Random Quote
Giving grounds, however, justifying the evidence, comes to an end; - but the end is not certain propositions' striking us immediately as true, i.e. it is not a kind of seeing on our part; it is our acting, which lies at the bottom of the language-game.

Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951)

Thinking

The thought (taken at Reims, France)

Actually, it’s strange. Philosophizing is thinking, but how many philosophers ask themselves what thinking is? How many philosophers wonder what they do, when they think? Of course, there are philosophers who do or did. However, I have never done, neither here in my blogs, nor in other writings. So, it’s time to fill this gap.
According to the Wikipedia “Thought (or thinking) encompasses an ‘aim-oriented flow of ideas and associations that can lead to a reality-oriented conclusion’ ”. But it immediately adds that “there is still no consensus as to how it is adequately defined or understood.” So, I’ll not try to give here a definition of the phenomenon. I’ll immediately jump to the question what it practically involves. In answering this question, I’ll follow Michael Tomasello in his A natural history of human thinking, pp. 27-31. Although he doesn’t tell us what philosophical thinking involves, he leads us to the foundation of thinking as we practice it in daily life. And isn’t this also the foundation of all specialist ways of thinking?
According to Tomasello, thinking has three key components:
1) “The ability to work with some kind of abstract cognitive representations, to which the individual assimilates particular experiences” (p. 27)
2) “The ability to make inferences from cognitive representations”. (28)
3) “The ability to self-monitor the decision-making process”. (30)
Let me explain these components more in detail. In doing so I follow Tomasello, without saying so each time.

Ad 1) Cognitive representations are things like categories, schemas and models. They have three features. They are iconic or imagistic. So, as I interpret this, they refer or point to what they are about. As Tomasello says, What else could they be? In addition, such representations are schematic. They are generalizations or abstractions of the reality as the thinker sees it. The latter makes that the representations are the thinker’s interpretations; they are not reality as such. Moreover, the cognitive representations are situational: They “have as their most basic content situations, specifically, situations that are relevant to the individual’s goals and values.” (27)
Ad 2) Thinking is not only a matter of having cognitive representations, but it involves also making inferences from these representations to what does not exist, does not yet exist or what does exist but is or can not be perceived by the thinker at the moment s/he is thinking about it. These inferences can be causal and intentional and have a logical structure (understanding of cause-effect relations; understanding of logical implications, negation, and the like). They can also be productive in the sense that the thinker can generate off-line situations in her mind and infer or imagine nonactual situations. (28-30)
Ad 3) The ability to self-monitor is more than just taking decisions and anticipating the consequences of these decisions, but it is the ability to decide what one needs to take a decision and whether the information one has is sufficient. It’s a kind of ‘executive’ oversight of the decision process (3). 

Actually what Tomasello discusses in these pages (27-31) refers to the thinking of the great apes. It’s an introduction to the way how great ape thinking developed into human thinking. I must say that in my summary of these pages I haven’t followed Tomasello exactly but I have already anticipated the human thinking and given some of its characteristics. What especially was added to the human thinking was recursive thinking in any shape: thinking about oneself; thinking about one’s own thinking; thinking of the thinking of others and that these others think about you, etc. Also thinking intentionally has further developed. Moreover, human thinking is perspectival: The ability to see others and the world in general through the eyes of another person or from an objective point of view.
To my mind the summary of thinking that I have described above gives a good insight into the basics of the way humans think. Here I want to stress yet especially two important aspects of this human thinking: Its schematical aspect (humans think in schemas or broad categories that structure their worlds) and the typical human recursive aspect of thinking that humans think about thinking. Isn’t this what philosophers do?

Sources
- “Thought”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought
- Tomasello, Michael, A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge, Mass. Etc.: Harvard University Press, 2014.

Random quote
Once call some act a promise, and all questions whether there is an obligation to do it seems to have vanished.

