Random quote
Don't forget: Whoever allows an injustice to continue for long is preparing the way for the next one.

Willy Brandt (1913-1992)

Photo taken in Lille, France

The cows and their pasture

A farmer was not satisfied with his piece of land. He wanted to have more. He thought: My neighbour has such good fertile land, he will not miss it, if I’ll take strip of it. So, on a moonless pitch-dark night, he took a spade, left his farm, walked to the border of his land, and moved the fence that separated his land and his neighbour’s a few tens of metres. In this way the farmer added a strip to his own terrain. In order to be sure that it was allowed to do so, the farmer asked the cows on his new strip of land what they thought of this change. The cows became afraid, for they saw that there was no going back, because the fence had already been moved behind their backs. Might the farmer not bring them to the butcher? And hoping that this would not happen, they said “moo” and the farmer understood that the cows agreed with the change, or so he thought.
The next morning the farmer’s neighbour woke up early in the morning and he got a shock, for he saw what had happened, and he became very angry. But what to do about it? For his neighbour the robber had not only more cows (for his neighbour had more extensive pastures and meadows), he had also more butchers. Nevertheless the farmer whose land had been stolen said: I am gong to kick that scoundrel off my land. So he went to his friends and asked them to send butchers in order to help him and to send knives as well. However, his friends said: We’ll not send you butchers, for we are afraid that they’ll be killed and that it will make your neighbour angry with us, what we don’t want to happen, but we do have very good knives. Our knives are much better than your neighbour’s knives. His knives are blunt, while ours are sharp, and also the steel of our knives is much better. So it happened that the farmer whose land had been stolen got many knives of very good quality, and his butchers began to chase his neighbour’s butchers away and to put the fence back to where it stood before, for the knives the farmer had received were much better indeed. And the cows mooed again, for they were very happy that the old situation was restored, for they loved their farmer.
The upshot is: Don’t rob your neighbour if your knives aren’t sharp.

Random quote
The first essential step on the road to total domination is to kill the juridical person in man. This [is] done, on the one hand, by putting certain categories of people outside the protection of the law and forcing at the same time, through the instrument of denationalization, the nontotalitarian world into recognition of lawlessness; it [is] done, on the other hand, by placing the concentration camp outside the normal penal system, and by selecting its inmates outside the juridical procedure in which a definite crime entails a predictable penalty.

Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) 

Types of noise

In my blog about “noise” last week, I did as if there is only one type of noise. Also Kahneman et al. do so in the beginning of their book Noise. In fact, there are several types of noise. It is important to know them, if you want to reduce noise, for each type requires a different approach. This blog explains these types of noise. If you want to talk about these types of noise in general terms, you can use the term system noise: variability in judgments of the same case, anyhow.
Kahneman et al. often use judicial cases, so let me start doing so as well. In court there are no objective judgments for comparable cases, for a judgment does not only depend on the objective facts of the case (like that a man with a white collar job who steals € 10,000 always is sentenced to one month in prison, or to a fine of € 5,000 euros), but a judge is supposed to consider the circumstances of the crime (did the man steal for the first time or is he a recidivist; does he really need the money, for instance, because he cannot pay the rising energy prices or does he have a big bank account; etc.). Nevertheless, some judges have the reputation for being harsher than average and others for being more lenient. Such a deviation from the average is called level noise: The judgments of several judges are scattered around the (virtual) average judgment of comparable cases (the virtual “right judgment”, as we could say). Of course, we can wonder whether there really exists a right judgment or, generally, a right decision in a case where we must decide, but there is no denying that on average some people are harsher in their judgments than others; some are always more optimistic when they must decide and others are more pessimistic; and so on. It is often unwished-for; it is something we want to avoid, since it is noise.
Even though some judges are harsher on average and other judges more lenient; even though some deciders are more optimistic on average and others more pessimistic; even then there is variation in this “harshness” or “optimism” depending on the case at hand. A certain judge may be generally harsher than average but relatively more lenient towards, for instance, white-collar criminals. A lenient judge may on average give harsher sentences to recidivists. A generally optimist sales manager may be pessimist when she must decide about future investments. In other words, whether judgments, decisions and what more are harsher, more optimistic, etc. than average is not once and for all so for a certain person: it depends also on the types of cases at hand. A harsh judge may judge some types of cases harsh, given his reputation, and other types of cases relatively lenient. There is often a kind of pattern in his harshness. Therefore, this type of noise is called pattern noise. Note that we are still talking about unwished-for deviations from virtually right judgments (decisions, or what the case may be), if many judges (deciders, etc.) would judge the case. This type of noise makes that your judgments or decisions are scattered around your decision style (harshness or leniency, for instance).
Then there is yet a quite banal kind of noise: occasion noise. All kinds of accidental and circumstantial factors may have an influence on what you judge and decide. To mention a few: fatigue; mental pressure; that the sun is shining or that it is a rainy day; that your daughter has birthday; that your favourite team has won. All such occasional factors and circumstances may influence your mood and can influence the way you judge and decide; in general the way you act. They make that your judgments or decisions are scattered around what you personally ideally (free from this kind of noise) would decide.
As we have seen, noise is not a unidimensional phenomenon. There are at least three kinds of noise. This has practical consequences, namely that there is not one method to reduce noise. So, although level noise and pattern noise may be reduced by a training that makes you aware of the problem, it will not reduce fatigue. On the other hand, sleeping well will not have an impact on the other kinds of noise. Although noise is a general problem, it requires a specific approach, not only according to type but also in agreement with the problem at hand, for deciding as a judge which judgement to pass is very different from deciding as a manager how much to invest, for instance.

Source
Daniel Kahneman, Oliver Sibony, Cass R. Sunstein, Noise. A Flaw in Human Judgment. London: William Collins, 2021; pp. 69-93.

Random quote
The little girl saw her first troop parade and asked, 
‘What are those?’
‘Soldiers.’
‘What are soldiers?’
‘They are for war. They fight and each tries to kill as many of the other side as he can.’
The girl held still and studied. 
‘Do you know ... I know something?’
‘Yes, what is it you know?’
‘Sometime they’ll give a war and nobody will come.

