Review: Your Brain at Work

David Rock writes an intriguing review of neuroscience findings on how the human mind works and how we can use that information to help us do a better job at work.  While many of the topics it covers might be coined "common sense", there are a few nuggets of new information that add substantially to what we know about work, productivity, and cooperation.

The book is broken up into scenes which tackle a different topic of neuroscience.  The technique the author uses to discuss each topic starts with a fictitious couple who struggle with common productivity issues like information overload, procrastination, distractions, uncooperative coworkers, etc.  A discussion of the science follows in why these issues are common and how to overcome these limitations.  Then, the fictitious story is re-told, except this time the actors avoid the inherit limitations of our brain and instead perform the ideal actions that best take advantage of our brain's strengths.  I found this technique great for motivating the reader while concertizing the science into useful practices understandable to everyone.

For me, the first half of the book seemed to re-iterate much of what I already knew about productivity.  Such lesson as avoid distractions, stay focused on one subject at a time, break down big decisions into smaller easier to handle decisions, handling uncertainty, etc. are all practices I am aware of and practice.  The biggest lessons learned came in the last half of the book discussing how we interact with others.  In particular, I was struck by how to effectively deal with other people, especially when they feel threatened or intimidated.  When others go into a defensive mode, it is hard to get their cooperation.  And here, the science suggests something similar to what I learned from some parenting books of all places (Positive Discipline and Between Parent and Child).  In order to build cooperation, we should not direct but collaborate on answers to questions.  We should respect others' ability to find answers on their own (sometimes this requires directed questions).  If we want to change other people's behavior, we need to get them to see the need to change themselves without putting them on the defensive.  Using a stick is often NOT the best method.  Nor is using arbitrary rewards.

While there are many other great discussions in the book, I'll leave it up to you to find the rest.  I found the book to be a well written, practical guide to improving your productivity at work.  By aligning your actions with sciences' best practices, we can achieve high levels of capability to our work.  It's a great read for anyone interested in improving their productivity at work.

Confirmation bias

Recently, I read an article about confirmation bias that made me realize that this is major impediment to being productive.  So, what is confirmation bias?  According to Science Daily, confirmation bias is "a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study."  Wikipedia lists some of the traits of confirmation bias to be:

• Interpretation - When giving evidence both for and against your belief, the bias tends to focus only on the evidence for your belief and ignore evidence against your belief
• Search for information - You seek evidence from someone you know agrees with you and do not seek evidence from those that disagree with you.
• Memory - you tend to remember evidence that supports your argument and forget evidence that contradicts your position

Let's unpack this concept.  Confirmation bias seems to be misappropriation of evidence, leading to incorrect inductions.  Most often, confirmation bias is an automatic response.  These automatic responses are based on heuristics.  People use heuristics (rules of thumb) to quickly make evaluations. Without heuristics, we would never have time to make all the decision necessary in our lives. We would spend all of our time re-hashing the same evidence, the same logical steps, and the same conclusions.  Where heuristics go wrong is when they are applied to emotionally charged ideas.  The pain at looking at contrary evidence leads many individuals to ignore that evidence in favor of positive evidence that confirms our original ideas.  Individuals do not like dissonance in their thoughts.  They want certainty.  Unfortunately, that certainty comes at the expense of objectivity, leading to ill founded beliefs.

There are two times confirmation bias can be observed, when you first develop an idea and when you are presented with new evidence that contradicts one of your existing ideas.  If confirmation bias can be avoided in the former, the easier it will be managed in the latter.  However, many people, myself included, have adopted ideas without fully evaluating all the evidence for and against when initially presented to them. Young kids are particularly susceptible. This may require re-evaluation of ideas that were once closely held.  I have done this before when I reevaluated my belief in God and my interaction with The Objectivist Center, both of which led me to reject my earlier decisions based on new evidence.

Fortunately, there is a way to avoid confirmation bias - scientific inductive reasoning.  Two principle techniques to scientific reasoning are establishing reliability and validity.  Validity can be further sub-divided into both internal and external validity.  So how can these be employed to avoid confirmation bias?

