Critical Thinking: Biases, Vested Interests, and Conflicts of Interests

Introduction
The previous chapter on arguments focused on how differences in systems of beliefs give rise to arguments.  People with disparate systems of beliefs often hold differing values and beliefs, which in turn influence what they consider to be basic assumptions (to be used in an argument as premises).

It should also be mentioned that sometimes the difference isn't so much that the values are different in an absolute sense, but that they are held to different degrees.  For example, much social psychology has shown that conservatives favour attributing moral status and providing resources to "in group" members, while liberals often concern themselves more with "out groups" (than do conservatives).   This is not to say conservatives don't care about "out groups" or that liberals don't care about "in groups,"; instead, it is a matter of relative value.

For more information on the psychological differences between conservatives, liberals, and libertarians check out this great website: http://www.moralfoundations.org/index.php?t=home

So, why does this all matter to us as critical thinkers?  There are a host of reasons, but here are two important ones:  The first is that understanding the role of systems of belief in an argument can help  make us aware of biases in the premises (both our opponents argument and in our own).  The second is that understanding an opponent's bias can give us hints as to how we might sway the opponent to our own point of view.

Mommy?  What's a Bias?
A bias is an "inclination or prejudice for or against" some fact or point of view.  In arguments, what this means is that we are prone to giving undue favour or neglect to some fact or point of view.  Everybody does this (except me); it's part of being a human being.

There is a wealth of evidence in the psychological "litra-cha" demonstrating that we begin with our position first then collect or reject evidence and reasons to support that pre-existing position.  Our pre-existing position is usually grounded in emotion/preferences rather that "Reason."  The more emotional our investment in an issue, the greater the likelihood that some kind of bias has crept into our supporting arguments--in attributing either undue strength to a supporting assertion or in overlooking or dismissing  contrary reasons or evidence.

Biases:  Too Illegit to Quit?
We've established people (except me) have biases.  Now what?  Do we automatically rejet everybody's arguments 'cuz they're biased?  Nope.

We can make a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate biases.  The distinction will depend mostly on how opposing reasons, evidence, and arguments are portrayed, and if there are any intentional important omissions.  As you might have guessed an illegitimate bias is one in which the arguer poorly or dishonestly represents the aforementioned elements, or if the bias leads to weak logical connections between premises and the conclusion.  Any website or blog with a strong political bias in either direction will provide excellent samples of arguments with illegitimate biases.

A legitimate bias is simply favoring a point of view but not in a way such that the opposing position is misrepresented.  It allows an impartial observer to fairly evaluate the proposed point of view.  For example, I think everyone should be allowed to own an assault riffle bow that fires swords for self-defense.   That's my point of view.

My argument is that they are not prohibited by the Constitution, therefore, they should be legal.  My opponents reply that the 2nd Amendment isn't about arms for personal self-defense but for a well-regulated militia that should be controlled by the Gov't.  They'd also argue that just because a small group of people a few hundred years ago voted on something, doesn't mean that we need to accept it now.  Societies and circumstances change, and the best laws reflect that.  Notice that even though I'm biased toward people owning assault rifle bows that fire swords, I don't distort the opposing arguments.

Vested Interests
A vested interest is when an arguer (or someone paying the arguer) stands to benefit from their point of view being accepted.  When vested interests are involved there's a very high likelihood of illegitimate bias.

For example, when certain industries spend millions of dollars to pay lobbyists and "donate" to politicians, we can be fairly certain that their arguments for special treatment or exemption contain illegitimate biases.

Not all vested interests need be financial.  One might be motivated by the desire for power, fame, revenge, attention, sex, etc.. or to get out of trouble/prove one's innocence.

We should be cautious of dismissing arguments out of hand just because the arguer has a vested interest in the outcome.  That they have a vested interest tells us nothing about the argument's validity which should be evaluated independently   When there is a vested interest, it simply means we should be extra cautious about illegitimate biases (and omissions).

Conflict of Interest
A conflict of interest is a vested interest on steroids; i.e., when vested interests are extreme.  In such cases there is usually an ethical issue involved too, and in professional settings, conflicts of interest have to be disclosed.

For example, in medical research if a university study of a drug is funded by the company that produces the drug, this is a conflict of interests for the researchers.  It must be disclosed at the beginning of any research that is produced.

An important recent example of a conflict of interest in medicine that wasn't disclosed was Andrew Wakefield's anti-vaccine research article in the Lancet.  What he did not disclose in his research was that he had been paid several millions of dollars to do research on vaccines by a company that was developing an alternative to the conventional vaccine.    