From The People, Yes (1936), an epic poem by Carl Sandburg (1878-1967) 

Noise

Recently I wrote a blog about Informational Cascades, after having read about it in the book Noise by Daniel Kahneman et al. Actually, I should have written about the main theme of the book in the first place, of course: Noise. According to the authors noise is a much ignored and neglected problem in research and in many daily practices when decisions must be taken. Noise must be distinguished from Bias, so the authors. Unlike noise, they say, bias does get much attention in decision practices. The reason is that bias is relatively easy to establish and to avoid, if you invest some time in doing so, while noise is often difficult to establish, and once you know that it is there, it is difficult to get a grip on it.
When reading the book I got the impression that it is a rather recently discovered problem, though the authors do not say so. Anyway, I remember that already when I studied sociology around 1970, my methodology books paid attention to the problem of noise and bias. However, then they had other names. Then it was called the problem of reliability and validity of measuring instruments (since we are talking about sociology, you must think of 5-point or 7-point measuring scales, questionnaires and the like, but in fact the problem applies to any measurement). A measuring instrument is called valid if it measures what it is supposed to measure, and it is called reliable if it gives the same result each time when it is used to measure the same object.
This brings us to the heart of the noise-bias distinction, for a reliable measuring instrument is noise-free and if it is a valid instrument it is bias-free. Preferably it is both. Instead of further clarifying the valid-reliable distinction, I’ll continue discussing the bias-noise distinction, since in fact it is the same.
Kahneman et al. give a clear example of the distinction and once you understand it, you know what bias and noise are and the rest is “only” the problem how to avoid them. Four teams of four archers go to an archery range. Each person does one shot. Ideally, each archer should hit the bull’s eye. These are the results for each team (for practical reasons I copied the figure from the Wikipedia):

As you can see in the figure, all members of team-a hit the bull’s eye. The result was accurate. The result of team-b was also accurate in a sense, because all team members hit the same point but the shots are systematically off the target. Therefore, we call the result biased. The results of team-c are all around the bull’s eye, but they are scattered around the target. Therefore, we call the team result noisy. The result of team-d is both systematically off the target and it is scattered around the wrong target point. Therefore, we call this team result biased and noisy at the same time. I think that this illustration makes clear what the essence of bias and noise is, especially if we summarize the concepts this way: Bias is systematic deviation, while noise is random scatter. The difference between bias and noise becomes especially clear, if we look at the back side of the targets the archers were shooting at (see the figure below):

If you didn’t know where the bull’s eye of the target is, you couldn’t know whether team-a or team-b was closer to the bull’s eye, but it will be clear to you that both the results of team-c and team-d are noisy. As Kahneman et al. say: “A general property of noise is that you can recognize and measure it while knowing nothing about the target of the bias.” Or in terms of validity and reliability: We don’t know whether the results of teams a and b are valid, but we do know that the results of teams c and d are not reliable. Once you know what the problem is, the question is how to solve it, which often is far from easy. However, this must not be a reason to ignore the problem, for it’s really important as some examples by Kahneman et al. show:
- Faced with the same patient different doctors often make different judgements.
- Case managers in child protection agencies often make mistakes in judging whether a child must be placed in foster care since there is a risk of abuse. Some managers are more likely to send a child to foster care than others. However, children wrongly assigned to foster care have poorer life outcomes, like delinquency rates.
- Weather forecasts are known to be noisy.
- Interviewers of job candidates make widely different assessments of the same people. Moreover, performance ratings of the employees depend more on the person doing the assessment than on the performance being assessed.

Source
Daniel Kahneman, Oliver Sibony, Cass R. Sunstein, Noise. A Flaw in Human Judgment. London: William Collins, 2021; pp. 3-7.

Random quote
When empty words are given capital letters, then, on the slightest pretext, men will begin shedding blood for them and piling up ruin in their name, without effectively grasping anything to which they refer, since what they refer to can never have any reality, for the simple reason that they mean nothing.

Simone Weil (1909-1943) 

Red herring

Since unsound argumentation and wrong reasoning are quite common and can have annoying consequences, I regularly pay attention to this problem. It’s not only for my readers but also for myself, for I, too, often make reasoning errors or don’t see it, when others make them. Some incorrect argumentations are logical mistakes. They are called formal fallacies. Other incorrect argumentations are not so much logically false but they employ crippled reasoning. They are called informal fallacies. Some crippled reasoning is not even that, and it may be even correct. I mean, the reasoning as such is correct but it has little to do with the question it is supposed to answer or the problem it is supposed to solve. From this point of view, there is no rhyme or reason in it. If this happens, the speaker or writer commits the red herring fallacy.
As said, the reasoning in a red herring argument as such need not to be false. It can also be intentionally put forward that way, for a red herring often serves as a way of distraction from the question or problem at stake. It is used as a diversionary tactic.
Let’s see what Heather Rivera in my book Bad Arguments says about it (see Reference): “A red herring is a distraction device and refers to an informal logical fallacy that distracts from the actual issue, allowing one to be sidetracked from what is actually happening and to draw a false conclusion.” (p. 208)
Often a red herring discussion runs as follows (compare p. 208):
1) Person 1 presents argument, issue or topic A.
2) Person 2 introduces argument, issue or topic B.
3) Argument, issue or topic A is abandoned or forgotten and the discussion goes on about argument, issue or topic B.
Red herrings belong to the most frequent informal fallacies. They happen in many discussions and interviews. Let me quote again Rivera: “This [the 3-step argumentation given above] occurs on a daily basis when a reporter or journalist asks the typical politician a question related to one issue (complete with its associated argument), and the politician responds with a wholly different – but often compelling – issue (complete with an associated argument.” (p. 209)
This time I’ll not illustrate my blog with an example, but I’ll ask you to do something: The next time you see an interview with a politician, on TV, on the Internet or in real, just listen whether the person interviewed really answers the questions asked or whether he or she instead (so without answering the questions asked) leads the conversation to a theme s/he wants to talk about or simply leads the interview away from a theme s/he doesn’t want to talk about. If so, the politician throws a red herring to you. Of course, after having read this blog you’ll not pick it up, for you have become wiser. You know now that s/he tries to mislead you, intentionally, or, unintentionally, for example, because s/he is not smart enough to understand the question asked. And what does the interviewer do? Does s/he see that the interview is going the wrong way?