1. For evidence to be reliable, new evidence should confirm older evidence.  If it contradicts it, chances are something fishy is going on or evidence is not being placed within its appropriate context.  Seek evidence from multiple, disparate sources, particularly in emotionally driven complex issues.  In highly controversial issues, its especially important to gather evidence from sources, both pro and con, and place that evidence within their proper context.
2. Internal validity looks at the internal logic of an argument.  Ask yourself if the evidence presented shows only part of the picture. Ask yourself if you have fully considered ALL of the evidence.  Ask yourself if the conclusions are as solid as claimed. It may help to break up the argument into all of its component parts and verify that evidence supports each part.  In short, play "devil's advocate" to establish internal validity.
3. External validity verifies an idea is consistent with the wider context of one's knowledge base. Ask yourself if this conclusion is true, what does it mean for other ideas.  Ask yourself honestly what the evidence means for my life.  The conclusion from the evidence should integrate with knowledge you already have without contradictions.  If it doesn't, either something is wrong with your new conclusion or something is wrong with your existing ideas.

By employing these methods consistently, you can avoid confirmation bias.  Take a step back from the emotional charged idea and be objective.  If you do this, you have a good chance at avoiding confirmation bias and achieving objectivity in your thoughts.

Proactionary principles - an antidote to the precautionary principle?

As Objectivists have noted in the past, the precautionary principle is at odds with rational living.

Precautionary principle:

"If an action or policy has a suspected risk or harm, without scientific consensus that their will be no harm, then the burden of proof lies with those advocating an action or policy."

In Europe, this principle is ingrained in the law.  Many environmentalist are pushing hard to see it implemented in the United States.  As a principle, it negates technological advancement until 100% certainty is obtained.  That is simply impossible to achieve.  The entire notion of scientific consensus is an abdication of rational thought in a field where rational thought is essential.

Philosopher and futurist Max More offers an alternative, Proactionary principle:

"People’s freedom to innovate technologically is highly valuable, even critical, to humanity. This implies several imperatives when restrictive measures are proposed: Assess risks and opportunities according to available science, not popular perception. Account for both the costs of the restrictions themselves, and those of opportunities foregone. Favor measures that are proportionate to the probability and magnitude of impacts, and that have a high expectation value. Protect people’s freedom to experiment, innovate, and progress."

Although More's discussion is a bit rambling, I believe he is on to something significant.  Its a principle that accepts and combines the virtues of rationality and productivity.  It also sounds similar to an approach to the unknown that Peikoff discusses in one of his pod casts (I can't recall which one).

That being said - I am reluctant to tout the More horn.  More has shown a marked deficiency in understanding Objectivism, accepting many of the falsehoods perpetrated by the Brandens and their ilk.

Climate change

The latest revelations of climategate is not all that surprising considering the politicized nature of the scientific research in this area.  Just one more example of why the government should not fund science.

Capitalism in practice

What took $3 billion 10 years ago, will soon cost under $1000. In 2003, the Human Genome Project finished scanning the human genome at a cost of $3 billion dollars. Today, IBM is developing a computer chip that could reduce the cost to under $1000. At that cost, every doctor in America could own such a chip and scan your genetics. Such detailed information would enhance genetics research and provide doctors with the means of providing far more individualized services.

Another example of why I love capitalism.

Humans aren't animals?

Let me get this straight... in order to protect animals, they're going to hurt humans. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this?

"Britain's Oxford University won a legal battle on Friday to increase the restrictions placed on animal rights activists who regularly demonstrate against its new research laboratory.

"The university went to the High Court last week to extend an exclusion zone round the 20-million-pound ($37 million) biomedical center to keep demonstrators away.

"Some animal rights extremists, opposed to vivisection, have widened the protest by threatening violence against anyone involved with the university."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060526/sc_nm/britain_oxford_dc_4

Evolution is fact

I've long been puzzled how people, some of whom are not Christians, still do not except evolution as a valid theory. Perhaps I need to spend more time listening to their questions, rather than trying to convince them. Yet the evidence seems so overwhelming that it is inescapable.

I am no biologist. In fact I have only taken one biology class in my life. But...I am observant of reality and am well read on scientific topics. I've actually taken the time to read Darwin's Origin of the Species, a feat that many biologists have not attempted. I used to subscribe to Scientific American. And currently subscribe to various science RSS feeds. From these readings (and more), I have determined that not only is evolution possible, but that it has moved beyond just a theory to become scientific fact. To deny evolution is to deny the observations from several scientific disciplines.

