Belief bias: We’re not as logical and clear-headed as we might think!

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think."
Adolph Hitler

The human brain is an amazingly powerful tool. It provides us the capability of performing complex mental feats that even the most advanced computers cannot approximate.

Despite the elegance and sophistication of our brains, we are, nevertheless, subject to exhibiting bias and gross errors in our thinking and decision making processes. Furthermore, our biases are generally predictable from our beliefs, and usually well concealed from our awareness. If I am correct, you might be viewing this article with skepticism.

But putting aside our possible disagreement about your biases, here’s an argument from logic. See if you agree that it is sound: Does the conclusion follow logically from the premises?

Premise 1: Democrats support free speech.
Premise 2: Dictators are not democrats.
Conclusion: Dictators do not support free speech.

What about this one?

Premise 1: Robins have feathers.
Premise 2: Chickens are not robins.
Conclusion: Chickens do not have feathers.

In the language of logic, both arguments have the same form, and both are equally not valid: The premises, even if we assume them to be true, can not guarantee the truth of the conclusions.

If you had more difficulty spotting the faulty reasoning in the first argument than the second, you are experiencing “belief bias.” According to this notion, our pre-existing beliefs tend to distort our ability to reason clearly. As a result, we are prepared to accept conclusions that seem consistent with our belief systems, without serious consideration of their meaning or merit.

The reverse is also true: We are reluctant to accept conclusions that seem contrary to our belief systems, despite the logic or reasonableness of those conclusions.

In a free society, we expect the media to provide us with fair and unbiased reporting of the events of our world. Many, however, complain that the media exhibit bias in the way that they cover various issues and personalities in the news. Consider, for example, news coverage of conflicts around the world, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, activities of the United Nation, or the war in Iraq. Or perhaps on a more local level, consider the way the media reports on the activities of the Prime Minister, or the current violence in the Southern Provinces.

Do you believe that the media are biased in their reporting about the Prime Minister? If you do, whether you believe they are biased for or against him, probably depends upon your attitude toward the Prime Minister. If you like him and think he is a good leader, you probably believe the media are biased against him.

If, on the other hand, you believe the Prime Minister is a corrupt leader, you probably believe that the media are far too easy on him than he deserves. Thus, in this example, your judgment about the performance of the media is biased by your existing beliefs about the Prime Minister.

Psychologists demonstrated this principle in a study in which they recruited groups of pro-Israeli, pro-Arab, and politically neutral students from Stanford University to view TV news coverage of the massacre of civilians in Beirut. Subjects were asked to rate the fairness and objectivity of the reporting.

Students who were pro-Arab viewed the coverage as biased in favor of Israel. Pro-Israeli students, viewing the same programs, judged that they were biased against Israel. The groups also differed in their perceptions and recollections about the program content, each recalling more negative references to their respective side than positive ones.

We can see examples of belief bias operating in routine occurrences, such as sports fans’ “booing” a perceived unfair decision by a referee, and complaints by politicians of systematic media bias against them. It is worth noting that political commentary about people and events is often deliberately slanted; a strategy for gaining advantage. The “spin doctors” that appear following political debates come to mind. This tactic is not to be confused with belief bias.

Recognizing belief bias in others can be a step toward greater understanding. Recognizing it in oneself is likely to be more difficult. Awareness of own susceptibility to this source of error in logic can be both a humbling and enlightening experience.

Natural disasters require explanation

Have you noticed? Have you have heard the latest buzz? Natural disasters like tsunamis, hurricanes, tornados, volcanoes, droughts, wildfires, floods, landslides, and mudslides, seem to be on the increase. Is it a sign of the apocalypse, or a judgment sent by God?

Just weeks after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ripped through U.S. Gulf Coast states leaving much of New Orleans submerged and uninhabitable, a massive earthquake shattered lives in Pakistan, India, and Kashmir. The death toll stands at more than 40,000 and climbing.

It was only 8 months ago that a magnitude 9 earthquake in the Indian Ocean off of the western coast of Sumatra set off several tsunamis, devastating parts of southern Thailand and other countries in the region. Over 276,000 perished.

Other natural disasters have occurred with surprising frequency recently, in countries around the world. September saw Typhoon Talim strike Taiwan and China. At least 53 were reported dead. A magnitude 7 earthquake also hit northern Peru last month, killing at least four.

This month Typhoon Damrey rolled through China, the Phillipines, and Vietnam, killing at least 31. Landslides in Guatemala claimed at least 613 lives last week. Hurricane Stan struck in Mexico and South America, killing at least 65 people. El Salvador’s Ilamatepec volcano also erupted this month.

What is going on? Why is our planet in such violent turmoil?

