Class 2 Notes - Humans Are Storytellers

Question 1

Humans are storytellers

Answer 1

• We act on stories, rather than reality: incomplete, don’t contain all information
• We are overconfident in our stories: don’t recognize what is missing from our current understanding

• We our stories are wrong, we tend to still believe they are correct!
o « Naïve realism »

• When we learn ways that our stories might be biased, we don’t believe that we are susceptible!
o « Bias blind spot »

Question 2

• Heuristics are simple rules that guide decision-making and our stories

Answer 2

o Evaluate some information, neglect the rest: make the decision making process easy

o Example, « take-the-best » heuristic for voting: choose one characteristic upon which to judge these two products – take the product which is best on that characteristic (i.e. based on price)
 Select single political issue, vote for candidate with best policy on that one issue
 Correctly predicts 97% of popular vote winners
 « It’s the economy stupid »
 Reflects the fact that, in most years, the average American voter will say, the most important issue to me is the state of the economy: jobs, productivity = #1

Question 3

• Availability heuristic:

Answer 3

basing judgement on how easily we cant think of information or an example

o Easy idea/example, I think of it as more likely to happen in the future/place more importance on that idea, rather than a more difficult idea – feels more possible than it is in reality

o Question: « can I make it as an entrepreneur? »

o Decision: « YES, look at Elon musk, Steve jobs, etc. I just have to follow these easy steps. »

Question 4

False Consensus: a consequence of availability

Answer 4

• We tend to group with others like us

    o	Similar perspectives are available to us (ecosystem of availability)

    o	Result: we overestimate the similarity of others’ attitudes, values to our own attitudes/values

Question 5

Confirmation hypothesis testing:

Answer 5

we seek out information that can confirm our starting hypothesis/story

• H1: How extroverted is my classmate? (Implicit assumption they are at least a little bit extroverted)
o How many parties have they been to in the past month?
o What was the most wild/uninhibited thing they have done at a party?
 Answers likely to confirm my starting hypothesis
 Missing evidence that could dis-confirm my hypothesis

• H2: How introverted is my classmate?
o Have they ever felt left out of a social group?
o What do they do when they feel uncomfortable in a social situation?

Question 6

• When do we objectively collect information vs. seeking confirmatory information?

Answer 6

o When will we be less biased?
 Uncertainty (no initial expectation) – leads to collecting all sorts of evidence
 High motivation to be accurate
 Have time & cognitive capacity – reminding ourselves of objective mindset

Question 7

• Confirmatory hypothesis testing:

Answer 7

tendency to seek confirming rather than disconfirming evidence

Question 8

• Confirmation bias:

Answer 8

tendency to interpret events in a way that verifies existing beliefs…

o An to (un)intentionally ignore contradicting evidence

Question 9

Framing

Answer 9

• Framing impacts our stories (which then impact our decisions)
• Often subtle, difficult to recognize

• Framing isn’t misinformation, but a change in emphasis
o Can lead us to develop a different story

• The impact of framing is often under-appreciated and falls in our blind spot
• Framing can be very subtle, making it even difficult to counteract
• Can you retire on 70% of your current income? Frame = getting 70%
• Can you retire on a 30% reduction of your current income? Frame = losing 30%
• More favourable towards gain, averse towards reduction

• Photographer shot in the eye
o By who? We’re missing part of the story

Question 10

• Passive voice:

Answer 10

“He was an NYPD officer that discharged his firearm. As a result of that discharge, an individual was struck in the head and killed.”

o Why not, the officer shot his gun?

o Why not, an officer shot his gun and killed someone?

o Strategic framing techniques, designed to frame story

o Usually don’t recognize how they shape the narrative

Question 11

Parts of a research article

Answer 11

• abstract
• intro
• method section
• results section
• discussion

Question 12

abstract

Answer 12

o Brief 100-200 word summary of the article

o What did you find?

o Why is it important?

Question 13

• Introduction

Answer 13

o Where did you get your idea?

o What do we already know?

o What theories are useful?

o What hypotheses and predictions are you making?

