Critical Thinking Study Guide PDF
Document Details
Uploaded by WellRegardedOphicleide8946
Tags
Summary
This PDF guide provides an introduction to critical thinking, discussing cognitive biases such as the self-serving bias, confirmation bias, and the better-than-average effect. It also touches upon topics such as motivation and emotion in the context of thinking and decision making.
Full Transcript
Chapters 9 and 11 Moral Judgment and intuition Most people object to “sibling sex” based on strong intuitions (a sense of revulsion) about incest. This judgment is thus a function of Type / System 1 thinking. The eCort to give reasons for why this is wrong confounds ou...
Chapters 9 and 11 Moral Judgment and intuition Most people object to “sibling sex” based on strong intuitions (a sense of revulsion) about incest. This judgment is thus a function of Type / System 1 thinking. The eCort to give reasons for why this is wrong confounds our Type 2 thinking, yet we make rationalizations all the same. This example also raises questions about how motivation, and emotion are related to thinking Goals and motivation Motivation involves arousing and directing behavior toward a goal. Motives can take the form of desires, wishes, and preferences. Some of the most basic human motives are the drives involving thirst, hunger and sex (securing the goals of self-preservation and species-preservation). Motivation, emotion, and cognition The relationships between motivation, emotion, and cognition are complicated, and psychologists still don’t have a complete understanding of their connections. Ie. in a radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds in 1938, many listeners believed that aliens were really attacking Earth. This shows that how we interpret an event (cognition) that poses a threat to survival (motivation) can lead to fear (emotion). Motivated reasoning Motivated reasoning refers to how reasoning is motivated to reach specific goals. The motive to arrive The motive to arrive at a particular, at an accurate favoured conclusion conclusion (type 2 (type 1 thinking). thinking). Making Judgments Unless people are This bias in favour of our prior incentivized to be accurate, beliefs can serve us well (if they are likely to make those beliefs are well- judgments that are consistent established), but can also with their prior beliefs. lead us astray. Self-serving bias Self-serving bias refers to the tendency for people to evaluate themselves favorably. Research suggests that this bias is found more frequently in Western cultures, and found less in Asia. This is probably because Western cultures are more individualistic, and self-esteem is an important value. Fundamental attribution error The FAE is a cognitive error that results from the self-serving bias. In a nutshell, people tend to attribute their success due to positive traits, skills, and hard work. BUT: people also tend to attribute their failures to exogenous, situational factors. Unfortunately, we often do precisely the opposite when evaluating others. Better Than Average The BTA eCect is another cognitive error based on self-serving bias. We tend to judge ourselves to be “above average” when it comes to positive or socially valued traits, like tolerance, or the ability to drive well. Bias Blind Spot The “better than average eCect” also means that people judge themselves less likely to be biased compared to their peers. Because we tend to be unaware of our own biases, we display a “bias blind spot.” We tend to overestimate our own critical thinking skills. Confirmation bias revisited Recall that confirmation bias is the tendency to search out and find evidence that confirms our prior beliefs. This is a common example of motivated reasoning. Countering the natural tendency to preserve our existing beliefs requires a deliberate eCort and can be psychologically uncomfortable. In Politics These cognitive errors show why, for example, it is diCicult for members of one political party to fairly assess the ideas of another party. It also shows why it is so diCicult for extreme ideologues to change their opinions. What evidence would you need to see in order to change your views about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? (A question for both sides) Cognitive dissonance People often experience cognitive dissonance when their beliefs or predictions are refuted, or if evidence is stronger for another position. People can also experience cognitive dissonance if their “side” in a conflict has committed egregious moral infractions. We tend to ignore the “bad stuC” our side has committed, and emphasize the “bad stuC” the other side committed. Emotion There are diCerent definitions, but very generally, an emotion is a mental state elicited by some state-of-aCairs (facts about the world). Emotions are often related to expressive behaviours, subjective experiences, motivated dispositions to behave in a certain way, and changes in physiological arousal. Think of the diCerences between joy and anger, for instance. Theories of emotions One prominent theory claims that we have a small set of basic emotions (happiness, interest, anger, sadness, disgust, and