Category: Observations

Education, Observations

Spicy Take: How well do you understand your bicycle?

pollywannamath

How well do you know how a bicycle works? Many of you, myself included would have said “very well.” I learned to ride a bicycle as a toddler and, although I don’t ride frequently now, I’m very familiar with bicycles. Or I thought I was. I recently read an article that asked the following questions about bicycles to other people who reported to be familiar:

Could you draw one? Artistic skill aside, could you identify a picture of a functional bicycle against non-working photos?

The Science of Cycology: can you draw a bicycle?

40% of people in the survey made a fundamental mistake in drawing how a bicycle’s chain functions. This survey built on a 2002 study that found people rate themselves as having a far greater level of understanding of complex phenomena before being asked to describe its mechanics than they report after having to give a description. The study coined the phrase the illusion of explanatory depth.

The illusion of explanatory depth is phenomenon where individuals believe they understand the world with far greater detail than they actually do. The illusion of explanatory depth is not a function of blind overconfidence, or a person’s inability to admit ignorance; rather it is a function of a miscalibration of a person’s ability to understand and explain complex systems with detail. Because I interact with my refrigerator daily, and am familiar with what it does, I am pretty sure I know how it works. Or I have a pretty good idea, until I have to diagram or explain how it works.

Self-testing one’s knowledge of explanations is difficult. Testing knowledge of facts is easy. I either know that coriander and cilantro are the same plant or I don’t; it is much harder for me to challenge myself on what exactly coriander brings to a dish and how it changes the flavor of my food. Even when I am able to test myself, it’s harder for me to hold myself accountable; systems are harder to Google.

I recently had the opportunity to test my understanding of complex systems that I felt insatiately familiar with–my own cooking. I knew that I add oregano to my sauce when I make spaghetti, and cumin to a Middle Eastern inspired chicken dish. When I add these spices, am I adding them because I am looking to bolster or change a certain quality of the food, or because I know that the spices “belong” with the dish.

To test my knowledge of the spices in my kitchen I wrote down my impressions of each spice in my spice drawer:

Yeah, I know I should have more whole spices.

I described no fewer than three spices as “warm and earthy.” How would one describe cinnamon? How does that description differ from turmeric? Allspice? How about garlic? Onion? I was amazed at how poorly I described spices that I used daily:

My handwriting could use some improvements as well.

After a confidence-crushing attempt, I wanted to compare my pre-tasting notes with my experience tasting each spice individually. I set up a spice tasting:

  • First, I poured about a 1/4 teaspoon of a spice on to a plate and smelled it. I recorded my impressions on an index card.
  • Second, I tasted the spice from the plate and wrote my impressions on the same index card.
  • Third, I toasted the spice in a pan and noted how both the smell and flavor changed after toasting.
  • Between each taste, I took a bite of an apple to cleanse my palate. Between each smell, I smelled a ramakin filled with coffee grounds.

I ended with a series of notecards (pictured below) that captured a much more accurate and personal description of the spice. During the tasting, I found that I was able to describe, with much more precision, flavors and smells that I was confident I knew prior.

My handwriting did not improve that afternoon.

Exploring my spice jar with intention was humbling and promises to be helpful in future food endeavors; but isn’t exactly profound. In his recent book, The Data Detective: Ten Easy Rules to Make Sense of Statistics, Tim Harford presents examples of how the illusion of explanatory depth heightens political polarization. Study respondents who had strong views on complex policies, such has cap-and-trade programs, were more willing to alter their views after being asked to describe the program. These study respondents realized, as I did about my own cooking, that they had miscalibrated how much they actually understood the mechanics of the programs they were previously passionate about.

Understanding how the illusion of explanatory depth impacts our worldview is helpful, but does not solve the problem that self-testing one’s knowledge of explanations is difficult. There is at least one tried-and-true method:

If you want to learn something, try teaching it.

Richard Feynman

The Feynman technique is a four step process to learning something. It can be applied to physical skills, fleshing out ideas, or confirming your reading of the daily news. The steps are as follows:

  • Identify the subject
  • Explain it to a child (or an imaginary child)
  • When part of your description is missing detail or a link between information, study the gaps in your knowledge
  • Simplify, fill the knowledge gaps, and explain again

The act of explaining concepts is a natural test to determine how well we understand the components of complex phenomena. Teaching disrupts the illusion of explanatory depth, because it requires explanatory depth.

How well do you know your bicycle, food, or passionate views?

Want to learn more about the idea of illusion of explanatory depth? Find more below:

Legal, Observations

How to think about the DC Events

pollywannamath

If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.

James Madison:  Federalist No. 51

On Tuesday, January 6, the nation’s Capitol was overrun by a few thousand pro-Trump extremists. Their actions were treasonous, and it would be a disservice to our Democracy to call the events in the Capitol anything less than an insurrection.