H.A. Prichard (1871-1947) 

Newspeak and AstraZeneca

If you would ask me, which book made the deepest impression on me, probably I would say: George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. I read it many years ago, when I was a student, so far before 1984. Since then it’s in my mind. Through the years, I have read many, many books and I have forgotten most of them; maybe not that I had read them, but their contents. However, I have never forgotten the main line of 1984 and what’s important in it. I remember Big Brother, of course, but maybe even more what Orwell called Newspeak.
Oceania, the country Orwell describes in the book, is a dictatorship like North Korea today, although, when writing the book, Orwell had the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in his mind. In order to be more effective in steering and if possible in determining the thoughts of the inhabitants of Oceania, a new language was developed: Newspeak. It should fully function and be effective in 2050. Then everybody should use it and everybody’s thoughts should be determined by it, maybe with the exception of what the proles would think and say.
You find what Newspeak is like everywhere in the book, but Orwell gives a more systematic description in an annex to the novel, which I’ll use for my explanation. I’ll mention mainly what I need for the second part of this blog. Before I begin, first I’ll quote a description of Newspeak from Wiktionary: Newspeak is “use of ambiguous, misleading, or euphemistic words in order to deceive the listener, especially by politicians and officials.” Note that this is not Orwell’s definition but the meaning “Newspeak” developed in later times among the common public, but keep your thoughts on it when reading what follows.
The purpose of Newspeak is, so Orwell, not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the inhabitants of Oceania, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. This is done by limiting the use of existing words, by making new words and by making the grammar as simple as possible. As for the first, take the word “free”. The word is not removed from the vocabulary, but in Newspeak it is used only to communicate the absence of something, for instance “The dog is free from lice” or “This field is free of weeds”. The word could not denote free will or political freedom, which supposedly don’t exist in Oceania. Besides giving words a new meaning also new words are formed. Most striking and very important in Newspeak are words constructed with abbreviations, like it was done in Nazi Germany and in the USSR. Think of words like Nazi (from Nationalsozialist=National Socialist), Komintern (Communist International), Gestapo (=Secret [Geheime] State Police), etc. Such words should be simple, staccato and easy to understand and to pronounce. Third, the grammar should be as simple as possible, which I’ll not discuss here.
As said, the function of the new language was to steer and determine the mind, so that the people would think only what the leaders wanted that they must think. The new words and meanings should not enlarge the brainpower but just make it smaller. People should have positive thoughts, when hearing or saying a word, and all other connotations should have been deleted from consciousness. Or, if people should avoid certain actions, the words referring to it (always having un- as the first syllable) just should not include positive connotations (compare the modern word “indecent”). Especially newly constructed words should be a kind of steno summarizing a complex idea in a few syllables and concentrating on a positive meaning (and only on this positive meaning without negative connotations). Everything else shouldn’t even pop up in your mind. Even expressing something else than this positive meaning should have been made impossible by the new construction.
I had to think of all this when I heard that the recently developed Covid-19 vaccine AstraZeneca (AstraZeneca vaccine, for short) has got a new name. From now on it will be called Vaxzevria, which should sound better than the original name. Now you can say “What’s in a name?”, but in view of Orwell’s idea of Newspeak, it is likely that there is more behind this name change, than the simple idea that it sounds better, although the vaccine maker denies this: The change of the name had already been planned for some time, they say. But what has happened? Once seen as one of the vaccines that would free us from the dictatorship of the coronavirus, more and more the AstraZeneca vaccine is getting a bad reputation, mainly because it appears to have often life-threatening side-effects. What’s then the best thing you can do, if you can’t improve the image of your product? Change its name! Chose a name with a positive aura, one that makes forget the negative sense that your product has got, by replacing the old brand name that has come to comprise this negativity. But isn’t doing so (and isn’t in fact every change of a brand name) a try to manipulate the minds of the public by a kind of Newspeak? A try to delete all negative connotations that pop up in your mind, when you hear the words AstraZeneca vaccine? Isn’t it a manner to steer and to determine the people’s minds? If you hear “Vaxzevria”, immediately in your mind it should pop up: “Yes! I want to get it!”? For me, it’s simply Newspeak, and then bad Newspeak, for it’s neither simple, nor staccato, nor easy to understand and to pronounce. Vaxzevria, Wakssefria, Vagshefria, Wakse-Fria, what did you say? 

Random Quote

We should always prepare for the worst leaders, although we should try, of course, to get the best.