There was a clear conflict of interest because he stood to gain so much if his research showed that conventional vaccines are unsafe and that the company that had funded the research was developing an alternative.

In the end, his results were never replicated, his methods shown to be unethical, his data drawn from a statistically insignificant sample size (12 children), and the article was subsequently retracted by the publisher.  However,  because of the fear that came about because of his "research," there was and continues to be tremendous damage to public health.

Summary:  
We all have biases.  What matters is the degree to which they distort the presentation of evidence and reasons in arguments both for and against the arguers position.  Biases are illegitimate when they cause distortion such that arguments cannot be fairly evaluated..  

Annual Fitness Advice Post: Using Social Psychology to Your Advantage

Introduction

It seems every year I end up writing a post on how to get your fitness on.  But there's a prollem.  All the fitness advice in the world doesn't amount to a thang if'n it ain't put into practix.  So, in this year's post I'm going to focus on what we know about psychology and social psychology that can actually help us do what most of us already know we should do.  For that reason, I will only briefly go over nutrition and fitness plans because I've already dealt with these topics in detail in prior posts: 

http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2012/01/no-nonsense-fitness-guide.html.

http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2010/10/nutrition-rant-simple-vs-complex-carbs.html

http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2010/06/i-was-planning-on-attacking-some-recent.html

http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2010/07/health-and-nutrition-part-2.html

http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2010/07/health-and-nutrition-part-3-hopefully.html

Brief Overview of Fitness Programs and Methods
There is the optimal work out and there is the one you will do.  Pick the latter.  Do I need to explain this?  Here's the low down: pick a physical activity that you will actually do at least 3 times a week.  It might not be optimal, but you'll actually do it--and that's what matters most.  It can be anything physical: dance, zumba, aerobics, martial arts, karate-chopping bricks, speed walking, weight training, basketball, yoga, ping pong, whatever...you get the point.  

Also, it needn't always be the same activity.  Maybe one day you do yoga, other day you karate-chop bricks, and the other you play ping pong.  Whatever keeps you engaged and avoids stagnation. 

There are a few caveats: (a)  If it doesn't make you sweat, it's not intense enough, or you're not pushing yourself hard enough. (b) You should do the activity for no less than 45min per session and no fewer than 3 times a week.  Of course, sometimes life gets in the way and in such cases you can make exceptions, but for the most part, try to stick to these minimums.  

If you're too tired one day, go the next.  There are almost no good reasons for which you cannot do something 3 times a week.  Also, even on a really busy day, you can go for 30min--it's not optimal but it's better than not going.  Which leads me to an important psychological point. 

We are creatures of habit.  This quality on its own isn't a good or bad thing--what matters is the nature of the habits themselves.  What does this mean for fitness?  

You got it.  Establishing good habits is the only way to success.  Every fit person I know goes a little crazy when they miss workouts.  Just as people with bad habits go crazy when their habits are broken.  

If you create 'good' habits, you will eventually need to continue them--this means DO NOT skip workout days in the habit forming phase. The more you do, the easier it becomes to do so.  Unless you're sick, you should at least drag your butt to your activity for 30min.  Once you get started you'll find that you perform much better than you expected and you'll feel good about yourself for persevering.  Most importantly you are further reenforcing a good habit rather than a bad one (i.e., being an out-of-shape whiny baby--waaaaa! I'm too tired to work out).

Nutrition

Ok, you big babies, next is nutrition.  Here is my scientifical advice.  Eat a good breakfast.  Some protein (eggs) and some complex carbs.  Begin your lunch and dinner with meal-sized salads.  When you're done, eat your protein (chicken, fish, lean beef, vegetable protein).  If you're still hungry have a small serving of complex carbs (brown rice, whole grain bread).  

Yeah, I said it: bread.  Don't give me that crap about "but I'm gluten intolerant."  Bullshit.  Only a very very small percentage of the population is.  Oh! I know, you're soooooooooooo special and I don't understand how special you are with your gluten intolerance and sensitivity to wifi too...give me break.  But I digress...

So, why eat so much salad before your meals?  Cuz it will fill you up and you won't over eat the high calorie stuff that makes you jiggly.  Next!

