"The power of logic and mathematics to surprise us depends, like their usefulness, on the limitations of our reason." - Sir A.J. Ayer, 'Language, Logic and Truth', p. 114
"As the journalist Amy Walter has put it, 'Swing voters would rather eat a bowl of glass than have to choose between Trump and Biden again.' Well, it may be time to grab a spoon and unroll the gauze. When half the country believes democracy isn’t working well, when calls for political violence have become commonplace, when the speaker of the House is an election denier, it is time to face what we risk becoming and to accept or reject it. We have no choice but to choose....
Of course, we already faced this choice — and made it — in 2020. Why insist on a do-over? Because a country approaching its 250th birthday does not have the luxury of calling itself an experiment forever; this is the moment to assess the results of that experiment. Because Jan. 6 was not the final offensive by those who would overrun the will of voters. Because a lone Trump victory in 2016 could conceivably be remembered as an aberration if it were followed by two consecutive defeats, but a Trump restoration in 2024 would confirm America’s slide toward authoritarian rule and would render Biden’s lone term an interregnum, a blip in history’s turn. And we must choose again because the fever did not break; instead, it threatens to break us."- Carlos Lozada, 'A Trump-Biden Rematch Is The Election We Need', NY Times
The human brain possessing two 'tracks' or systems, is something it takes a while to wrap one's rational brain around. Some might even suspect it's an A.I. trick or come-on, but that's because they haven't done enough background research, reading. Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, first called attention to the divergence using his elegant model of the human mind. That is, we have two modes of thinking. There’s a fast, intuitive processing system (System 1), which solves many problems with graceful ease but can also be lured into error, and there’s a slower, more effortful logic module (System 2) which can grind out the right answer when it must. But as author Jacob Ward ('The Loop') has noted, prefers to let System 1 do all the work and arrive at the answers. Therein also, in Ward's take, lies the danger of turning too much decision making over to A.I. In his parlance (p. 73):
"Just by being human beings we're caught in the first loop: a cycle of unconscious decisions and influences that keeps us in a more or less predictable orbit. As modern humans we've only begun to recognize that loop. Yet at the same time, we've built a second loop for ourselves around the first: an industry of manipulation and persuasion that draws on our unconscious tendencies to lock us into a circular flight path of consumption and acquiescence."
But first, some caution here. Ward has actually skipped over Kahneman's basic definition for System 2 methodical thinking, and interjected the consequences of allowing System 1 gut reactions to take over for it. Back on page 60 he acknowledges one of Kahneman's hypotheses to explain this:
"Behavior is likely to be anchored in intuitive impressions, intentions even when it is not completely dominated by them."
Thus, a 'dark side' as it were can upset what ought to be rational, objective processes. Is there a way to identify such encroachment and its effect on thinking? Say using one simple test or problem?
Enter now Financial Times columnist Tim Harford and his recent FT piece:
The Simple Maths Problem That Shows How To Separate Fact From Fiction
Herein, Harford introduces "the bat and ball problem", developed by the behavioral economist Shane Frederick of Yale University and made famous by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman in his previously cited book. The problem reads like this:
A bat and a baseball cost a total of $1.10. If the bat costs $1 more than the ball then what is the price of the ball?
As Harford writes, after giving his off the cuff answer of 10 cents:
"At a moment’s reflection that can’t be right: if the ball costs 10 cents, then the bat costs $1.10 and the two together don’t cost $1.10. Something doesn’t add up. "
Adding:
"Frederick’s bat and ball problem offers an obvious decoy for the fast-thinking system to grab, while also having a correct answer that can be worked out using simple algebra or even trial and error. Most people consider the decoy answer of 10 cents even if they eventually produce the correct answer. The decoy answer is more popular when people are distracted or rushed and the correct answer takes longer to produce. (Have you got it yet?) Frederick’s poser is not merely a curiosity: research by the Cornell psychologist Gordon Pennycook and others has found that people who score well on problems such as the bat and ball do a better job of distinguishing truth from partisan fake news."
Wowser! Do better on distinguishing truth from fake news? That's huge. But hold that for now. Nearly everyone who attempts this simple math problem gives the answer of 10 cents, then asks what the hell was Frederick thinking asking such a stupidly easy question. But they'd be quite wrong, even as more than 50% of Harvard, Princeton and MIT students were when asked the same question, according to psychologist Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel laureate based at Princeton. And blew it.