fear). These basic emotions are “natural kinds” and have a biological and evolutionary basis. This explains why people from diCerent cultures share the same facial expressions correlated with our basic emotions. Adaptive Functions If emotions evolved through natural selection, then they most likely serve an adaptive function. Fear, for instance, serves the function of motivating us to get away from danger and find a safe place. Interest helps us to explore the environment. Disgust protects us from eating rotting food. Physiological diEerences? Researches have not been able to show clear diCerences in physiological states correlated with basic emotions. This explains why polygraph tests (lie detectors), which measure “galvanic skin response,” do not produce reliable results. There is no particular pattern of physiological response that is correlated with lying. Phineas Gage Gage was a railroad foreman. In 1848, a tamping iron accidentally blasted through his head and high into the air. Remarkably, Gage never even lost consciousness, but his personality was dramatically changed. “Gage was not Gage” Before the accident, Gage was a responsible and reliable worker. Afterwards, he had diCiculty regulating his emotions, controlling his behavior, and making good decisions Young women were warned to stay away from him. Gage died several years later, unable to hold down a job. Studying the Case The Gage case first prompted speculation that diCerent parts of the brain perform diCerent, specialized functions. The tamping iron damaged Gage’s ventromedial prefrontal cortex, an area we now know helps to regulate decision making. It is the center of “executive function.” Elliot In another case, a man called Elliot had a large tumor removed from the ventromedial, prefrontal cortex and the orbitofrontal area. Before the surgery, Elliot was a successful businessman and happily married. Afterwards, he lost his businesses, got divorced, and married a prostitute. In later interviews, Elliot seemed cognitively “normal.” However, he lacked emotion. Poor Decisions While Gage was erratic and emotionally dysregulated, Elliot was the opposite. Both, however, were unable to make sound decisions. In both cases, the damaged regions of the brain meant that emotion-related information could not be properly processed throughout the brain’s limbic system. Comparing Cases In Gage’s case, the brain damage likely reduced inhibition in his limbic system, leading to his outbursts of emotion. The damage to Elliot’s brain also involved the orbitofrontal region, which is needed for perceiving the consequences of decisions. Both cases have helped neuroscientists understand that emotional processing is essential to rational decision-making. This upsets the old view (going back to Plato), that reason swings free of the emotions, and being reasonable requires no emotional input. Motivated reasoning revisited Brain research suggests that people seek to maximize positive aCect and minimize negative aCect (which seems pretty common-sensical). If so, then motivated reasoning is simply a strategy implemented by the brain to regulate emotion. This helps us to avoid psychological distress and feelings of dissonance. Working Together It turns out that diCerent emotions are not processed in distinct regions of the brain. Many regions of the brain interact in complex ways to process emotions. Alas, there is still a lot we simply don’t know about how all of this works. Once again, the phrenologists were wrong! Voluntary or involuntary? Many people assume that emotions are involuntary states that are beyond our control. (Think about “waking up on the wrong side of the bed.) On the other hand, reason is viewed as voluntary, completely under our executive control. This distinction is often taken for granted in the criminal justice system (think “crimes of passion”). But is it true? What is rationality? We might begin by claiming that rationality simply means following the norms and rules of good reasoning. But rationality is also goal-directed. A better definition: “thinking or using knowledge to attain goals.” (Knowledge is typically defined as “justified true belief”) Emotional States and Rationality Negative emotional states have been shown to impair rationality. For example, student test anxiety negative impacts cognitive performance. Test-anxious students often avoid studying for a test as this focuses their attention on the anxiety-producing event. On the other hand, research has also shown that participants who were induced to feel slightly angry were better able to distinguish between good and bad arguments and showed less confirmation bias. Positive aEect and rationality Some research suggests that positive moods and emotions can improve cognitive performance and decision-making—especially involving creative tasks. Other research suggests that positive moods and emotions can bias thinking and judgment and interfere with our attention to detail. Typically, stronger emotions interfere more with cognition than milder emotions. Thinking errors associated with emotion We’ve already examined instances of the appeal to emotion fallacy (including “scare tactics” and the “appeal to pity”). To counter any appeal to emotion, it helps to try to separate the claim being made from the emotion being appealed to. This reduces our reliance on Type 1 thinking and motivates Type 2 thinking. Reappraising a situation or event An incorrect appraisal of a situation or event can lead to an inappropriate emotional response. We are often quick to interpret ambiguous information, and for example, may interpret harmless signals as an attack. (IMHO incentivizing people to interpret neutral phenomena as “microaggressions” just makes the problem worse and impedes productive social interactions.) Treating disease Which treatment for a serious disease would you favour? 