Supplements:  99% of them are total BS.  Unless you live in the 3rd world and have nutritional deficiency or your diet is 100% twinkies, you're wasting your money.  And it doesn't count if your naturopathic "doctor" tells you that you are a very special person due to a deficiency they discovered through applied kinesiology (i.e., magic bullshit).  Besides, you can simply rectify the problem by wearing a hologram on a piece of rubber. Problem solved! 

Ok, so what supplements aren't a total waste of money?  For the recreational fitness participant, pretty much all.  If you are training at a level beyond recreational, you might benefit from protein supplementation (protein shakes-whey is best) and creatine (plain creatine monohydrate--don't buy that over-priced other crap).  

Everything else it a waste of money except Acai berries that cure all forms of cancer and every other disease and virus known to mankind.  I read that on the intertubes, so it must be true.  That's why there's no cancer in Brazil.  What?  You didn't know that?  Oh, and sharks don't get cancer either, so eat sharks.

Psychology and Healthy Eating

What counts as healthy eating shouldn't be much of a surprise to most people, so why do we so often fail at it?  One reason big is weakness of will.  Side-stepping the philosophical question of what 'will' is, lets assume the common (vague) understanding.  

Here's what we know about will power: (a) it is finite, (b) it diminishes as the day progresses and as we tire.  These facts aren't good or bad in themselves, what's important is how we apply them.

Just Say "No" Once:  If I know that my will power is finite then it is easier to turn down ice cream 1x than it is to turn it down 10x in the same day.  But how do we apply this?  It's like this y'all.  

When you go shopping DO NOT buy unhealthy food.  This is you saying 'no' once.  But if you buy it and bring it into your crib, you will have to say 'no' every time you walk by the fridge or think of ice cream.  The psychological laws predict that the ice cream will eventually win.  Don't let the ice cream win!!! You are better than ice cream!

Shop and Cook Yur Food in Advance.  Next implication:  Our will power decreases as the day progresses and as we tire (the two usually go hand in hand).  What do we do with this information?  

Here's a familiar scene:  Waaaaaa!  I'm a big baby.  I'm tired from work.  I don't feel like cooking.  I'm just going to grab some fast food at _____.  Sound familiar?  

We can't do anything about you being a big baby, but we can do something to prevent you from buying fast food cuz there's no food in the replicator:  Cook your food in advance.  Either cook your dinner when you make your lunch, or make dinner in a slow cooker when you leave for work, or cook a bunch of food at a time so you have meals for a few days, or cook a lot of food and freeze it in portions.  

Or do what I do: start cooking your protein first, then eat your salad while it's cooking.  When you're done your salad, dinner will be ready.  Ta! Da! Good habit preserved and bad habit averted! 

I should add that all this requires that you keep healthy food in your house.  There is no greater deterrent to cooking than a tired and hungry person without any healthy food in the house.

As with exercise, the same applies to nutrition--it's about creating good habits.  But enough of this habit stuff.  That habit stuff don't mean crap if I can't do it long enough to create the habit.  Am I right?  Ami right?  

Ok, so this is where we're going to appeal to social psychology to keep us on track long enough to establish good habits...

Social Psychology and Beginning & Keeping Good Habits

Premise:  We are extremely susceptible to the influences of our peers.  Not surprisingly, this also applies to health and fitness habits.  In a really cool 30 year study which followed 12, 067 people and their social networks these interesting conclusions were drawn: 

(a)  when a friend becomes obese, the chances of you becoming obese increases by 57%.

(b)  family and neighbor obesity had much smaller effects on an individuals obesity.
(c)  the greatest influence was on close friends:  if someone was close friends with someone who became obese, the non-obese person's likelihood of becoming obese rose to 171%!
(d)  the same effect was observed for weight loss.

(e)  the proposed mechanism is that friends affect each others' perception of fatness. When a close friend becomes obese, obesity may not look so bad. "You change your idea of what is an acceptable body type by looking at the people around you."

For a more detailed analysis here's a good write up: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/health/25iht-fat.4.6830240.html?pagewanted=all

So, how can we use this information to our advantage?  Should we drop our close friends if they become obese?  Probably not.  Instead we should also seek out peers that have healthy habits we wish to emulate.  This will have the effect of countering an obese peer and at least give us a fighting chance.  171% is a lot to overcome! But don't forget, the effect works both ways...

But where am I going to find peers with healthy lifestyles?  Um, maybe at the fitness activity you skipped out on yesterday to eat cupcakes with your other friend!  

