we are off to a rocky start. Relevant nations like Russia continue to fight anachronistic territorial wars intended to build nationalistic fervor on the domestic front, but having no real value in an economy where assets in the form of ones and zeros trade globally in real-time. The United States and others allow the power within their democracies to gravitate into the hands of a few that run the politics and economy of the nation so deeply, their lawyers even write legislation for elected candidates to submit as their own. This is to say nothing of the constant surveillance hidden from public view.

Technology advances on an exponential curve. Human vices and virtues, however, remain constant. Our future depends solely on our decision to think and act for ourselves. We mustn’t be lazy in the demand for transparency from those that wield power, nor should we apologize for actions we take to ensure the balance of power remains with the people. As long as the “human assets” reclaimed through advances in science remain the collective conscience of humanity, we can expect a bright future.