1. A treatment that was 75% eCective and would save 750 out of 1,000 people with the disease. 2. A treatment that would result in the death of 250 out of 1,000 with the disease who have received a treatment that is 75% eCective. Framing EEect Most people choose treatment 1 due to the way the description is framed. Saving 750 lives sounds better than a result of 250 deaths. The second way of framing the description activates Type 2 thinking—our intuitive aversion to death. Type 1 thinking would tell us that the probabilities of survival and death are identical in both instances. Nudging In a Dutch airport, there is an image of a housefly in every urinal. Since all men have an innate drive to urinate on half-drowned insects, the designers figured that this addition would improve men’s “aim,” thus leading to a cleaner bathroom. Probability and rational judgment We are not good at trusting our gut to estimate probabilities. The Law of large numbers The chances of heads or tails in a fair coinflip is 50%. If we flip a coin ten times, it may land on heads 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 times, and we wouldn’t be surprised. The law of large numbers, the more coin tosses that are made, the closer the overall outcome will be to 50/50. (If you want to guarantee ten “heads” in a row, organize a coin tossing tournament with 1024 participants. Everyone who calls heads advances to the next round. The winner will have called heads in each of the 10 rounds.) What scientists do Since scientists understand the law of large numbers, they will typically rely upon data from large, randomly selected samples to produce more reliable results. Non-scientists, however, are often more impressed with data that comes from very small samples. An anecdote often seems more compelling than statistical generalizations about a large population. (“Yeah, well I know a guy who smoked a pack a day and lived until age 97”) Normal distribution Imagine that we have tested millions of people to determine their level of intelligence using some sort of test. If we arranged their scores from left to right, we would get a familiar bell-shaped curve. This is called a “normal distribution.” It will show average levels of intelligence heaped up in the middle, and lower and higher levels to the left and right respectively. Regression to the mean If we took an intelligence test and got an extreme score (at either end), then it is likely that if we took the test several more times, the score would moderate. Regression to the mean is a strictly statistical phenomenon, resulting from the fact that in a normal, bell-shaped distribution, extreme values are less likely to turn up. Another example: if a hockey player scores 22 goals one year, then 24, 19, 20, and 45 goals in the next four, regression to the mean should tell us that the player is likely to score in the 20 goal range again the following season. Praise or blame? A lack of awareness of this phenomenon can lead to bad practices, like believing criticism and punishment work better than praise and reward. If an average student badly fails a test and is criticized, it is simply unlikely the student will do that poorly again, so when the student does improve next time, we attribute that to the criticism—and not to regression to the mean. The Gambler’s fallacy Let’s say we toss a coin 5 times in a row, and it comes up heads 5 times. Many people think that the next toss will probably be tails, even though the odds of that event are still just 50/50. This judgment error, called the gambler’s fallacy, occurs when we mistakenly expect the probability of one independent event to aCect the outcome of another independent event. Hence: “I’ve had such bad luck, so I’m bound to win next time!” Hot-hand illusion Basketball fans often have the mistaken belief that a player has a “hot hand.” A string of baskets is attributed to the player’s good luck, but this seems to be just an illusion. The analyzed data suggest that the outcome of every attempt is independent of the preceding attempts. This is like the gambler’s fallacy in reverse. Base Rates The “ base rate” simply refers to the known probability. Imagine you hear about a young woman who travels around Europe, visits many art galleries, learns calligraphy, enjoys dressing fashionably, and takes selfies in front of old cathedrals. What are the odds she is an art history major or a psychology major? First we need to know the base rate: 13% of