Skeptical Shrink

As I was going up the stair I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today Oh how I wish he'd go away! -- "Antigonish," William Hughes Mearns, circa 1899 People who see real patterns and relationships that elude others are visionaries. There are very few if any in each generation. Anyone with a decent secondary education can tick off their names: Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Curie, Faraday, Einstein. There are others, of course -- but not that many, considering how many humans have trod the Earth since the Enlightenment. These giants did not set out to prove that their unfounded suspicions were correct, but simply to learn -- to find out how things worked and what caused what. People who imagine patterns and relationships where none exist are either delusional in the psychotic sense, or simply willfully self-deluded. They start out already convinced of deliberately hidden, often nefarious connections between unconnected events, and then the...

This letter was sent to Newsday in response to a guest editorial that appeared on 4/9/18: William FB O'Reilly is way off base when he takes the position that yeshiva education that is woefully inadequate in all areas except religion should be protected as a matter of "freedom." He melodramatically declares that "it might ultimately decide the degree to which the state can determine what we are allowed to value and how we are permitted to think." Should we not value English, science, and mathematics? Teaching these basic skills does not dictate how we are permitted to think; it gives us the tools with which to think. By depriving their students of these skills, it is the yeshivas, and not the state, who are guilty of dictating what their students are permitted to think. The argument that the Orthodox have "been at this for 3,500 years" is ludicrous; 3,500 years ago slavery and human sacrifice were widely practiced, but we've moved beyond ancient s...

When profit is the ultimate goal of any endeavor -- as it is for all commercial ventures -- the last step that directly leads to profit becomes the main focus. Let's look at insurance, for example. With car insurance, the insurer takes in money in the form of premiums, and pays out money in the form of settlements. It is obviously to the insurer's advantage to limit settlements in order to maximize profits. But since most settlements are paid when drivers have accidents, the company's focus becomes reducing the number of accidents -- and this is accomplished by incentivizing drivers to take safety courses by giving them a discount, as well as penalizing them for traffic infractions. In other words, a carrot and a stick. So the desire to maximize profits for the insurer leads to safer driving on the part of the insured. Double win. Health insurance is different. Again, the insurer collects premiums, and pays out claims. Again, profits are maximized by limiting how muc...

This is likely to be a rather unpopular blog entry. In fact, I may take as much heat from my friends on the left as from my enemies on the right. I'll be accused of "making a bad situation worse instead of better." I'll be accused of "playing right into the hands of the crazies." Maybe those who say that will ultimately be proven right. Nevertheless, hear me out. Or don't; you're free to choose just how wide or narrow your range of incoming information is. Anyway, what prompted me to write this was a news report I read this morning. It said that three Republican Senators, including Rand Paul from Kentucky, intend to block a bill that would expand background checks before gun sales, that has strong bipartisan support, and that Trump says he is eager to sign. This is essentially identical to what happened shortly after the Sandy Hook massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, when a bipartisan bill to expand background checks was blocked by two Republican Sen...

Which is more valuable: statistics or experience? Don't answer right away; take all the time you need. I'll wait. This question isn't as obvious as you might think, and the first answer you're tempted to give might not be the one you decide to stick with. Humans are not born statisticians. Let's face it, most of us are lousy at statistics. My brilliant friend Julia Galef, who publishes articles, hosts podcasts, and gives TED talks on rationality, holds a degree in statistics from Columbia, and can quote you statistical formulas like nobody's business -- but even she decided not to make her living as a statistician. We tend to trust personal experience more than abstract numbers. This works very well for children. Once you've burned your hand on a hot stove, you've learned to be careful around stoves. Once you've been stung by a bee, you'll always be wary of bees -- and probably a whole lot of harmless insects that happen to look like bees. ...

This essay may make me sound like what is now pejoratively referred to as an "elitist," and if it does, so be it. One of the reasons that not-particularly-intelligent people (there, I said it) who hated Obama gave for voting enthusiastically for Trump was, "I always felt that Obama was talking down to me; Trump speaks my language." Translation for most Trump voters: "I resented the fact that Obama was way smarter than me, and made me feel dumb." Translation for Southern white Trump voters: "That Obama sounded like an uppity n--ger." But here's the thing that neither Trump nor many of the people that voted for him failed to grasp, perhaps precisely because of their lack of perspicacity: It's hard being president. If it were easy, anyone could do it. Let me rephrase that: it it were easy, anyone could do it well.  We've certainly been witness to more than one unintelligent president who did the job poorly. But we've never had ...