Reference

Arp, Robert; Steven Barbone; Michael Bruce (eds.), Bad arguments. 100 of the most important fallacies in Western philosophy. Oxford, etc.: Wiley Blackwell, 2019. Especially Heather Rivera, “Red Herring”, pp. 208-210. 

Random quote
We call on our right to physical integrity to maintain unlimited freedom to expose other people to infection by a life-threatening virus. We then claim a right to care if we become ill ourselves without shame about the care that is being withheld from others.

Govert den Hartogh (1943)

Why do we wear clothes?

Do animals not wear clothes?

Montaigne writes about all aspects of life. He writes about how we live and how to live. Or he writes about practical aspects of life, for example, that it would be useful if each town had a central information point where you can get all the information you need. (see my blog last week) Montaigne writes also about aspects of life that are so obvious that they are ignored by most of us. In this sense the Essays are also a kind of philosophy of daily life in the style as later elaborated by, for instance, Michel de Certeau (see for example here). This branch of philosophy discusses common if not banal aspects of daily life that are ignored most of the time but that belong to the constitutive aspects of who we are. Essay I-36, Of the custom of clothing oneself, is a case in point.
In this essay I-36 Montaigne wonders why actually we wear clothes. Isn’t it strange that while animals and plants live on this earth with the skin uncovered, “it is incredible that we only are brought into the world in a defective and indigent condition, and in such a state as cannot subsist without external aid.” Plants and animals don’t need clothes to protect themselves, and therefore Montaigne thinks that it is a human defect that we need them. That’s also what once many who have discussed the problem often thought. But is it really so?
To my mind, Montaigne actually doesn’t come to the point in this essay, which is – as so many essays – rather casuistic and gives only examples of persons and people who do or do not wear clothes in certain – often the same – circumstances. It’s true, Montaigne makes us aware of a fact of human life that belongs to the human condition, but it is not more than that. Anyway, after having stated that plants and animals are better adapted to nature than humans are, just because they do not wear clothes or another cover, Montaigne observes that “… of those nations who have no manner of knowledge of clothing, some are situated under the same temperature that we are, and some in much colder climates.” At first sight this observation says that clothes are actually not necessary. However, another reading of this passage says, I think, just why we are better adapted than plants and animals that have no other choice than to go naked: Clothes make it possible to adapt to the environment according to your personal wishes. And although in certain climates clothes may seem superfluous, they make it possible to live in climates in which humans without clothes cannot live. In other words, clothes extend the life possibilities. They are not a defect but an improvement of the human condition and they are one of the factors that have made human beings so successful.
I could go on with my close reading of this essay and show that Montaigne, implicitly and without being aware of it himself, points to other functions of clothes as well. See for example Montaigne’s statement “I observe much greater distance betwixt my habit and that of one of our country boors, than betwixt his and that of a man who has no other covering but his skin.” Or, “The Romans fought at a very great disadvantage, in the engagement they had with the Carthaginians near Piacenza, by reason that they went to the charge with their blood congealed and their limbs numbed with cold, whereas Hannibal had caused great fires to be dispersed quite through his camp to warm his soldiers, and oil to be distributed amongst them, to the end that anointing themselves, they might render their nerves more supple and active, and fortify the pores against the violence of the air and freezing wind, which raged in that season.” Such and other observations just point to reasons why clothes are important for humans and why humans can use clothes for certain practical – and also social and personal – functions that do not exist for plants and animals. However, I’ll limit myself to mentioning the most important functions of clothes:
- Protection. This can be a protection against the climate, against the actual weather conditions but also the kind of protection given by work clothes, such as gloves protecting your hands against scratches, the helmet of a cyclist or the clothes of a fireman.
- Identification, like the uniform of a police officer or the club outfit of a sports team.
- Modesty: The clothes you wear for a certain occasion like a feast or a funeral.
- Status: Clothes used to express your rank or position in society. What is actually the same: the clothes you wear to express the group you identify with, like wearing casual clothes or a suit, not on a certain occasion but for indicating your reference group.
- Adornment. Despite the functions just mentioned, in many cases personal variation in colour and style of clothes is possible in order to express personal taste and appearance.
It will not be difficult to find more functions that clothes have. All this makes clear that far from being a defect in the human condition, cloths create possibilities and they are an expression of human adaptation and human culture.

Random quote
Terror is a weapon that cuts on one side. It always has more control over those who want to retain their freedom and happiness than those who want to destroy it.

Simone Weil (1909-1943)