university students major in psychology, whereas only 0.08% major in art history (an imbalance of 150 to 1). If we thought “art history major,” it is because we jumped at the stereotype and neglected the base rate. Base rate neglect Base rate neglect is a common error we make when making judgments about probabilities. Why are more men in prison than women? That’s easy! Higher base rate! Men commit more crime! But if we broke down the crime base rates of all demographic subdivisions (age, sex, race, religion, ethnicity, etc.), the averages for these groups are not going to be the same. Sometimes looking at the base rates can make people uncomfortable to the point that we have stopped collecting a lot of sensitive data. But how do we intervene to improve things if we don’t know what is going on? Anchoring eEect We tend to be influenced by the starting value or information provided to us before we make a judgment. Retailers are aware of this. They may display the original price of an item very prominently, so that the customer believes that is the true value of the product before the sale. If someone asks us, “what percentage of the world’s countries are in Africa? Do you think that the proportion is greater or less than 10%?” This piece of information will aCect your estimate (assuming you don’t know the answer). Hindsight bias We sometimes call this “Monday morning quarterbacking.” The idea is that we know what the quarterback should have done once the game is over. Specifically, this error occurs when, upon learning the outcome of an event, we convince ourselves that we knew the outcome all along. After Trump won election in 2016, despite most polls pointing to a Clinton victory, many people claimed it was “obvious” that Trump was going to win. Chapters 10 and 14 Understanding Human Nature ◦ Are we selfish or altruistic? This is one of the great debates within psychology, philosophy, biology, anthropology, and other academic disciplines. ◦ One or the other? A bit of both? Does it depend on the circumstances? Due to nature? Nurture? ◦ How can we settle this? Oscar Schindler ◦ Schindler was a German industrialist who helped his Jewish employees hide from the Nazis. ◦ In so doing, he put himself at great personal risk. ◦ Despite saving hundreds of lives, Schindler was not a particularly virtuous person. He drank heavily, gambled, cheated on his wife… To Help or Not to Help ◦ Why is it that some people would risk their lives to help others? ◦ Social psychologists are especially interested in this sort of question. ◦ We also ask ourselves: what would we do in a similar situation? How to Begin? Many people might already have hunches or intuitions about the answer to this question, and then simply look for empirical evidence to confirm their priors. But that is not how good critical thinkers proceed! Better to systematically look at all that we know about the question, and then reach a (tentative) conclusion based on where the evidence points. Is and Ought ◦ We need to be clear about the question we are addressing. ◦ Whether human beings are selfish/altruistic is diCerent from the question of whether we ought to be selfish/altruistic. ◦ Ayn Rand argues that we ought to be selfish. Most religions tell us that we should be altruistic. ◦ But psychologists and other researchers are answering an empirical question: are we selfish or altruistic? And how can we explain why we are either the one or the other? Here we may have to turn to biological or evolutionary psychology for answers… Defining some Terms Psychologists study what is called “prosocial behavior,” which can be defined as any behavior that is focused on benefitting others or society at large. Prosocial behavior is related to “altruism.” Altruism refers to the act of helping or aiding another person without any expected benefit in return. Altruism is typically juxtaposed with “egoism,” which is often used as a synonym for selfishness. Another Milgram Experiment… ◦ In 1965, Stanley Milgram was studying kindness. To do so, he scattered stamped and addressed envelopes around the streets of New Haven to see if they would get mailed. ◦ What do you think happened? Might this vary from place to place? ◦ It turned out that most letters got to their destinations, but not letters addressed to recipients like “Friends of the Nazi Party.” Not Just Humans We see acts of cooperative and helping behaviour throughout the animal world. Blackbirds give warning cries when hawks are near, putting themselves at risk. Apes groom one another. Gazelles warn others of danger by a stiC-legged run called “strotting.” And Babies? Psychologists have found evidence of an emergent morality in infants and even babies. For example, toddlers—without prompting—will help adults grasp an object that is out of reach. Back in our Pre-history… ◦ Today, just about everything we do requires high levels of cooperation. We all must rely on each other to some degree. ◦ In our past, hunting was a communal undertaking. People worked together to track and kill large animals. ◦ Childcare was a shared practice too. For hunter-gatherers, it really did take a village to raise a child. Charles Darwin ◦ Darwin