Mindframe

    “Falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it,” wrote Jonathan Swift in 1710. Variations of the saying, including the punchier "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on,” have been ( likely incorrectly ) attributed to everyone from Winston Churchill to Mark Twain, but the timeless truth remains: it’s amazing how catchy an outright falsehood can be. Since at least the days of the newspaper wars between Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, on some level less-than-scrupulous media outlets have understood that our faster, more reactive brain systems bias us towards internalizing more emotional, good-vs-evil stories—especially when the “good” and “evil” in question align with our own prejudices. For instance, in the late 1890’s, Hearst’s papers whipped up a frenzy of anti-Spanish sentiment, characterized by unproven claims, propaganda, and bold-faced lies. “When the USS Maine exploded and sank in Hava...

Are you likely to fall for a made-up government conspiracy? That depends: how well-informed are you? If you said “very”…bad news, you might be another chump. What gives? A recent study by Joseph Vitriol and Jessecae K. Marsh of Lehigh Unversity found that people who are overconfident in their grasp of the political world are the most likely to also buy into the existence of shadowy organizations and secret connections. Vitriol and Marsh had the study participants rate their understanding of a series of public policies. But here’s the kicker: the subjects then had to provide the most detailed possible explanation of how those policies actually worked. They then had the option to re-evaluate themselves. Many of the participants, bluff called, had to concede—perhaps a bit sheepishly—that they didn’t know as much as they’d thought. However, for some, the act of piecing together an explanation only strengthened their belief that they really got the whole pict...

Are you lying to yourself every day? Depends: are you a "Bayesian Updater?" Hopefully you are. The term is named after Reverend Thomas Bayes. Around 1763, Bayes proposed a probability theory which stated that when you're confronted with facts contradicting your current beliefs, you change or update your beliefs. In his new book, Answers for Aristotle , University of Chicago’s Massimo Pigliuuci suggests that if humans are rational, then the Bayesian principle should be our default. Of course, modern science has done a great deal to de-emphasize the role of logic in decision-making. Even the great philosopher Aristotle, upon closer reading, suggests we are more rationalizers than rational. So if people aren't Bayesian Updaters, what are they? In their study of cognitive dissonance, Northwestern University professor Monica Prasad and her research team have identified six alternative strategies. Their work shines light on just how intelligent and well informed ind...

So imagine it’s 1826 and you want to know what the weather will be doing tomorrow. You really have one choice: pull out your trusty Farmer’s Almanac and get down to business. The Almanac is still around today. As Sandy Duncan, managing editor, says, “The formula we use dates back to 1818. It is a mathematical and astronomical formula that takes sunspot activity, tidal action of the moon and position of the planets into consideration. The complete formula is known only by our weather prognosticator: Caleb Weatherbee." Sounds pretty cool. There’s only one problem: analysis shows that its accuracy falls in the 50/50 range. That is to say, garden variety coin toss territory. So, would I be better off checking in with the National Weather Service? In short: yes. Meteorology has come a long way since 1818. No longer must we rely on the whims of a man named Caleb. Now we can pull up software that feeds past weather results, current temperature, wind and precipitation patterns ...

You flip a coin three times in a row. All three times, it comes up heads. How do you predict the next toss would land? The pessimist will suggest that the pattern is bound to break. Their best guess is tails. The optimist will think, “Hey, I’m on a roll! Heads all the way, baby!” Of course, the actual answer in both cases is always the same: 50/50 for heads or tails. The mental quirk that sees patterns in coin tosses once kept us alive. Back on the  savannah, when your ancestors saw that bush rustle up ahead, their pattern-seeking brains gave them pause, calculating that if a lion had been there before, it could be there again. Maybe this time it was only the night breeze, but why take the chance? It only took one mistake to become dinner. These days, unless you live near a wildlife preserve or a low-security zoo, that rustling is pretty much always gonna be the wind. But those ancient instincts are still with us, conjuring pattern mirages from nowhere. Think Vegas; there’...

After I graduated from college, I spent the first seven years of my professional career teaching school. If you think back to your own school days, you probably remember there was always one kid sitting in the back, not quite with the program, off on a secluded mental island where white sands and a steady sea breeze allowed him to float downwind from the cacophony of classroom chatter, unrestrained flatulence and the general din of anything I might be trying to teach. His unique approach also made it acceptable to eat a crayon from time to time, usually the red ones. ("Ah," you say, "yeah, I remember that kid…”) As I stood in the front of the classroom, I used to try to imagine what the kid with the crayon stained teeth might be thinking about.  I’m reminded of how 21st century sage Jeffrey Lebowski, a.k.a. The Dude, once described his own ruminations. “You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in my head, man. Lotta s...