A defect in our social system

You may wonder whether there is moral advancement in history, but one thing is sure: many practical problems have been solved that once seemed insolvable; or existing solutions have been improved. Of course, I knew, but again I became aware of how times have changed, when I happened to read again Montaigne’s short essay “Of a defect in our government” (Essays Book I-35). In this essay Montaigne tells us that his father got the idea that every city should have an official that could give you all the information you needed. “For example: I want a chapman to buy my pearls; I want one that has pearls to sell; such a one wants company to go to Paris; such a one seeks a servant of such a quality; such a one a master; such a one such an artificer; some inquiring for one thing, some for another, every one according to what he wants. And doubtless, these mutual advertisements would be of no contemptible advantage to the public correspondence and intelligence: for there are evermore conditions that hunt after one another, and for want of knowing one another’s occasions leave men in very great necessity.” And indeed, when I grew up five centuries after Montaigne wrote these words, much had already been improved, and there were many people that could quickly give you the information you needed. But often you had yet to go to their offices or at least call them up. Moreover, the information was spread, so not concentrated in one person. However, since twenty-five years or so there is a simple solution for this information problem, a solution neither Montaigne nor his father would ever have dreamt of: The Internet. The nice thing about the internet is not only that you have a central point where you can get the information you need, as proposed by Montaigne’s father. But more, you have this “information office” at home and you can consult it any day and any time you like.
Also the two other defects Montaigne mentioned in this essay can simply be solved by the same technology. Montaigne mentions two scholars, one in Italy and one in Germany, who died of hunger, because no one helped them. But he adds: “I believe there are a thousand men who would have invited them into their families, with very advantageous conditions, or have relieved them where they were, had they known their wants.” Who wouldn’t be prepared to help such “rare and remarkable persons”, so Montaigne (and I think, also persons who are less “rare and remarkable”)? Also in such cases, without doubt, a call on Facebook or other social media website would certainly help to find a solution, for example by starting a crowd funding action.
The last problem mentioned by Montaigne actually tells us more about the man himself than about the problem, for Montaigne did know a solution but he simply didn’t use it. His father had engaged a secretary “to keep a journal, and in it to set down all the remarkable occurrences, and daily memorials of the history of his house”, like what happened in his castle, which works had been completed, who visited the castle, which travels Montaigne’s father and his family had made, which marriages had taken place in the castle, and so on. So this secretary kept a kind of diary of the family life and the castle. But apparently Montaigne was too lazy to do so and later he wrote “I did very foolishly in neglecting it.” But could he have used a computer, laptop or smartphone, wouldn’t the task haven’t been much simpler? Even more, many of your life events are automatically registered by the modern media and technology and doesn’t Facebook remind you again and again of what happened a year ago or who knows when?
Modern times, modern solutions. However, though in Montaigne’s days the problem was how to get the information you needed, now the problem is how to get rid of it. For it is not only so that you basically know everything about everything and everybody, but everybody also knows everything about you. 

Random quote
In a group, confident people have more weight than others, even if they have no reason to be confident.

Daniel Kahneman, Oliver Sibony, Cass R. Sunstein 

Informational cascades

Skógafoss, Iceland

Sometimes we make our own decisions; sometimes we follow a decision taken by someone else. There can be good reasons for following another person, but if an agent makes a decision based on what another person does without regard to his own private information, just because s/he thinks that what the other decides must be right, and if other agents do so as well, then we are in an informational cascade (or information cascade).
Let’s take an example (from Noise by Daniel Kahneman et al. pp. 100-103). Ten people must decide whom to hire for an important position. There are three candidates and the members of the group announce their views in sequence. Arthur speaks first and sees Thomas as the best choice. Then Barbara speaks. She is not sure that Thomas is the best choice but is unsure who is. She trusts Arthur and so she chooses Thomas as well. Next it’s Charles’s turn. He thinks that Thomas is not a good candidate but that Julie is. Nevertheless, he also chooses Thomas, not because he feels under pressure and doesn’t have the courage to give a different opinion, but because he thinks that Arthur and Barbara have good reasons for their choices. Unless David, person 4, has strong reasons against the choice of Thomas, probably he’ll follow the others before him. If so, then we are in a cascade. Etc.
Informational cascades are also a much happening economic phenomenon. Here is an example, taken from the Investopedia: Someone might think that a certain financial pundit has more knowledge and information than he himself has. Therefore, he imitates the pundit’s stock picks. A neighbour observes him boasting about his stock picks, and she also picks the same stocks. Another neighbour notices that both people chose the same stocks and assumes that those stocks must be good picks, simply because more than one person has picked them. An informational cascade has begun, and all of the participants have very little information to back up their decision-making.
Informational cascades also happen in daily life. A group of friends wants to go out to eat together. Each one of the friends has his or her preferences where to go. One proposes a restaurant and the others agree.
There are several conditions that make that we can speak of an informational cascade (see here and here):
- There is a decision to be made; agents make the decision sequentially, and each agent can observe the choices made by those who acted earlier.
- A limited action space exists (e.g. an adopt/reject decision).
- Agents make decisions rationally based on the – usually limited – information they have.
- Agents do not have access to the private information of others.
Note that each decision is based on the information the agent has and that the agent is not deciding under group pressure. Maybe s/he has some doubts about the group decision, but in fact s/he trusts that the others are right and actually the agent lacks good reasons that they are not. Otherwise s/he would have said so. From this point of view, it’s not necessarily irrational for the later deciding agents to follow the decision others have already expressed. If you are not really sure what to do, it may be smart to follow the others.
Nevertheless, an informational cascade is not unproblematic. First, if another agent would have expressed his or her choice first, another decision might have been taken by the group; or, second, if the first agent also was not really sure what to decide, s/he might have taken another decision. So the final decision can be the result of the arbitrary decision of the person speaking first. Third, people tend to ignore that other agents are in the same informational cascade and are not deciding independently. They may think that there is some crowd wisdom, while in fact they follow the initial view of the first decider. Fourth, the decision of the first decider may be completely wrong with possible nasty consequences if everybody follows this person.
Although the decision procedure just sketched is far from uncommon, it is risky. Note that it is a procedure that is applied in a situation in which the agents are not really sure what to do and that their decisions are sequentially taken and known to everybody. In such a situation the final decision tends to be arbitrary and can even have fatal consequences. Market leaders can be the source of much financial if not economic harm, if others mistakenly think that they have the right information and therefore follow them. It is also possible that a decider is not reliable, and a non-reliable agent who wants to manipulate a decision to his or her advantage can try to be the one who decides first, hoping that others will follow. Or, a committee can take the wrong decision, such as hiring the wrong person, if it uses a sequential decision procedure and gets into a cascade. Or friends can go to the wrong restaurant. One solution to avoid an informational cascade is to vote by secret ballot, but this doesn’t work in a financial market. Then we come to such solutions as think twice before you act. However, informational cascades can also have positive effects. The fall of the German Democratic Republic in 1989 was the result of initially small protests in Leipzig that gradually grew because more and more people decided to join, just because others did. People followed other people without really knowing whether to do so was right, in the sense that the protests could have led to a massacre as well. Informational cascades are fragile phenomena.

Sources: The references quoted in the text.