did not believe that human beings evolved to act selfishly. ◦ He thought that we had “older” selfish instincts like self-preservation, lust, hunger, and revenge. ◦ But we also have more recently evolved “pro-social” instincts like cooperation and compassion. Explaining Conscience Our social instincts prevail over our selfish instincts. On occasion, and only temporarily, our selfish instincts can overpower the social instincts: we can’t help others due to gnawing hunger; lust can override the marital bond; we lash out when we are angry. When the selfish instincts have been discharged and sated, we return to “normal.” But unlike other animals, people can reflect on what they have done, which explains how we can feel remorse, regret, and shame. “Conscience looks backwards and serves as a guide for the future.” Natural Selection ◦ Before considering how prosocial traits like love, gratitude, friendship, and esteem could have evolved by natural selection, let’s first remind ourselves about how natural selection works. It’s actually a pretty simple idea, which animal breeders have intuitively grasped for centuries Natural Selection Continued ◦ There is variation in the bodies of animals, due in part to mutations and the mixing of genes that occurs during mating. ◦ This variation influences the reproductive success of the animal: some will reproduce more than others. ◦ This causes the genes that are related to reproductive success (what biologists call “fitness”) to become more common in the next generation. ◦ Thus, the population will evolve to contain animals that are better adapted to their environment. So What’s the Problem? The issue is that natural selection doesn’t care about the good of the group, or social benefits, or making people happy. Only the passing on of genes matters. In this case, wouldn’t the selfish free rider do better than those who are loving and kind? (Interestingly, Thrasymachus makes basically this same argument to Socrates near the beginning of Plato’s Republic.) Free Riding ◦ A “free rider” is someone who takes the benefits without paying the costs. This person or animal (think of the hunter who doesn’t share his kill or the gazelle that doesn’t “strott”) will exploit a community of altruists, and spread more “selfish” genes to future generations. ◦ So given the reproductive advantages of selfish free riders, how did altruistic traits even evolve? Helping Kin ◦ Evolutionary biologists like Robert Trivers and Richard Dawkins (author of The Selfish Gene) argued that altruism could develop and be preserved in a species through an individual member’s sacrifice (of resources or life) for the sake of a close relative. ◦ If an individual dies to save three siblings, given that each sibling shares 50% of the individual’s genes, then that individual’s “helping” will be passed on to future generations. We see this kind of behaviour in ants and bees and other “social” insects. ◦ Research clearly shows that people are more inclined to help their blood relatives than unrelated persons. Helping Others ◦ If evolutionary biology can make sense of helping kin, how does it explain helping unrelated individuals? ◦ Again, it is Trivers who first explained this with the idea of “reciprocal altruism.” Those individuals who engage in “tit-for-tat” interactions with others will have reproductive advantages over those who do not. ◦ Of course, reciprocal altruism only works if the receiver is not one of the aforementioned “free riders.” Punish Them! ◦ Reciprocal Altruism would not have evolved if there were not mechanisms for punishing the free riders. ◦ This might involve physical punishment, shunning, banishment, refusing to share your food with them. We find all of these practices in both human and animal communities. Perhaps this even explains why malicious gossip originated. ◦ The idea is to make free riding a more costly strategy than altruism. Paradox So how do our most impressive altruistic traits persist? Paradoxically, they can only persist if we simultaneously evolve feelings such as anger, resentment, and revenge. The worst features of human nature, it seems, are required for the sake of preserving a kind, loving, cooperative society. Playing a Public Goods Game We can actually study phenomena like free riding in a laboratory environment. Give a group of participants a sum of money and oCer them the chance to chip in to a pot (the public good) which the experimenter then doubles and redistributes. The best strategy is for everyone is to contribute the maximum; however, the best strategy for each individual is to hoard his own sum while everyone else contributes. Soon, the other participants catch on to this grim logic, and all contributions dwindle to zero, UNLESS there is a mechanism in place to fine the free riders. Neuroscience Weighs In ◦ Brain research indicates that reciprocal altruism involves the expectancy of receiving a reward. ◦ The brain areas for reward are most active when a person behaves in a cooperative way that will lead not to immediate, but later reward. Empathy ◦ Empathy involves feelings of compassion and tenderness in response to the suCering of others. ◦ This feeling