recentpopularlog in

jerryking : evidence   6

Fine-Tune Your B.S. Detector: You’ll Need It - WSJ
March 19, 2018 | WSJ | By Elizabeth Bernstein.

HOW CAN YOU SPOT B.S.?
Check the source. Is this person an expert or in a position to know the information? Why is he or she telling me? What does the person have to gain?

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Remember that we all suffer from confirmation bias—we’re more likely to believe something that confirms what we already think or want.

Ask questions. Research shows people are more likely to B.S. when they feel they can get away with it. “Ask them simply: ‘Why do you think that? How do you know that is true?’” ......“This will get them thinking critically.”

Don’t trust your gut. People who pause and think about whether information is true are better able to detect false information, research shows. “Rely on your prior knowledge,”

Ask for evidence. This is different than an explanation, which people can continue to spin. Facts don’t lie—but check them to make sure they are real.

Pay attention to people who discount evidence. “I don’t care what the experts say” is a red flag that the person is using B.S.

Stay offline when you’re tired. Research shows we’re more vulnerable to false claims when our cognitive resources—that is, brain power—are depleted.
5_W’s  brainpower  bullshitake  confirmation_bias  critical_thinking  Elizabeth_Bernstein  evidence  gut_feelings  howto  infoliteracy  misinformation  pay_attention  power_of_the_pause  questions  skepticism  unshared_information 
march 2018 by jerryking
Drug-funding sob stories make for good reading, but we need hard evidence to set public policy
Mar. 16 2014 | The Globe and Mail | ANDRÉ PICARD.

the key question in public policy is always: What else could be done with the money that would provide more bang for the buck?

To fund or not fund drugs is not an easy discussion to have. But it is a necessary one. As compelling as the stories of suffering children may be, we have to make decisions based on evidence. We also owe it to ourselves to negotiate firmly with drug-makers.

We cannot continue to fall prey to emotional blackmail, no matter how much the headlines sting.
no_sob_stories  public_policy  André_Picard  pharmaceutical_industry  orphan_drugs  disease  opportunity_costs  evidence_based  emotional_blackmail  evidence  difficult_conversations 
march 2014 by jerryking
Art Makes You Smart - NYTimes.com
November 23, 2013 | NYT | By BRIAN KISIDA, JAY P. GREENE and DANIEL H. BOWEN.

FOR many education advocates, the arts are a panacea: They supposedly increase test scores, generate social responsibility and turn around failing schools. Most of the supporting evidence, though, does little more than establish correlations between exposure to the arts and certain outcomes. Research that demonstrates a causal relationship has been virtually nonexistent.... we can conclude that visiting an art museum exposes students to a diversity of ideas that challenge them with different perspectives on the human condition. Expanding access to art, whether through programs in schools or through visits to area museums and galleries, should be a central part of any school’s curriculum.
art  correlations  museums  students  education  evidence  cognitive_skills  creative_renewal  value_propositions  the_human_condition 
november 2013 by jerryking
FT.com / Management - When to turn a blind eye to the facts
September 20 2010 | Financial Times | By Philip Delves Broughton.
.....For the men and women fighting to stop the leak, there were the messy, practical challenges to be met, and decisions to be made based on the evidence. And then there were those who made the decision early to pound away at this latest example of “Big Oil” gone wild.

President Barack Obama was caught between the two, trying to make decisions based on the complex set of facts, while others claimed to know exactly what decisions should be made, and compiled the evidence accordingly.

Businesses are often caught in the same trap. Ideally, you want to base your decisions on sound evidence. But often, managers make a decision then rustle up the evidence to support it. As Peter Tingling and Michael Brydon of Simon Fraser University wrote recently in the MIT Sloan Management Review, it is the difference between evidence-based decision making and its ugly sibling, decision-based evidence making......
Profs Tingling and Brydon found that evidence is used by managers in three different ways: to make; inform; or support a decision. If it is used to make a decision, it means the decision arises directly from the evidence. If it is used to inform a decision, evidence is mixed in with intuition or bargaining to lead to a decision. If it is used to support a decision, it means the evidence is simply a means to justify a decision already made. They also found that evidence is often shaped by subordinates to meet what they perceive to be the expectations of their bosses.

There are two dangers to letting decisions trump evidence. The first is when decision making is simply ill-informed. Ideally, a decision that contradicts the evidence is an inspired hunch, formed by experience, like Nelson’s. In the worst case, it is the product of ignorant bias.

The second danger is that once your employees know that you, as a manager, are more interested in finding evidence to fit your conclusions rather than seeking out truth, it infects a company with demoralising and destructive cynicism.
......In other companies, however, the cult of data-driven decision making leaves so little room for personal beliefs that people just tailor evidence to fit pre-made decisions......What is a manager to do? How do you encourage the use of data, while leaving room for the occasional inspired decision? One solution is to be more flexible in how you categorise decisions. Not all will require the same degree of evidence.

Another is to weigh the costs of gathering evidence. Is it always worth it? If not, don’t fudge it for appearance’s sake. Admit that you are trusting your well-honed instincts.
evidence_based  Octothorpe_Software  Philip_Delves_Broughton  decision_making  Peter_Tingling  environmental_disasters  Deepwater_Horizon  evidence  oil_spills  oil_industry  fact_patterns 
september 2010 by jerryking
Lawyers Will Be Lawyers, Dumping More on Juries Than They Can Process - WSJ.com
NOVEMBER 6, 2008 | Wall Street Journal | by LESLIE EATON and
AMIR EFRATI

Prosecutors in complex cases have to remember not to over-burden their
cases. Prosecutors can compile a ton of evidence, but whatever its
merit, presentation and pacing remain crucial. When jurors can't reach a
decision one way or the other or are bored and bewildered, time, effort
and taxpayer dollars go to waste.
lawyers  courtroom_process  case_management  juries  legal_strategies  evidence 
may 2009 by jerryking
Science Journal - WSJ.com
OCTOBER 20, 2006 | Wall Street Journal | by SHARON BEGLEY.
Critical thinking means being able to evaluate evidence, to tell fact
from opinion, to see holes in an argument, to tell whether cause and
effect has been established and to spot illogic.....critical-thinking
skills are different from critical-thinking dispositions, or a
willingness to deploy those skills."

A tendency to employ critical thinking, according to studies going back a
decade, goes along with certain personality traits, not necessarily
with intelligence. Being curious, open-minded, open to new experiences
and conscientious indicates a disposition to employ critical thinking,
says Prof. Bensley. So does being less dogmatic and less authoritarian,
and having a preference for empirical and rational data over intuition
and emotion when weighing information and reaching conclusions.
critical_thinking  Sharon_Begley  evidence  inquisitiveness  argumentation  open_mind  curiosity  intuition  emotions  rationalism  assessments_&_evaluations 
may 2009 by jerryking

Copy this bookmark:





to read