Random quote
The average expert is roughly as accurate as a dart-throwing chimpanzee

Philip E. Tetlock (1954-)

Why I become tired, when I write a blog

I often make a bike ride. When I ride with an easy speed and the distance is not long, afterwards I feel relaxed. When I ride a long distance with a fast speed, I feel tired at the end. We think it’s normal that making a great physical effort makes you tired. It is because your muscles become filled with lactic acid, which must be cleared up in order to feel fresh and rested again.
Once a week I write a blog. When I have finished it, I feel tired, for usually it is a hard job. So, afterwards I want to relax, for instance by making an easy bike ride. But why do I feel tired? Most of the time I sat down in my chair and only my fingers moved a little bit in order to type my blog and to do a few internet searches. Nonetheless, I feel tired. Even more, mentally tired people who must take decisions, like chess players, are going to make mistakes, just because they are tired; types of mistakes they wouldn’t make with a fresh mind. How come?
Several explanations have been given why thinking makes you tired. Actually, you are not tired but bored, some say. You want to do something else and so your brain tells you that you are tired. Or, another explanation, the deeper you go into a problem, the more complicated it seems, so that’s why you are going to make mistakes. It’s a way to explain mistakes made by chess players. At the beginning of a game they can use their routine, but later on they must rely on their insight and then they can fail. Other explanations for mental fatigue have been suggested as well. However, a group of French researchers didn’t find the existing explanations very satisfying, so they developed their own approach. Let’s look in the brain and see what happens if people get mentally tired, they thought, and they developed relevant tests. If you make a light physical or mental effort, you don’t become tired, but you do if your effort is hard. Maybe, you become mentally tired because some stuff piles up in your brain when you are thinking, which makes that you feel fatigue; just as in the case of a physical effort like cycling. Therefore, these researchers developed a light and a difficult version of the same mental task and watched the brains of their test persons and looked what happened; moreover, they looked at the reaction of the pupils. The task chosen lasted several hours. For watching into the brains of the test persons, they used an MRS scanner (MRS = magnetic resonance spectroscopy). With such a scanner you can see what happens with the blood currents and the chemistry in the brain, when the test person is active or passive.
What did they find? Indeed, becoming tired when doing a mental task is not a mental affaire, but it is as physical as becoming tired in your legs when cycling. There were clear differences between the test persons that did a light task (and didn’t become tired) and those who did a hard task (which made them tired). The researchers saw signs of fatigue, including reduced pupil dilation, only in the latter group. Those in that group also showed in their choices a shift toward options proposing rewards at short delay with little effort. But most important, they had higher levels of glutamate in synapses of the brain’s prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain in the forehead where decisions are taken. These results made the researchers conclude, together with earlier evidence, that it is likely that glutamate accumulation makes further activation of the prefrontal cortex more costly, such that cognitive control is more difficult after a mentally tough workday. In other words, glutamate poisons your brain and that’s why it disturbs your thinking. Only after it has been cleared up, you feel fresh and rested again. Actually, there is not much difference between feeling physical and mental fatigue. The difference is in the details and the solution is also the same, and actually not really surprising: take a rest or take a nap. And if you are really tired, go to bed. The conclusion feels like kicking open an open door. Nevertheless, it isn’t. People often think: I am tired, the task must be done. And they go on till the job has finished. Maybe, they even think that feeling mentally tired is an illusion, and anyway that it’s not that bad (think of doctors, at the end of a workday). Maybe, there are other reasons to go on, but from a psychological point of view it’s a bad idea: It’s almost sure that mistakes will be made. Fatigue is an objective real phenomenon with a physical base. So, avoid making important decisions when you are tired.
The knowledge from this study (and from future research) can also help to tackle mental problems. For example, the researchers say, monitoring of prefrontal metabolites could help to detect severe mental fatigue. Such an ability may help adjust work agendas to avoid burnout. In future studies, the researchers hope to learn why the prefrontal cortex seems especially susceptible to glutamate accumulation and fatigue. They’re also curious to learn whether the same markers of fatigue in the brain may predict recovery from health conditions, such as depression or cancer.
So, now you understand why I am tired, when I have written a blog.

Sources
- “Why thinking hard makes you tired”, Cell Press (here and there above literally quoted or paraphrased)
- Antonius Wiehler et al. “A neuro-metabolic account of why daylong cognitive work alters the control of economic decisions”

Random quote
The ego is the product of the development of the personality and not - as many psychologists assume - the producer of the personality.

Gerhard Roth (1942-)