The actual answer is $1.05 for the bat and 5 cents for the ball.
The most direct way to show it is just converting the problem into a basic
algebra problem. Then let x = y + 1 for the bat and assign y for the ball
We have the total cost:
x + y = 1.10
and substituting for x:
(y + 1) + y = 1.10
and solving for y (the ball cost):
2y + 1 = 1.10
2y = 1.10 -1 = 0.10
yielding the actual price of the ball:
y = 0.10/2 = 0.05
or 5 cents!
This is only one of the most glaring demonstrations of how our brains can be fooled into giving answers we intuitively feel (by System 1) are correct, but which when more deeply analyzed (by a System 2 approach) are not. In this case, the deeper analysis meant actually converting the verbal problem into one of basic algebraic symbols then solving for one (the ball price) in this case.
Another reason for the slapdash answer is a characteristic
human hubris and over confidence. We think on hearing a problem we believe to
be simple, we can offer or find a simple answer, when deeper thought shows this
isn't so.
A perfect example is
the casino slots player who wins a pile - say $100- but believes she can keep
going and turn it into $200. This egregious error usually means losing
everything, since more and more coins are fed into the machines to make up for
what's already lost. (The classic 'sunken costs' fallacy)
The stock market is another example. People - especially
males- often believe they know more than most (usually their wives) about
investing so approach it with hubris. Never mind the stock market is the
classic process of randomness in which - as one study once showed - a monkey
firing darts at a giant page full of blocked stock names stands a better chance
of picking a winner than a human.
In a way this isn't surprising because - as Dr. Kahneman has
noted - the year to year correlation between the performance of the vast
majority of funds is barely above 0. Thus, most stock or fund managers are
relying on luck, not talent. In a way they are not much better off than our
slots player.
But the problem is that the rapid response or "gut" brain system usually takes control before the more methodical, logical rational system can enter. Hence, triggers the wrong answer of 10 cents. More reflective thinking will also yield the correct answer, i.e. The bat must be $1.05 and the ball 5 cents.
At this point Harford cites a new article in the journal Cognition which may be one of the most important as we approach next year's election. Therein we read:
"Our investigation helps inform conceptions
of dual process models, as “system 1” processes often appear to override or
corrupt “system 2” processes. Many choose to uphold their intuition, even when
directly confronted with simple arithmetic that contradicts it – especially if
the intuition is approximately correct.
Mental operations range from rapid, effortless, perceptual impressions (recognizing a face) to more deliberate computations that one must choose to execute (algebra). Sometimes, operations that are effortful initially (eleven minus three) become nearly automatic later.
Research examining the ease or difficulty of mental operations often goes under the label of dual systems or dual processes. In the framework advanced by Kahneman and Frederick, 2002, Kahneman and Frederick, 2005, a fast and intuitive system proposes initial answers which a slower, more reflective system scrutinizes and then accepts, rejects, or revises.
Why does the error remain hidden in plain sight? The constraint that the two prices differ by $1.00 is one of just three sentences, clearly stated, and sometimes even emphasized. Moreover, verifying the intuitive response requires nothing more than adding $1.00 and $0.10 to ensure that they sum to $1.10 (they do) and subtracting $0.10 from $1.00 to ensure that they differ by $1.00 (they don't). Since essentially everyone can perform these verification tests, the high error rate means that they aren't being performed or that respondents are drawing the wrong conclusion despite performing them."
Most disturbing:
"We assumed that they'd be able to solve it if we directed their attention to the features of the problem that differentiate it from the problem we thought they were unwittingly solving.
We discovered instead that many respondents maintain the
erroneous response in the face of facts that plainly falsify it, even after
their attention has been directed to those facts. Although subjects' apparent
sensitivity to the size of
the heuristic error merits further research, the remarkable durability of that
error paints a more pessimistic picture of human reasoning than we were
initially inclined to accept; those whose thoughts most require additional
deliberation benefit little from whatever additional deliberation can be
induced."
Now carry this template into politics. We see from the recent polling - assuming it's on the level - too many have discharged the deliberate mental (System 2) approach in favor of a gut instinct (System 1) reaction. How does this work out in the context of the bat and ball problem results in the cognition paper?