is made possible by our capacity to take the perspective of others in distress. ◦ It seems that even the great apes evolved feelings of empathy. Is Empathy Heritable? ◦ Tests have been done on monozygotic twins (who share 100% of their genes) and dizygotic twins (who share 50% of their genes) to determine if empathy is heritable. ◦ These tests do show that there is a genetic influence on individual diCerences in empathetic concern for others. ◦ This does not mean, of course, that individuals cannot learn how to become more (or less) empathetic. Empathy in the Brain As would be expected, experimental studies show that a number of diCerent brain structures, especially the amygdala and other regions of the limbic system, are involved in our emphathic concerns and responses. Given how spontaneously people respond to the suCering of others (jumping onto the tracks to save a stranger), it seems that empathy and other prosocial behaviours are connected closely to Type 1 thinking. But is Empathy Really the Motive? There is other evidence to suggest that our responses to the suCering of others may not be motivated purely by empathy. Abraham Lincoln stopped his carriage to save some drowning pigs not out of empathy, but, as he said, to avoid having a guilty conscience. Some research suggests that people would not help others if they did not believe that their own moods would change from doing so. I Feel Seen… ◦ There may be still other motives involved in our decisions to help others. ◦ People help others more when a failure to do so would be detected. We do the right thing, at least sometimes, in order to preserve our reputations or perhaps to impress others. ◦ And then, of course, there is “virtue-signaling.” Empathy and Altruism ◦ There is research that supports the claim that empathy leads to altruistic behaviour. It seems to increase sensitivity to the needs of others. ◦ The question researchers still squabble over is whether altruistic behaviour can be motivated by empathy alone, without any mixture of self-interest or a desire to relieve distress. The Bystander EEect In 1964, a woman died after being assaulted three times over a 30 minute period. Many people observed the results but did not come to her aid. The “bystander eCect” denotes the tendency of multiple bystanders in an emergency situation, who could have helped, but did not. Researchers explain this eCect by the diCusion of responsibility. People are also less likely to help if the situation is ambiguous or if it is not clearly an emergency. These findings suggest that altruism is often dependent upon the situation. Personality DiEerences ◦ Whether we tend to consistently help others or consistently act to maximize our own self-interests may simply be an indication of stable, individual diCerences in personality. ◦ A personality test was devised that categorized people as altruistic (helpful to others with no expectation of anything in return), receptive-giving (helpful to others if something is given in return), or selfish (want help from others but not interested in reciprocating). Getting the Data ◦ How the subjects responded to the request depended on both the personality trait of the person (altruistic, receptive-giving, or selfish) and whether there was or was not course credit oCered for their help. ◦ The selfish people didn’t want to help, even when they were oCered a reward. As might be expected, the receptive-giving personalities volunteered to help for the course credit. Interestingly, the altruistic people volunteered more when they were not oCered a reward. ◦ What might explain these findings? Purity of Heart? ◦ One hypothesis oCered to explain the altruists’ behavior is that they feel better for helping “out of the goodness of their hearts.” ◦ A reward would compromise or contaminate the purity of their decision. ◦ But, if feeling good internally is the goal, then isn’t just another type of reward for acting altruistically? Mood Dependent? ◦ If altruism and selfishness can vary from one personality type to the next, there is also evidence that mood can influence whether a person helps. ◦ In experiments, those participants who were given a reward (like a cookie) were more likely to be helpful. Being in a positive mood (no surprise) can make a diCerence. The Imitation Game ◦ Research also shows that people are more likely to be helpful if they have just witnessed helpful behavior. ◦ When helpfulness is modeled (watching a person stop to help another driver with a flat tire), the observer is more likely to imitate the helpful action. ◦ This suggests that helpful behavior is not simply “hard-wired.” Cross-cultural research shows that people in economically advanced countries tend to help less than people in developing countries. Research has also shown that people are less helpful in densely populated urban areas (possibly due to the bystander eCect?). Learning to be Helpful Even very young children have often complicated reasons for acting helpfully. Studies have shown that children can learn to be more altruistic if helpful behaviour is consistently reinforced (no surprise). In addition to economic and demographic variables, the characteristics and values of families and peer groups can also influence helping behaviour Yikes, a Fallacy? ◦ When we ask, “are people altruistic or selfish?” are we not implying that only these possibilities are available? ◦ Is this not an example of the false-dilemma (or dichotomy) fallacy? ◦ Are there not shades of gray between these two extreme alternatives? Language and Thought ◦ Our capacity for language is unique. But what makes language so powerful? 