Killed in action, 18 years young

I assume that you have guessed from my mini-blog about Wilfred Owen that I have been in France recently and that I have visited his grave. I published this short mini-blog because I had no time to write a real blog but didn’t want you to be too long without one.
In fact, I didn’t go to France for visiting Owen’s grave, for when I left home, I hadn’t realized that it was not far from where I had planned to stay. However, my trip had to do with the cause Owen had died for, for I went to the battlefields east of Reims, in the north of France. The region around Reims is called Champagne. It is known by most people for its wine, but those interested in the First World War know that there has been heavy fighting in the region, especially in 1915. These fights are known as the First and Second Battles of Champagne. I have a website with photos of World War One monuments and just photos related to these battles yet failed there; so a good reason to go there this summer.
As everywhere along the former front line in Northern France and Belgium, also the region east of Reims is full of war monuments and traces of World War One. Most important is the War Memorial for the Armies of Champagne near Sainte-Marie-à-Py, but, as everywhere along the former Western Front, most striking is the big number of war cemeteries. Only in these two battles more than 100,000 French soldiers plus the same number of German soldiers died. Some cemeteries are only for French soldiers, other ones are for German soldiers and again other ones are mixed in the sense that they have sections for both nationalities. Some soldiers got individual graves and other soldiers have been buried in mass graves, especially those killed in the beginning of the war. Most soldiers are known by name but some have a stone or cross with the inscription that an unknown soldier lies there. When I am in the former war zone, I always visit several war cemeteries. I walk along the crosses and stones, read some of the names, when they died and how old they were. Most were in their twenties. Sometimes I read also the book with names which is always there and sometimes I also sign the guestbook.
In the meantime, I had discovered that Wilfred Owen had been buried not far from where we stayed, but more to the north, in Ors in the Nord Department. So after having been a week in Champagne my wife and I decided to spend there the last days of our trip and to visit Owen’s grave.
Wilfred Owen has been buried in the British section of the Ors Communal Cemetery. He was killed while he was encouraging his men when they tried to cross the Oise-Sambre Canal. Owen had previously been treated for “shell shock” in a psychiatric hospital and needn’t to go back to war, but he chose to do so since he felt guilty because his comrades were fighting and run the risk to be killed, while he was safe in England. Owen was killed on the 4th November 1918, one week before the war ended.
It was easy to find his grave in the Ors Communal Cemetery, since there had been put a few little crosses in front of the stone by admirers. It was in the last row of the British section, third from the left. Owen was 25 years old when killed, so he was quite young. On a gravestone more to the right, I read the name of a captain who died 42 years old. Then I read the gravestone just left of Owen’s final rest-place: 63554 Private W.E. Duckworth, Lancashire Fusiliers, 4th November 1918 Age 18. I got a shock. Of course I know, that such young people had been sent to this war and had been killed there, but nevertheless I was shocked. Owen was with his 25 years already very young when he was killed, but 18 years? This private was actually yet a child, when he died. 18 years old was so young! Who was this man; who was this child? A quick internet search taught me that this private was William Edward Duckworth, son of William and Sarah Duckworth, of 99, Warwick Rd., Carlisle. I didn’t find his date of birth, but since William Edward was yet so young, I assume that he lived yet with his parents when he left for war and so that he was also from Carlisle. But then the question remains: Why did he go to war? Of course, I know that it happened much then that such young boys went to war and that many went by their own choice. But even then, who has sent such young boys, children yet, to the battlefields?
But not only then, still today children are sent to war. The problem of child soldiers is a widespread evil. But also if a soldier is “already” 18 years old and officially no child any longer, in many respects he still is. Mentally, 18-years-olds still aren’t fully grown-up. And do they know enough about the world to bear the responsibility of a soldier in action and are they mature enough to be exposed to war risks? And what will be the consequences for a society that sees its young people lost and so will see a literally lost generation?
But times have not changed and times are not changing. Yet-nearly-children are still sent to war, like in Ukraine – by both sides – and elsewhere in the world. Still children and nearly-children are killed in action, physically or mentally.

Random quote
War broke: and now the Winter of the world
With perishing great darkness closes in.

Wilfred Owen (1893-1918) 

Wilfred Owen

Recently I was in Ors in Northern France, where the famous British war Poet Wilfred Owen (1893-1918) was killed in action, on 4 November 1918, one week before the end of the First World War. I visited his grave there on the Communal Cemetery, where on request of his mother these words had been written on the stone:

“Shall Life renew these bodies? Of a truth
All death will he annul”

At first sight, these words, which are from a poem by Owen, make you think that he believed in a life after death, but the poem itself suggests just the opposite, since the full second sentence is:
“All death will he annul, all tears assuage?” Just the question mark shows that Owen probably did not believe in an after-life. Why then did his mother select these words?

Here is the complete poem, which is still worth to read in view of the Russian Ukraine War and all other wars that are still waging in this world:

The End
After the blast of lightning from the east,
The flourish of loud clouds, the Chariot throne,
After the drums of time have rolled and ceased
And from the bronze west long retreat is blown,

Shall Life renew these bodies? Of a truth
All death will he annul, all tears assuage?
Or fill these void veins full again with youth
And wash with an immortal water age?

When I do ask white Age, he saith not so,—
“My head hangs weighted with snow.”
And when I hearken to the Earth she saith
“My fiery heart sinks aching. It is death.
Mine ancient scars shall not be glorified
Nor my titanic tears the seas be dried.”

 

Prejudices and rational thinking

I took these two examples from Steven Pinker’s book Rationality (p. 294):

1) If college admissions are fair, then affirmative action laws are no longer necessary.
College admissions are not fair.
Therefore, affirmative action laws are necessary.
[affirmative action laws: laws to improve employment or educational opportunities for members of minority groups and for women]

2) If less severe punishments deter people from committing crime, then capital punishment should not be used.
Less severe punishments do not deter people from committing crime.
Therefore, capital punishment should be used.

What do you think: Are these arguments sound? Well, if you are progressive (in European terms) or liberal (in American terms), probably you’ll think that the first reasoning is sound (correct) and that the second one is unsound (false). On the other hand, if you are conservative (and in Europe rather ultra-right), probably you’ll think that the first reasoning is not correct while the second reasoning is okay. (see Pinker, p. 294) Apparently, the truth of the reasonings above depends on your political stand. Right?

In order to investigate this question, take this example:

3) If it rains, the streets become wet.
It doesn’t rain.
Therefore the streets don’t become wet.

What do you think of example 3? Hmm, you’ll think, whether you are progressive, liberal, conservative or ultra-right, that 3) need not be true, for it is quite well possible that a car sweeping and cleaning the streets passes, and that this car uses water to clean the streets, which makes the streets wet. Therefore, the streets can be wet, although it hasn’t rained. So argument 3 is unsound, isn’t it?

Let me now reformulate example 3 in order to bring it in line with examples 1 and 2. Let me replace “wet” by “not dry” and “not wet” by “dry”:

4) If it rains, the streets don’t stay dry.
It doesn’t rain.
Therefore the streets stay dry.

For the same reason why argument 3 was unsound, also argument 4 is unsound, so false: It is quite well possible that a car sweeping and cleaning the streets passes and that this car uses water to clean the streets, so that the streets don’t stay dry.
We can argument 4 also write this way, by replacing “it rains” by “P” and “the street stays dry” by “Q”. Then we get:

5) If P then not Q
Not P
Therefore Q

As we just have seen, this argument is unsound (false).