Many voters don’t see Biden's value or competence because Biden doesn’t communicate in ways that today’s media — and many of today’s voters — are able to process. He communicates deliberately, slowly - and their gut -addicted brains take this as mentally slow or somehow not sharp. Age? Well, he's 80 so yeah, in their view. But Trump is only 3 years younger, so that doesn't quite add up. Robert Reich expands on this in a recent Substack post,
He notes:
"His communications are straightforward. They minimize emotional turbulence. He exudes calm determination. But for voters this is not enough."
In other words, 'drugged' by Trump's outbursts they are like crack addicts that need to get revved up and Trump does it with his nonstop emotive cackling. Indeed, the Turd's posts and offhand running remarks (like in between court sessions with his civil trial) are designed to trigger a disproportionate emotional reaction. In Reich's take:
"His ridicule, anger, and vindictiveness are intended to elicit immediate, passionate responses. This conveys the impression of strength and energy by virtue of his bile. "
And I might add, too many System 1 brains are falling for it.
So gut response voters tell pollsters they think Trump is “stronger” than Biden on the economy or foreign policy. But "they’re really responding to emotions associated with strength that Trump stirs up: rage, ferocity, vindictiveness, and anger."
But these are the effluent of madmen and dictators, like Hitler, e.g.
Worse, and more like those who refused to provide a correct answer to the ball and bat problem even when given the inputs, they refuse to see the signs of Trump's own mental deterioration. (His testimony Monday in the civil fraud lawsuit against him drifted from incoherent rant to rambling digression.)
As Reich notes (ibid.):
"But Trump’s bile gives him a patina of vigor. His anger appears to
shows vitality. His vindictiveness makes him seem forceful. We live in an angry
time. It is easy for the public to confuse anger with strength.
Biden projects strength the
old-fashioned way — through mature and responsible leadership. But mature and
responsible leadership doesn’t cut through the media and reach today’s public."
"Since the COVID pandemic, there’s been a large
and growing disconnect between how the economy is behaving and how Americans
perceive it. Economic performance has been very strong recently, but Americans
continue to say times are bad. Surveys about the economy found that Americans
think the economy is worse now than it was during the stagflation of the early
1980s, the deep recession of 1990-91, the Great Recession of 2008, and more.
Although the precise cause of this difference between public perception and economic indicators isn’t clear, the breakdown of workplaces and a distrust of traditions and institutions — even in a period of low unemployment and strong growth — can all contribute to a strong feeling of insecurity and dread.
And because Joe Biden is president now, he bears the brunt of
these fears. If the economy continues to perform
well, voters may come to reassess their views, although this is a slow process."
Donald Trump is a confidence man, a charlatan, an unrepentant liar whose deceits have cost at least a half-million Americans their lives.
When Dustin Thompson was hauled before US District Judge Reggie Walton for assaulting the Capitol police on January 6th, his defense lawyer, Samuel Shamansky, argued about Trump:
“You had, frankly, a gangster who was in power. The vulnerable are seduced by the strong. That’s what happened.”
The jury didn’t buy the argument and sent Thompson to prison, as US District Judge Reggie Walton, who was overseeing the case, said:
“I think our democracy is in trouble because, unfortunately, we have charlatans like our former president who doesn’t, in my view, really care about democracy but only about power.”
And yet Trump remains popular with about 20 percent of the American public, making up the majority of the Republican primary-voting base. But why?
"A second Trump presidency might not ruin the US forever. But
both it and the rest of the world would lose their innocence. We would
have to adapt to the reality that the US had re-elected a man who
had openly tried to subvert its democracy. It is possible that the
indictments against Trump will save the day. But that fragile hope
highlights today’s threat to democracy."
4 November 2025
Leavenworth, Kansas
Dear Louise,
It’s been almost a year since the last time I saw you, as they were arresting me on the sedition charge that’s kept me in this prison. If the underground network here succeeds, you should get this letter within a few weeks; it’s the third I’ve written you that got out of the prison, but I understand the first two couriers were busted for carrying contraband mail and are now in prison themselves.
The day after President Trump was re-elected (when Speaker Johnson recognized the disputed ballots in five states and threw the election to the House of Representatives), you’ll recall, he invoked the Insurrection Act and began the mass arrests. They tell me both Joe Biden and Merrick Garland are in here, too, although I haven’t seen them; apparently the “high value” former administration officials are locked down in a separate wing.
No comments:
Post a Comment