Reddit mentions of The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect

Warning: Long screed of Computer science/statistics/data science incoming!

It’s not just a lack of empathy. It’s origin lies in how their minds work, on more of an algorithmic level. Empathy requires a type of speculative imagination --- that fleeting moment of considering another’s feelings --- the moment where you count the cards that are your experiences with another person, and wildly surmise to the best of your ability the place where they are coming from.

(think DMB, “Dancing Nancies” or “Cry Freedom, Cry”)

When Bayesian statistics started taking off in the 60’s and 70’s, it shook the mathematics world. More recently, Pearl’s mathematics of cause and effect also give clues in the wild surmisation of empathy,- as to what characterizes modern Republicans.

I believe Republicans lack empathy because they are terrible at counting cards.

Take, for example, the way they are Propagandized. Why are they so easily Propagandizable? I believe it is because they have little inherent ability to incorporate evidence. We have, in 2018, a predicament of complexity in understanding.

A simple understanding is simply not possible. A veiled conspiracy and tangled web of hidden connections and deals have been made by Trump and his entourage. On reddit, etc, trolls who could be real, propagandized, human or robot, from a variety of countries contribute to the dialogue with unrevealed motives. There is not just one dialogue with ‘facts’, and another with ‘alternative facts’.. The interplay of the two is more than twice as complicated as a straightforward reality.

A proper understanding of the truth is simply not simple, but for those who are unable to count cards, it is simply not attainable. When the narrative diverges from the propaganda’ed line, a lie is created. That lie is hammered in with a Frequentist approach,- over and over the same lie.

To a Republican, believing the oft-repeated lie or giving attention to the narrative-supporting distraction is both substantially easier and less cognitively dissonant than to try to incorporate contrary evidence into their mental model. (I am not even sure that many could do it even if they wanted to). Our best hope for these people is to somehow stop the frequentist propaganda supporting their beliefs. (“lock her up”, anyone?)

I could go on much longer, but for those who have a sufficient mathematical background, this sketches out the basis of where I think the Republicans are coming from in terms of a mental model. Whether it is a difference in wiring (algorithm-based), or data structure (mental model), I do not know. But why not either/or both? (there is a feedback loop there, for sure)

For anyone who got some understanding from this post, I recommend Judea Pearl’s “Book of Why - The New Science of Causation”, there are more points I could make in relation to it, but not many could follow without first reading it (particularly the 2nd and 3rd rung of causation). I hear it’s all the rage this year among data scientists at Google, but is written for laymen.

Different people have different talents. Republicans suck at statistics. It’s their defining characteristic. They’re frequentists all day long.

https://www.amazon.com/Book-Why-Science-Cause-Effect/dp/046509760X


thanks for the gold, kind stranger. I’m glad you appreciated it!

To add to the suggestions from others, check out Judea Pearl's work summarized nicely for a general audience in his recent book:

The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect https://www.amazon.com/dp/046509760X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_lQsEDbX13385S

He also has a textbook that's more technical.

At risk of oversimplifying, given sufficient high-quality data, correlation implies causation SOMEWHERE.

But correlation by itself doesn't tell you the direction of causation, or even if one variable causes the other. Running the A.C. may be correlated to buying ice cream but one may not cause the other, they may both be caused by e.g. hot weather.

Correlation is necessary, but not sufficient. You also need a good theory and a good experimental design to test the theory.

So, do a random controlled trial, give half the subjects an intervention and observe the results. Since the only thing that determined the group assignment is chance, and the only difference between groups is the intervention, one can reasonably say that any statistically significant difference is due to the intervention.

All other causal paths are severed by the random selection, so the intervention must be the cause. As Sherlock Holmes says, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

You may find the intervention of running the A.C. causes a reduction in consumption of ice cream despite positive correlation. (Simpson's paradox https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Simpsons_paradox_-_animation.gif/440px-Simpsons_paradox_-_animation.gif)

In many cases, like smoking, you cannot randomly assign people to groups, tell one group to smoke, and follow them for 30 years. But if you can theoretically derive all the plausible causal paths and control for them with a good experimental design, you can empirically test causality.

May I recommend "The Book of Why" by Judea Pearl? https://www.amazon.com/Book-Why-Science-Cause-Effect/dp/046509760X

Not finished with it yet, but so far Judea Pearl’s the Book of Why is really good too. His research and philosophy is extremely unique IMO bec
ause he is a computer scientist by training educated in Machine and deep learning, but a lot of his work has focused on understanding causality. The book discusses why causality is so important and the need for us to solve that problem before we can get computers to pass the Turing Test. IMO extremely relevant to I/Os attempting to blend theory with AI.

https://www.amazon.com/Book-Why-Science-Cause-Effect/dp/046509760X

I just started reading this book, The Book of Why by Judea Pearl.

\> Pearl's work enables us to know not just whether one thing causes another: it lets us explore the world that is and the worlds that could have been. It shows us the essence of human thought and key to artificial intelligence. Anyone who wants to understand either needs The Book of Why.

I first heard about him from a Sam Harris interview. There are a few talks by Pearl on youtube also.

Ultimately the answer is "We don't know. Therefore God exists." LOL. Sorry. Bad joke.

There does seem to be a difference between the quantum level and our macro or "emergent" level where we live and think. At least that is what we experience.

\> I meant a reason as in if it happened in any other way it potentially wouldn't be better than it is right now.

We seem to be constrained by the arrow of time if we are wanting to change the past. Could past events have been different than they were? I don't think so. I think they are what they are (they were what they were). We cannot change them from our position today and we could not have changed them from our position in the past.