Let us now return to examples 1 and 2. A close look at them makes clear that both 1) and 2) have the form of the unsound argument 5. For instance, in example 1 “college admissions are fair” is “P” and “affirmative action laws are necessary” is “Q”. I leave it to you to fill in P and Q for example 2. Therefore, since reasoning 5 is unsound, also examples 1 and 2 contain unsound reasonings, despite your political stand. However, we often see that, as soon as a reasoning becomes a little bit complicated or a little bit obscure and difficult to follow without thinking a little bit deeper, people stop thinking. Or people do not simply think “That cannot be right, or maybe it nevertheless is? Let’s find out what the problem is.” No, they think “This should not be right, and therefore it isn’t.” (or “This should be right, and therefore it is.”) Then they stop thinking further and adapt the facts to what they think that the facts are. In other words, they found their reasoning and view of the facts on prejudices. They walk into the trap of the “myside bias” (Pinker’s term), often with open eyes. I am the first to admit that I, too, regularly make this type of mistake, for reasonings are often not really clear and easy to get a grip on. Often prejudices commandeer the mind. So, people tend to think what they think that they must think for all kinds of reasons, for example because they really, “autonomously” think so; under group pressure; or because they have learned to do so; or from habit; etc. All kinds of people suffer from the myside bias, despite race, gender, cognitive style, education level, whether you are a logician or not, etc. You can see the phenomenon everywhere, like in the pandemic discussions, the view of the Russia-Ukraine War, the value of simple political measures, and what more. Open your mind to what you don’t believe.

Random quote
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.

Philip K. Dick (1928-1982)

Unintended and unanticipated consequences of action

In my blog on the unintended consequences of actions last week, sometimes I spoke of the unintended consequences of actions and, following Robert K. Merton, sometimes of their unanticipated consequences. By using these terms interchangeably, actually I mixed up two types of effects. For what is unintended need not be unanticipated. What is unintended can both be anticipated (polluting the environment when driving your car), as unanticipated (some shortcuts are closed for cars during certain hours of the day, if too many drivers use them during rush hours). On the other hand, what is unanticipated can be unintended (that the shortcut is closed during rush hours) but it doesn’t need to be so (if you take your bike for saving the environment, your physical condition becomes better, and that’s just why you recently joined a fitness club). The latter example makes clear that unintended and/or unanticipated action consequences need not be undesirable. The terms say only something about how we perceive them, not about how we value them, and unintended and unanticipated consequences of actions can be negative as well as positive.

This little analysis helps to plan and evaluate actions in view of their side-effects. Let me discuss again the points just mentioned for getting a better oversight. I’ll add some short characterizations of the different possibilities.
I) If successful, an action has intended and anticipated consequences. We call them the purpose of the action. No surprise, of course, for that was what we were acting for.
II) However, an action can have a range of side-effects, as we just have seen:
a) unintended unanticipated consequences
- positive: good luck or unexpected benefit
- negative: bad luck or unexpected drawback
b) unintended anticipated consequences
- positive: bonus
- negative: resignation
c) intended unanticipated consequences
- positive: good fortune
- negative: doesn’t happen, for who is striving for ill fortune?
(if you prefer a schematic overview of the consequence of actions, although different in some respects, go here)

All this is yet relatively simple, although complicated enough, in case you are going to analyse real actions before they happen, since most practical situations are rather complex and cannot be surveyed in detail, for instance because the details are unknown. That’s just why actions always have unintended and/or unanticipated consequences that are not part of the agent’s purpose (the “law of unintended consequences” – see my blog last week). Matters become even more complicated if we must allow for possible recursive effects of the unintended and/or unanticipated consequences of what we intend to achieve with our action. Here, I want to mention only one, but very important recursive effect, that can even frustrate your action purpose: the perverse action consequence. It is an often-happening unintended unanticipated action effect. We call a negative action consequence perverse if it has not only negative consequences for others and for the (social) environment, but if it makes more difficult if not prevents your action purpose being reached or even makes the matter worse than before the action involved was performed. The boycott of Russian oil and gas mentioned in my last blog is a case in point. I quote (with one correction in view of the present blog): “As a way to stop the Russian attack on Ukraine the western countries have imposed a boycott of gas and oil against Russia. The idea is that it will deprive Russia of an important source of income. However, a perverse consequence of the boycott is that world market gas and oil prices have become so high that, despite the boycott, Russia earns more on energy than before the boycott was imposed.” At least the short-term consequence of the gas and oil boycott is perverse. Whether it will be so in the long run, cannot yet be foreseen because of possible unintended and unanticipated consequences.

Random quote
Modern universities … have been at the forefront of finding ways to suppress opinions, including disinviting and drowning out speakers, removing controversial teachers from the classroom, revoking offers of jobs and support, expunging contentious articles from archives, and classifying differences of opinion as punishable harassment and discrimination.

Steven Pinker (1954-)