To clarify, evolution as scientific fact means that over time species evolve from one form into another, often with divergent paths. The specific mechanisms of evolution, however, are less than certain. The path to evolution change is still in the theory stage. But the fact that evolution takes place is agreed upon by biologists.
Here is the evidence:

1. The fossil records over thousands and millions of years show progressive changes in bone structures among various species (not just humans). That in and of itself should be enough evidence. But true to science, an observation is not sufficient. An understanding of "Why" evolution occurs is necessary to validate a theory as fact.

2. The results of these changing fossils are evident by the various species that exist today. This was the important observation that Darwin noted on his famous trip on the HMS Beagle. Species that were similar in almost every respect except for small adaptations were linked together through a common ancestory.

3. It has been readily observed that dog breeds all evolved from the wolf. Yet the vast differences in breeds - in shape, size, energy, behavior - has been accomplished through selective breeding. While this evolvotion of breeds was facilitated by humans, it is not difficult to imagine that wild animals may exhibit a similar transformation over longer periods of time and slower ecological changes.

4. The mechanisms for evolutionary adaptation is well known in genetics. Most parents are aware that their children have half of their own genes and half of the other parent's. Genetic combinations that produce offspring ill-equipted for handling their surroundings are likely to die before passing on their genetic material. For instances, if a certain species of birds feeds on nuts and the nut trees suddenly start producing super strong nuts. Only birds with a genetic trait of a super strong beak that can break through the nut, will survive, along with their geneticly strong beaked offspring. None of the other birds will be able to eat and the genetic trait for weaker beaks will go out of existence.

5. The observations of the breeding process and the understanding of genetics naturally give rise to the concept of natural selection. Through natural selection and natural genetic mutations, changes occur in species make up.

6. The creation of new species (speciation) has been observed numerous times. It is only a small step from realizing that new species can be created and realizing that fossil records show these changes in action, till one concludes that evolution must occur in at least some form.

This chain of logic and the sum of millions upon millions of observations from scientists and non-scientists alike, more than validates the concept of evolution as fact. Various religous theories to the contrary need not apply.

Onward Ho!

Here's a book I'll have to read before too long. In an interview at Techstation Central, the author, Dr. Fogel, demonstrates his solid grasp of why humans are living longer and stronger today than they were 2 centuries ago. And has the data to back up his hypothesis.

It's all about the technology.

His massive historical analysis really followed life expectancy trends over the past couple centuries. He compares these trends with what was going on in society, such as massive immigration, urbanization, and technology innovation. For example, cities in the late 1800s had a lower life expectancies than rural areas, but innovations such as the automobile reduced pollutants like horse manure, so that people were able to live longer.

Its just great to see a scientist recognize the power of the mind to solve human problems. Unfortunately, Fogel doesn't extend this respect for intelligence to public policy, where he condones socialistic behavior.

But his points leave me feeling good about the future. As technological advances accelerate, so too will the quality of our lives. Not only can I expect huge medical and technological advances to occur before they matter to me, but my children may never know what all the fuss was about. Their lives will be one where most diseases have been cured or at least tempered by such an extent that it will be nothing to worry about.

I look forward to the future. Onward Ho!

Unintelligent design

It's good to hear that reasonable people have ousted this ridiculous curriculum. "Intelligent design" is anything but intelligent. I've read through some of the arguments for this supposed science. All I can say is that it is not science. Call it religion, call it pseudo-science, call it whatever you want, but is most definitely not science. And as such, it has no place in a science class.

For a theory to be scientific, not only must there be evidence in support of it, but if contradictory evidence is found, you must reject, or at least modify the existing theory. This is how physics, chemistry, cellular biology, psychology, and all other sciences work. Theories, by their very nature, must be falsifiable. In other words, a theory is not legit unless it is possible (however unlikely) to prove that it is not true given the right information.

Intelligent design theory completely ignores this rule, because there is no way to prove that no intelligent beings designed our universe. If there was no intelligent being, how could we know? Can we be sure the universe would appear differently? How many different universes can you compare it too to prove it? The answer is obviously, we can't know and can't prove it.

Unfortunately, there appears no easy way put this bastardization of science to rest except for continued efforts by citizens such as the ones mentioned above. Don't give them an inch. Or else this Onion parody will be closer than you think.

Intelligent design is NOT science. It is religion masked in scientific jargon, nothing more.