Question 14

method section

Answer 14

o Who was in your sample?

o What did you do? (decision, procedure)

Question 15

• Results section

Answer 15

o Key statistical tests

o Other interesting data

o Tables, figures

o Brief, objective description/interpretation

Question 16

discussion

Answer 16

o Summarize results & what you think they mean

o How should we think DIFFERENTLY about the idea or theory?

o What should we do next? « Future directions »

Question 17

research article

Answer 17

• pays to publish schemes

- locating research articles

Question 18

« Pays to publish » schemes

Answer 18

rampant in science journals

• Journals with reputable titles, any author can send them any manuscript to be published
• Article will look real, media reporter may write a piece on this article that has not maybe not been peer-reviewed
• « Get me off Your Fucking Mailing List »

Question 19

locating research articles

Answer 19

• How can I find research articles?
o UBC libraries (PsycINFO & web of science engines)
o Google scholar
o Author’s personal websites

• Careful
o Predatory journals are everywhere… (https://beallslist.weebly.com/)
o They can trick us; can also be used manipulatively

Question 20

Total FB engagements for top 20 election stories

Answer 20

A) What are you being asked to believe or accept?
o People were more likely to engage with fake news stories, rather than real news stories, right before an upcoming election

B) What evidence is available that supports the claim?
o 6 different data points, 3 different time points
o Fake news vs real news

C) Are there alternative ways of interpreting that evidence?
o Changing from real news to fake news as the election grows closer?
o We don’t know if these are the same users
o People who are engaging with election stories, far away from the election date, are more likely to be habitually engaged and maybe have a better idea of what is mainstream and what is fake news.
o Does not mean this is a correct interpretation, partially true
o No indication of a surge of interest upcoming to the election – data seems to be indicating only 1 million more engagement 1 month before the election, compared to 9 months before the election

D) What additional evidence would help to evaluate the alternatives?
o Where is this data coming from?
o Where is the expected increase in engagement?
o Is there a 3rd source of information? Not included in mainstream/fake news
o What is the definition of a mainstream or fake news report
o How many of these users/engagements, come from unique users? How many of these users and represented in each of these time periods?

E) What conclusions are the most reasonable given the evidence so far?
o Need more information

Question 21

“Am I Biased?”

Answer 21

• « Science proves what you suspected: hiking is good for your mental health »
o Proves = giant red flag* not science (about confidence)
o Scientists may say, this evidence supports/does not support this argument
o Be humble, recognize the uncertainty
o Definitive, hyperbolic statements attractive to readers

• Availability heuristic: I have many personal examples where I feel that hiking improved my mental health!
o Anecdotal
o No comparison
o Not definitive proof – was it the passage of time?
o I might believe there is a false consensus and that everyone has these experiences

• Confirmatory hypothesis testing: I should keep in mind that I already have a story about what is true
• Confirmation bias: I may be inclined to interpret evidence in a way that favours my preexisting story

Question 22

rumination and hiking article (Bernstein)

Answer 22

1) What are you being asked to believe?
o Discrepancy between the title (misleading), and the argument
o 90 minute stroll in a natural environment
o Claim has changed!
o « Leads to measurable changes in the brain »
 Any stimulus/change in thinking, is reflected in your brain

2) What evidence is there to support this argument?
o 38 volunteers, no mental illness – relatively small sample size (bare minimum sample size is 30 people per condition)
o Walked either in urban green-space and busy street – no more than 30 minutes away from each other
o Authors definition of a hike may be different than others
o Self-reported rumination, brain scan
o Rumination vs. Helping combat depression – can have depression without rumination, believed that rumination can lead to depression – getting away from the claim

3) Are there alternative ways of interpreting the evidence?
o Many difference between a busy street and an urban green space
o Rumination, is self-focused thought, and being around other people can initiate self-focused thought, in a way that is different from when we are alone and by ourselves.
o Interested in another control condition: the amount of social interaction

4) What additional evidence would help to evaluate the alternatives?
o Confound: social stimuli in the urban setting – block off urban setting
o No history of mental illness in participants – combatting depression, should recruit those with mental illness

5) What conclusions are the most reasonable given the evidence so far?
o Walking in an urban forested area for 90 minutes seems better than walking in a busy urban street for 90 minutes, in reducing people’s self-reported rumination

Question 23

Dive Deeper

Answer 23

• Let’s use our detective skills to track down the research article
o Original link; does not work
o PNAS Journal
 Unique: 2 ways articles get published
1. Reviewed article
2. Contributed
 Do not go through the same peer-review processes
 One editor: review, not that critical
o Google Scholar the original writer of research article/paper