Unintended consequences of action

Most of my readers will have heard of the pork cycle, also called hog cycle or cattle cycle. In short, it’s this: You are a pig farmer and the prices of pigs are high, so you decide to breed more pigs. However, you are not the only farmer that gets the idea and most pig farmers in your region decide to breed more pigs. As a result, by the time that the pigs must be sold the supply of pigs is that high that the price has become low. But that’s not what the farmers intended when they decided to breed more pigs and it’s not what they had foreseen.
The case just described is an instance of a so-called unintended consequence of action, in this case in the version of Adam Smith: an “invisible hand” guides the pig market in a way that is not foreseen and not intended by the individual pig farmers who invested in their farms hoping to get high prices for their product.
Here is an individual example: You use your car to go to work. However, your car pollutes the environment. It’s not what you want, but you know no other means to go to your work place. It’s too far to go by bike, and no bus or train goes there. So, polluting the environment is an unintended consequence of your drive to work.
The idea of unintended consequences of what we do has first been discussed by John Locke, more than 400 years ago, but it has become a much-discussed theme in sociology and philosophy since, in 1936, the American sociologist Robert K. Merton published his article “The unanticipated consequences of purposeful social action”. He discussed several types of, what he called, “unanticipated consequences” of action. Moreover, he analysed five causes why they may happen:
- ignorance
- errors in analysis of the problem
- short-term interests which are seen as more important than long-term interests
- basic values which may make that one avoids tackling long-term consequences of the action
- self-defeating prophecy: people try to stop expected negative consequences of an action before they happen. Or, to say it in another way, the expected and planned consequence of an action doesn’t happen because people hit by the action react in an unexpected way.
Especially the first three factors are important. Once you are aware of the idea that unintended consequences of what you do may happen, it is to be expected that most of them can be avoided (if you don’t want them) by a thorough analysis before you act. Nevertheless many situations are so complicated that it is hardly possible to analyse the consequences of acting in detail. Anyway, unintended consequences of action are that common that there seems to be a “law of unintended consequences”: Any action has results that are not part of the agent’s purpose.
Are you responsible for the unintended consequence of your actions? I think that it depends on the action and its consequences. Some unintended consequences are that important compared with the action itself that they must be taken into account before you act. Many people have been sentenced in court because they didn’t! In this context, the next case is important, which I have discussed before: A establishes a company, which has detrimental side effects for the environment. Another person, B, establishes also a company, but this company has positive side effects for the environment. Both A and B are only interested in the profitability of their companies, though they know about the side effects. Then usually people say that A hurts the environment intentionally, while they do not say that B helps the environment intentionally. Apparently, people think that you are responsible for the negative unintended consequences of what you do, while you aren’t for the positive consequences. It’s a thing you should take into account when you assess the consequences of an action.
That the problem of unintended action consequences is not to be ignored and is important to consider can be seen from the present rising oil and gas prices on the world energy market. As a way to stop the Russian attack on Ukraine the western countries have imposed a boycott of gas and oil against Russia. The idea is that it will deprive Russia of an important source of income. However, an unintended consequence of the boycott is that world market gas and oil prices have become so high that, despite the boycott, Russia earns more on energy than before the boycott was imposed. A thorough analysis of the problem might have prevented this unanticipated and unwanted effect resulting in a better thought-out plan of action.

Reference
Robert K. Merton, “The unanticipated consequences of purposeful social action” in American Sociological Review, Vol. 1, No. 6 (Dec. 1936), pp. 894-904.

Random quote
Among our fiercest problems today is convincing people to accept the solutions when we do find them.

Steven Pinker (1954-)

Does history repeat itself?

French war cemetery and ossuary Douaumont for soldiers killed
in the Battle of Verdun (1916) in the First World War

Sometimes I have the impression that history repeats itself; not in the sense of a feeling of déjà vu, which is not more than a feeling of recurrence, but in the sense of a real recurrence, albeit it adapted to the changed circumstances. Take for instance the present Russia-Ukraine War. First of all, it is a unique war in a unique time of history, the Nuclear Age. It’s also an almost direct clash between two superpowers, Russia and the USA, in which the latter is supported by its NATO allies. Moreover, it is a kind of border conflict between military powers in which one power – Russia – tries to regain lost territory, which was – in its view – illegally annexed by the other power, the USA and its allies. In that sense the war is not really new. Think of the Korean War (1950-1953) and the Vietnam War (1955-1975), which were the most important border conflicts between the superpowers after World War Two. Without a doubt there are resemblances between these wars and the Russia-Ukraine War, but that is not what I mean when I say that in the latter war history repeats itself. The differences between the three wars just mentioned are probably bigger than their similarities. No, what strikes me in the present Russia-Ukraine War is that it is not so much a recurrence o
f other border conflicts between great powers but of one of the most important direct clashes ever between big powers, namely the First World War (the “Great War”), which raged in Europe and in the world a century ago, between 1914 and 1918. The similarities between the Russia-Ukraine War and the First World War are the more striking, if you see the former not as a war between Russia and Ukraine but, as said, as a direct clash between the superpowers Russia and the USA and its allies. For isn’t it so that especially in the European Union (but also in Switzerland, which is not an EU member) they say that Ukraine fights “for us”; that it defends democracy against the authoritarian Russia “for us”?
Be it as it may, when saying that history repeats itself in this war, in the first place I think of the military events and less so of the political background. What then are the military similarities between the Russia-Ukraine War and the Great War? Here are the most important ones:
- In August 1914 Germany attacked France and Belgium, expecting that the resulting war would be short and that soon it could occupy Paris, just as in 1871. However, especially the Belgian resistance was stronger than expected. The German advance went slower than hoped and in the end was stopped at the First Battle of the Marne (5-12 September 1914). In the present Russia-Ukraine War also Russia thought to make a quick victory and that it could easily take Kiev, the Ukrainian capital. However, strong Ukrainian resistance and adverse conditions of the ground made that the attack was stopped.
- Frustrated by the Belgian and French resistance the often-inexperienced German troops committed war crimes by killing innocent civilians. In Ukraine we have seen the same: Frustrated by the Ukrainian resistance the often-inexperienced Russian troops committed war crimes by killing innocent civilians.
- After having lost the Battle of the Marne the German troops withdrew and took the best positions. After having been stopped in the Kiev area, the Russian troops withdrew from there and concentrated there where they now see the best chances to win.
- Since direct attacks had failed, the war switched to a kind of trench war: both sides dig in in trenches which function as lines of defence against attacks from the other side. We have seen this in World War One and we see it now in the Russia-Ukraine War.
- Since direct infantry attacks on trenches have no sense or are difficult, because the defenders are in the best position, artillery gets a significant role in breaking the resistance of the enemy and preparing infantry attacks.
So far the analogies between the present Russia-Ukraine War and the First World War. We don’t know how the present war will develop. But the First World War lasted long and became a war of attrition ending with a victory for France and its allies after many setbacks during the first war years. It will be in the future, whether the Russia-Ukraine War will develop in the same way. Anyway, some lessons can be learned from the parallels between both wars. Just as in 1914, also now in 2022 the attacking party overestimated its own strength and underestimated the strength (and the will power!) of the defending party. It is a general human mistake: Most people think that they are better, stronger, more powerful etc. than they really are. People overestimate themselves and think that they are better than average. It’s a common mistake in thought. People forget that as many people are better than average as there are worse. Even if they realize this logical truth, even then they think that they at least will succeed. But you can better be a pessimist of your own capacities, for whom we call a pessimist usually is a realist. And that is what we see again and again: Overoptimism is a recurrent fact in history. Another recurrent fact in history is that most of us ignore this fact. Then history repeats itself in the same old pitfalls.