1. Language is recursive. We can imbed one linguistic structure within another. 2. Language is symbolic. We can use language to name ideas, to represent things that exist, that have never exited, that might exist, that we merely wish to exist… 3. Language enables us to make reasoned arguments. Writing is an especially powerful tool to improve thinking, as it creates a record of one’s externalized thought. Propaganda, Persuasion, and Motivated Reasoning Language makes persuasion possible. Persuasion is the process by which a message induces a change in beliefs, attitudes, or behaviours. Persuasion is valuable if it helps us to collectively discover what is true. Unfortunately, persuasion can be used as propaganda to whip up hatred of an enemy, or just some group of people. What counts as propaganda is often in dispute, given our political diCerences Emotive Language ◦ Language can obviously be used to arouse emotions. Song lyrics, poetry, and political speeches often employ highly emotive language. ◦ The emotions that are aroused can be either positive or negative. ◦ Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in NYC, the U.S. congress passed a bill called the “Patriot Act” in order to supposedly curb terrorism. It was very diCicult for anyone to vote against a bill with the word “patriot” in its name. Euphemisms ◦ Euphemisms are words or expressions used to make unpleasant ideas seem more acceptable. For example: There was some “collateral damage.” The bombs “serviced their targets.” The “returns were soft” in the fourth quarter. “Downsizing” “Social drinker” “Sanitary engineer” Weasel Words Another impediment to clear language is the use of “weasel words.” These words hedge or qualify claims to such a degree that the claims are emptied of their meaning. While they are not outright lies, they are deceptive. “The side eCects of the drug are relatively harmless.” Weasel Word Examples ◦ Here is a list of some common weasel words: about, approximately, by and large, in eCect, more or less, partially, somewhat, seemingly, virtually, to a degree, to some extent. ◦ We use weasel words as a defensive strategy to ward oC attacks from our critics who might object to an unqualified conclusion. ◦ Weasels, FYI, will punch a small hole in an egg and suck out its contents, leaving the egg looking intact to the casual observer. Pseudo-Profound Bullshit Deepak Chopra is a well-known medical doctor and mystic. His work if full of sentences that contain vague expressions that are meant to be full of deep meaning. For instance: “Attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation.” There is an internet site that generates pseudo-profound BS quotations that resemble Chopra’s claims: “The future is the ground of infinite opportunities.” “The key to joy explores the light of brightness.” Unfortunately, many academics write in obscure, jargon-filled language. “Pick a conspiracy theory and 1. Explain how it originated and captured peoples’ attention, Man walking on the moon was fake, this captures people’s attention and turned into a conspiracy as technology was no up to requirements and the photo didn’t show any shadows which made people believe it wasn’t true. 2.Discuss who occupies the three classical roles (conspirators, saviors, and dupes), In Moon landing conspiracy theories, NASA, the U.S. government, and astronauts are cast as conspirators who staged the event, while whistleblowers and conspiracy theorists play saviors exposing the "truth." The public, scientists, and space enthusiasts are portrayed as dupes, blindly accepting the oIicial narrative 3.Describe any obvious flaws in reasoning, including logical fallacies and cognitive biases, that contribute to the theory, Moon landing conspiracies often rely on confirmation bias, where people only look for evidence that supports their belief and ignore what disproves it. They also use logical fallacies like "appeal to ignorance," claiming it must be fake because they can't understand how it was done 4.Explain why the conventional theory does a better job of accounting for the evidence than the conspiracy theory, and The conventional theory is backed by overwhelming evidence, like photos, rock samples, and verified data from multiple countries. The conspiracy theory ignores this proof and relies on misunderstandings or false claims that don't hold up under scrutiny. 5. Predict whether the conspiracy theory will die out or persist.” The conspiracy theory is likely to persist, as it taps into distrust and appeals to people’s skepticism, especially with the rise of social media spreading misinformation. Despite debunking eIorts, it will continue to be promoted by those seeking alternative explanations