Karl Popper (1902-1994)

The negativity bias and Covid-19

More than ten years ago I wrote a blog about how people judge the side-effects of what someone has done. The essence was that the blame put on someone for causing negative side-effects is by far bigger than the credit s/he receives for positive side-effects, even if they balance. (see for the details my blog Praising the one who deserves it) Although it is not exactly the same, I had to think of it when I heard about the present discussion on the side-effects of the AstraZeneca anti-Covid vaccine. In fact, considering negative effects more important than positive effects is a general human phenomenon. This phenomenon is called the negativity bias. It is “the notion that, even when of equal intensity, things of a more negative nature (e.g. unpleasant thoughts, emotions, or social interactions; harmful/traumatic events) have a greater effect on one’s psychological state and processes than neutral or positive things.” (Wikipedia) This is not only so when negative and positive effects balance, but negative effects can by far dominate the positive effects even in case they are much smaller and very little in comparison to the latter. There is a tendency not only to register negative stimuli more readily but also to dwell on these events. (Cherry) The effect is the stronger if what you can lose is bigger, also in case what you can gain is very big. (Kahneman)
Here are two examples from Cherry:
- You received a performance review at work that was quite positive overall and noted your strong performance and achievements. A few constructive comments pointed out areas where you could improve, and you find yourself fixating on those remarks. Rather than feeling good about the positive aspects of your review, you feel upset and angry about the few critical comments.
- You had an argument with your significant other. Afterward, you find yourself focusing on all of your partner’s flaws. Instead of acknowledging your partner’s good points, you ruminate over all of the imperfections. Even the most trivial of faults are amplified, while positive characteristics are overlooked.
Take now the AstraZeneca case. Keep especially the first example in your mind. In order to contain the present coronavirus pandemic, in haste new vaccines have been developed. As everybody knows, medicines can have unintended side-effects and these new vaccines are no exceptions. Moreover, because of the speed that the vaccines have been developed, not all side-effects are already known. Certainly the long-term side-effects aren’t. Therefore it is important to be attentive to possibly unpleasant implications of the vaccines. As it looks at present, the negative effects of most anti-Covid vaccines are minor. An exception appears to be the AstraZeneca vaccine: After having received their jabs, some people got thrombosis and some have died of it. The chance to get it is about one in 150,000 vaccinations, they say. Probably this dramatic effect is caused by the vaccine. Shouldn’t we take the AstraZeneca vaccine because of this side-effect?
As it looks now, we can keep the coronavirus pandemic only under control with a vaccine. Several vaccines have been developed, but at the moment there is a shortage of anti-Covid vaccines and in the immediate future this will remain so. So we need the AstraZeneca vaccine for the time to come. I haven’t looked up the figures, but specialists agree that by far more people will be saved by getting this vaccine than will get thrombosis and die. “Saved” will say here that they will not die of Covid-19 or suffer from serious long-lasting nasty and life-disturbing effects caused by Covid-19, but they would have become ill, if they hadn’t received the AstraZeneca vaccine. So, from a rational point of view it’s by far more sensible to take the jab than to refuse it. Nevertheless, many people don’t want to have it just because of the negative side-effects. Although understandable, in view of what now is known about the side effects, doing so is a clear instance of the negativity bias: Although the positive effect of the AstraZeneca jab by far outbalances the negative side-effects, nevertheless for many people it’s the other way round. Paraphrasing Cherry: Rather than feeling good about the positive aspects of the AstraZeneca vaccine, you feel upset and angry about the small chance that it can harm you. The negative effects are strongly overestimated. Even so, I would say, take another vaccine if you have the choice. 

Sources
- Cherry, Kendra, “What Is the Negativity Bias?”, https://www.verywellmind.com/negative-bias-4589618
- Kahneman, Daniel, Thinking, Fast and Slow. Penguin Books, London, 2012; pp. 278-303.
- “Negativity bias”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias

Random Quote

The position which is in process of becoming superseded wastes its polemical energies on fighting already outmoded features in the opposed view, and tends to see what is retained in the emerging position as only a deformed shadow of its own self.