Accountability and Support within Peer Groups

We increase the probability of our following through on something when we are held accountable and given support by our peer group.  Big whoop.  How does this apply?  Well, for example, in one study of those who went into a weight loss program with a friend, 95% completed the program (10 month program) and 66% maintained the loss.

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/67/1/132/

While the numbers vary between studies, the general effect is clear.  Those who enter weight loss programs with peers have higher completion rates and long-term success rates.  

The moral of the story?  Get a fitness buddy or group to keep you on track, motivated, and accountable.

One interesting model I heard about on NPR was people starting using social networking for motivation and accountability.  This can be done on your personal page or you can create a private group.  In the show they talked about people announcing their starting weight and having to report every determined interval.  

I doubt many people who are already self-conscious about their weight would be comfortable with publishing their weight on facebook or even to their close friends.  I suggest the following solution.  Don't publish your weight.  Your weight is 'x'.  However, you do need to publish after each week how many pounds you've lost or gained.  You might also considering publishing whether you've attended your fitness activity as you promised to your friends.

Aside: This brings up a side issue of whether body weight is a good measure of fitness and health.  I won't engage in that debate.  Use whatever measure you like--BMI, waist circumference  bicep size--whatever.  It's not that important in the early stages.  Personally, I just look at my abs.  If I can see them, I'm on track.  If I can't, I've got work to do.

The Power of Competition

Most, but not all, of us like to compete.  Modern techmology has made quantification and comparison of fitness activities easy.  My sister wears a little device on her waist.  It's about the size of a thumb drive.  It uploads how much distance you cover in a day and about how many calories you've burned as well as other biometric info like heart rate.  

Now, here's the cool part.  Her company started a program where you can have all this info uploaded to a common website.  Everyone who opts in gets their info uploaded to this site.  So, everyone can see how everyone else is performing.

You'd be surprised how engaged people get in the competition.  Now, instead of driving a short distance, employees walk so they can 'beat' the other competitors for calories burned or distance covered.  Add incentives and you have a workforce full of fitness freaks.  

Trust me.   My sister's a maniac about it.  Every time we've gone for a run she has to bring her little device so she can beat the other employees.  

This same mentality can easily be harnessed between groups of friends.  For example, everyone puts $20.00 into a pot, whoever burns the most calories over t wins the money or gets to donate it to the charity of their choice.

Bottom line is that the most powerful motivational forces for humans are social.  Use them to your advantage in conjunction with rewards, punishment, and emotional support.  And go with your friends to buy one of those gadgets my sister has!

Rules vs "The Reasonable Person" 
This is an interesting one.  This belongs more to the realm of psychology proper rather than social psychology.  To illustrate consider the following typical scenario:

You're at home watching the boob tube.  You say to yourself "I'm just going to have one square of chocolate--besides, it's got antioxidants so it's good for me!"  Next thing you know you're thinking, "I've already broken my rule so I might as well have a few more pieces.  Five chocolate bars later you're not feeling so hot.  Then you think, "well, I've already broken my diet, I might as well eat the ice cream too."

This is the problem with rules.  Once we break them, there's no reason for us to act on them so we easily rationalize further transgressions.  I.e., "I've already broken the rule, so breaking it more isn't going to matter."  

The problem with rules is that they are often binary.  We are allowed to eat chocolate or we aren't.  We're on a diet, or we aren't.  We exercise, or we don't.  Once we put ourselves on one side of the disjunct, there's nothing preventing us from being extreme. So, what's the solution?  

The reasonable person approach:  We ax ourselves what a reasonable person would do in the situation.  Would a reasonable person who is overweight eat 5 chocolate bars and a tub of ice cream?  Nope.  Would a reasonable person skip the gym because they only have 30min rather than the usual 45min?  Nope.  When we avoid thinking in binary terms, the door opens for reasonable action.

This is not to say rules don't have their place.  Rules are a good pre-emptive defensive strike against rationalizing ourselves into doing unhealthy things.  In other words, I'm not saying you should do away with rules completely, but we should not be over-reliant on them.  Perhaps a hybrid approach will be more fruitful.  

Furthermore, the reasonable person approach is not without its own difficulties.  As Hume said, "Man is not a rational animal, but a rationalizing animal."

For more on this listen to the most excellent podcast "Very Bad Wizards" Episode 7.

http://verybadwizards.com/episode-list/

Apps.

There are a whole bunch of apps that will help you with self-discipline.  Some of these harness the effects of social psychology and some don't.  Opt for the ones that do.