Some view these events collectively as an omen of religious or spiritual significance, a sign of warning that the end of time is near. Others have suggested that these disasters are sent by God to punish sinfulness, and avenge human wrongdoing. Of Hurricane Katrina, Michael Marcavage, the director of Repent America, reportedly said that “this act of God destroyed a wicked city.” The Old Testament of the Bible provides a number of such stories of catastrophic events brought about by God to punish or teach a stubborn or errant people.

My own bias leads me to look for naturalistic explanations of natural disasters provided by scientists. We understand much about the forces that underlie such events. Occasionally, as with Hurricane Katrina, scientists are able to predict in advance, with a fair degree of accuracy, the time and place that they will strike. Likewise, earthquake fault lines and past seismic events provide clues to the probable locations of future earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Unfortunately, the timing of earthquakes proves much more difficult to predict at present.

It does seem as if we have had more than our share of natural disasters recently, but are such events really increasing in frequency? Although U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) ranked 2004 as the deadliest year for earthquakes in recent history, it was not the most fatal in recorded history. Records show that on January 23, 1556, a powerful earthquake killed an estimated 830,000 people in Shansi, China. With humans populating virtually every inhabitable nook and cranny on the planet, and with increasing population densities, it stands to reason that fatalities from natural disasters would increase in modern times.

Clearly, we live on an active planet. The features of the Earth provide clear evidence of a violent past. Scientists describe energy-driven processes from within the Earth’s hot interior. Other powerful forces that have affected conditions on Earth include the Sun, gravity, and collisions with comets and asteroids. These processes have been around since long before humans occupied the planet.

Perhaps it is our nature to require causes and explanations for natural events, particularly disasters that have such far-reaching consequences on human lives. In times past, it seems understandable that pre-scientific societies would imagine mysterious forces or supernatural causes to be responsible for natural disasters. As we develop greater insight into the forces of nature, however, such beliefs may seem unnecessary and out of place. Perhaps the persistence of supernatural explanations demonstrates the need for scientists and educators to better disseminate our understanding of the natural forces underlying this violent and often unpredictable world in which we live.

Sexual attitudes and behavior are changing among young people

It might seem obvious, particularly to those of us living in Pattaya, that sexual mores within our societies have changed over the years. We seem to be living in a much more permissive society than our parents and grandparents did. A study published this month in the journal; Review of General Psychology, sheds light on how these changes have appeared in the attitudes and behavior of North American young people.

Examining 530 studies which were published over a period of 56 years, involving 269,649 subjects, researchers concluded that today’s young people are having intercourse earlier, engaging more in oral sex, and are feeling less guilty about their sexual behavior than did previous generations. The changes are most pronounced among females.

During the late 1990s, sexual activity was reported by 47% of surveyed teenaged girls and young women, aged 12 to 27 years of age. During the 1950s, a mere 13% of this group reported being sexually active. Increases in sexual activity also appeared among young men, although the changes were not as pronounced.

The popularity of oral sex has also increased over the years. In 1969, 48% of young men and 42% of young women reported engaging in oral sex. By 1993 the figures had risen to 72% for young men and 71% for young women, according to the report.

Investigators found that young people are becoming sexually active at a younger age, as compared to previous generations. Before 1970, the average age at which young men and women were first having intercourse was 18 and 19 years of age, respectively. The average had dropped to 15 years for both groups by the late 1990s.

Interestingly, although sexual behavior of young people has become more permissive over the years, the average number of sexual partners reported by those participating in the study showed no significant change over the five decades covered by the study.

Besides examining sexual behavior, the researchers also looked at changes in the attitudes of young people relating to sexual behavior. Results indicate that young people have become more approving of premarital sex over the years. Young women in the late 1950s overwhelmingly disapproved of premarital sex, with only 12% approving. A whopping 73% approved by the 1980s. For young men the figure went from 40% approval in the 1950s to 79% by the 1980s.

Consistent with changes in attitude toward premarital sex, researchers found a decrease in sexual guilt among young people of both genders. Once again, females showed the most dramatic changes in attitudes toward sex.

An interesting question concerns the nature of the relationship between the attitudes and sexual behavior of young people. If changes in behavior preceded changes in attitude, it might be inferred that changes in behavior were affecting attitudes. If, on the other hand, attitudes were changing first, the reverse might be the case, with changes in attitudes bringing about behavior change. A third possibility is that attitudes and behaviors changed in tandem. Results supported the latter alternative: attitudes and behavior changed simultaneously, particularly among females.

These results, in my opinion, may be viewed as a mixed bag. Clearly, a move away from guilt-ridden and restrictive norms of sexual behavior among young adults may be seen as a positive development. Premarital sex between consenting young people, although often discouraged by societal institutions, seems quite normal, and healthy for most. While there might be good reasons to abstain for those young people who wish to do so, guilt is not one of them. Guilt and self-condemnation for performing such acts seems quite unhealthy.