Georg Henrik von Wright (1916-2003)

Goodhart’s Law and Covid-19

You get an order from a building company to make one ton of nails. What will you do? I guess you’ll produce big nails, for that’s easier and cheaper than producing small nails. From another building company you get an order for one million nails. For them, you’ll produce little nails, I think, for you need less iron to make them. If you behave that way, you follow Goodhart’s Law. Such behaviour is not a figment of my imagination, but it often happened, for example, in the former Soviet Union in order to fulfil to targets imposed by the planning authorities.
Goodhart’s Law was developed in 1975 by Charles Goodhart. He formulated it this way:
Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes.
Later Marilyn Strathern gave it its present wording, which is generally used since then:
When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
Strathern gave the law also its present name. Applied to the introductory case of this blog: The nail factory gets an order but doesn’t ask itself what the customer needs, such as nails of different shapes and sizes. It only wants to execute the order as it is, whether that’s reasonable or not. The customers can avoid such a reaction by specifying the types of nails they need as precise as possible.
Initially, Goodhart’s Law was used to describe economic behaviour. Later it got also a political interpretation and actually it can be applied, if relevant, to any kind of actions.
At the basis of this law is a general sociological phenomenon that has been described by Jürgen Habermas in his theory of two levels of meaning: level 1 and level 0. Level 1 is the level all sciences are faced with when they theoretically interpret their objects of research. Level 0 is typical of those sciences that deal with objects that have been given meaning by the investigated people themselves. This made me distinguish two kinds of meaning: meaning 1 and meaning 0. (see my 2001 for a detailed explanation) Meaning 1 is the kind of meaning used on level 1. It is the meaning a scientist gives to an object, either physical or social in character; it is the scientist’s theoretical interpretation of reality. Meaning 0 is the concept of meaning for the underlying level 0. It is the meaning people who make up social reality give to this social reality or to parts of it themselves; it is their interpretation of their own lived reality. We can apply this two-layer model also to Goodhart’s Law. Then we get this: Level 1 is the level at which the target is set in objective (measurable) quantities, for example by a customer or a policy maker. The people who have to realize the target are at level 0. They give it their own interpretation; one that fits them best. However, this subjective interpretation does not need to be what those who formulated the target thought it should be. If the people who have to realize the target literally take it as it is, it’s quite well possible that the target ceases to be a good measure. If so, Goodhart’s Law applies.
Goodhart’s Law can occur everywhere where quantitative targets are set, and so we see it also appear in the present Covid-19 pandemic. Quantitative targets are set to indicate when the pandemic has become manageable and everything is done to reach them. However, at the same time the negative effects of the measures to achieve the targets are not seen, ignored or pushed away as not important in view of the higher goal to reduce the number of infections. Or the targets are simply avoided by the people by changing their behaviour. As for the latter, for instance, people avoid the curfews imposed by meeting others or by shopping at hours that it is allowed to do so, which leads to more people being together at other moments. As for the former, everywhere all is done to reduce the number of Covid-19 patients, and as such it is a good target, but the price is high. Patients with other serious diseases and illnesses often cannot get the treatments they need, for instance because there is no room for them in the hospitals; in many cases this has led to early deaths. Or, another example, people have died from loneliness in nursery homes and at home because they were and often still are not allowed to meet other people, especially their relevant others. Again other people come to suffer of depressions, often so seriously that they commit suicide. Children suffer because they cannot go to school. Or think of the big negative consequences the restrictions have for the economic lives of many people, making that their quality of life has gone down and probably will remain so for many years.
Now I am the last to say that we should take less care of the Covid-19 patients and that we shouldn’t take measures to stop the pandemic. That’s not the point. The point is that at the moment only the pandemic counts, and politicians pay attention to the negative effects of the restrictions only with words but not with deeds. It’s striking, for instance that the Dutch Outbreak Management Team, which has the task to inform the Dutch government about the pandemic and to propose measures to contain it, has only doctors, virologists and the like among its members but no psychologists and sociologists, who could assess the social and psychological effects of the measures and propose alternatives. Then one must not be surprised that Goodhart’s Law applies and that the anti-Covid measures cease to be good measures.

Sources
- Henk bij de Weg, “The commonsense conception and its relation to philosophy”, Philosophical Explorations, 2001/1, pp. 17-30.
- “Goodhart’s Law, in Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

Random quote

The forced imposition of mathematical and mensurative methods has gradually led to a situation in which certain sciences no longer ask what is worth knowing but regard as worth knowing only what is measurable.

                                                                            Karl Mannheim (1893-1947)