Unfortunately, engaging more freely in sexual activities in the age of HIV/AIDS poses a particular hazard to young people who might not have been adequately informed about the risks and methods of avoiding contracting STDs. Young people are notoriously naive in assessing risks, and often behave as if they are impervious to danger. Perhaps the present understanding of the trends in the attitudes and sexual behavior of young people could serve as a reminder of the importance of educating our young people to the risks and responsibilities that go along with the greater sexual freedom they now enjoy.

Blues for Thailand

Ever since I was a kid growing up in New Orleans, the blues has been a part of my life. When I learned that the first weekend of Koh Samui Music Festival, September 23-25, would feature a tribute to blues legend John Lee Hooker, I knew I had little choice but to attend the event.

The region of the Mississippi delta near my home was a hub of early blues innovation and development. Major early blues singers, such as Willie Dixon, Howlin’ Wolf, Sonny Boy Williamson, Elmore James, Albert King, B.B. King, and John Lee Hooker, hailed from nearby Mississippi. As a white kid living in the racially segregated south of the ‘50s and ‘60s, however, I was a bit sheltered from the music of these early Black artists.

Nevertheless, as I was coming of age, the blues had already established inroads into the musical mainstream nationally, in the form of rock ‘n roll, and locally, in the form of Dixieland jazz, a staple of New Orleans culture. Popular local artists like Louis Armstrong, Fats Domino, Clarence “Frogman” Henry, and, of course, Elvis Presley were commercial successes, and the blues was an important element of their work.

In time, the blues would establish itself as an important musical art form, not simply in the U.S., but around the world. Its influences can be detected today in a broad range of musical traditions, including jazz, R&B, gospel, country, folk, and rock ‘n roll. The blues continues to evolve endlessly, as it filters through the many voices, instruments, cultures, and life experiences of its diverse practitioners the world over.

On hand at the Samui festival were some of music’s biggest names, including Jerry Lee Lewis, the original Blues Brothers Band, Canned Heat, Big Brother & The Holding Company, Ike Turner, Lonnie Brooks, Eddie Kirkland, Aaron Moore, and Zakiya Hooker, the daughter of John Lee Hooker, and an accomplished performer in her own right. Artists of this caliber are capable of drawing audiences in the thousands.

Despite the notoriety of these international artists, however, the festival was obviously under-attended; at least during the weekend I was there. A large section of reserved tables and chairs went virtually unused, as most attendees opted for the less pricey “picnic style” admission tickets. On the night of Jerry Lee Lewis’s appearance, the audience occupied no more than 20% of the capacity of the scenic lakeside venue. Most of those in attendance appeared foreign.

I wondered about the reason for the poor turnout, particularly among the Thai community. At 1,200 baht per head, per day, the ticket price may have discouraged participation by working class Thai locals. Perhaps the promoters’ advertising was inadequate. What, I wondered, is the status of the blues in Thailand?

In talking to young Thais, I am often reminded how little awareness many have of this important musical art form. Although blues clubs do exist in Thailand, most notably, Pattaya’s own Blues Factory, it seems to attract mainly foreigners. There seems little here to compare to the widespread fanatical devotion to the blues found among many of my own countrymen. Is the blues incompatible with Thai culture?

My own theory to explain the limited popularity of the blues in Thailand is that the blues is often identified as music with strong ties to a remote time and place, not here, and not now. The original blues giants were singing about their experiences living lives in the Mississippi delta in the early to mid 1900s. Even more contemporary blues popularizers like Eric Clapton and John Mayall, likewise, must seem antiquated, and out of step with the younger generation. For these reasons, modern Thais might consider the blues irrelevant to their contemporary experience.

But while the blues originated in a time and place, there is nothing to keeping it from finding relevance in other times and places. The blues may be best known for the honest feeling communicated through the words and sounds of the artist. Since human emotion is universal, it seems reasonable that the blues could eventually find a broader audience among people of all cultures, including Thais. Perhaps what is needed is for some talented young Thai musician with a firm grounding in the blues to start defining a uniquely Thai variety of blues.

This sentiment is best summed up by the words of Chris Thomas King, a blues artist, and native of New Orleans who performed at the Samui festival.

“When I hear Tommy Johnson or any blues artist I respect from another era,” said King, “I learn a lot about the social conditions of the day – the culture and where we were as Americans at that particular time. If you really want to be like Tommy Johnson, I think you have to live in your time and be true to your experience. Because that’s what he did.”

Perhaps King’s words could be viewed as a challenge to those Thai musicians who do appreciate the blues.