Summary of events:

Is our democracy at risk?

The cornerstone of American democracy has been the peaceful transition of power from president to president. As Ronald Reagan observed in 1981:

“To a few of us here today this is a solemn and most momentous occasion, and yet in the history of our nation it is a commonplace occurrence. The orderly transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes place, as it has for almost two centuries, and few of us stop to think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in the world, this every-four-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.”

Ronald Reagan

Reagan would not be pleased with the state of affairs. Throughout the last year, president Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power to president-elect Biden:

Do watch the full thing

President Trump refused to acknowledge a legitimate loss of the election (both in popular vote and through the Electoral College. He actively encouraged electoral fraud in Georgia (one could argue that encouraged is too soft a word). Through a disinformation campaign, Trump convinced hundreds of thousands of Americans that the result of the election is fraudulent. Committing to a peaceful transition of power on January 8, does not absolve him of his previous anti-democratic actions.

The Trump presidency tested the mettle of the United States. This post started with a passage from the Federalist Papers about the principal struggle in establishing government. The structure and institution of government proved that the Constitution of the United States continues to be sufficient to limit the power of man throughout the Trump presidency.

Trump’s most extreme policies have not survived the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court allowed New York to subpoena Trump’s financial records, prevented the president from adding an additional question to the US Census, prevented the president from eliminating DACA, and upheld environmental protection against governmental action. The Court has not been a perfect shield from extreme policies, transgendered individuals cannot enlist in the military, and versions of Trump’s travel bans remain in law, after challenges in the courts failed. However, Trump was unsuccessful when using the Court to undermine democratic process. President Trump’s campaign filed 62 lawsuits in state and federal courts in a series of attempts to overturn election results. 61 of those challenges failed. The only successful legal challenge from his campaign, which required identification by November 9 for mail-in ballots, did not change the result of the state’s election.

Congress has not been as successful as the Court in limiting presidential overreach. However, Congress too was able to redress illegal action. Congress impeached president Trump in 2019, after the president attempted to barter military aid in exchange for Ukrainian investigations into Joe and Hunter Biden.

The framers aimed to put into place an executive with enough checks-and-balances, and sufficiently limited power, to ensure that the president of the United States would never become a king. The structures of government proved to be a resilient enough bulwark against tyranny to ensure democracy.

The will of the people may not be so resilient. Trump encouraged millions to distrust the results of a national election, he encouraged the 74 million Americans that voted for him to reject Biden as president-elect. Distrust of both the government and the press are at historic lows. Conducting democracy in an environment where citizens trust neither the government nor the press is a futile exercise.

The insurrection of January 6 highlighted the lack of will in government and citizenry to moderate extreme action. Allowing entry to the capitol was a choice. If a similar-sized crowd attempts to disrupt the inauguration of president Biden, they will not find the same success. Pentagon officials sent memos on January 4 and January 5 banning DC guardsmen from receiving ammo and riot gear, engaging with protesters (except for self-defense), sharing equipment with local police, or using surveillance or air assets without explicit approval from Trump’s acting Defense Secretary, Christopher Miller.

Only 53% of registered Republicans believe there should be a smooth transition of power to the Biden administration in January. Even reactions to the storming of the Capitol itself are mixed. The will of the people to perpetuate democracy is not strong.

Is it wrong to compare these actions with the Black Lives Matter protests of the last couple of years?

It is not fair to compare the actions of extremists with the actions of peaceful protestors. And those that compare the entirety of the BLM movement with the actions of rioters on January 6, are making an unfair comparison. However, those that compare the state of the East Precinct in Seattle to the entirety of Trump’s supporters are no better. The ability to protest peacefully must be protected in a democracy for all positions (within reason).

The language for reporting protests must be standardized. Not everyone that attended Trump’s address on the morning of the 6th is a rioter. Most didn’t take part in an insurrection, they protested peacefully. The vast majority of those who attend a Black Lives Matter rally are not rioters. They protest peacefully.

The storming and abandonment CHOP in Seattle and the Capitol in Washington DC are examples of insurrection and should be reported as such. Similarly riots that destroy property, result in violence, or encourage lawless action, should be reported as such.

In even the extreme cases of insurrection, protestors exist. Attending a rally should not be reported as proto-criminal activity.

Comparing any two political movements is appropriate. It isn’t unfair or morally wrong to compare a pro-Trump movement with the Black Lives Matter movement. However, it is unfair to turn one example into a strawman to bolster another movement. In valuing democracy we must allow space for all opinions, especially unsavory ones, unless they incite imminent lawless action.

Putting it all together

We do not yet know how much the actions of a few thousand people on January 6 threatened the United States. During the insurrection, rioters gained access to strategic IT and physical resources that could easily be used in future threats against the US by foreign or domestic actors. The political will of the United States to respond to lawless action is weak. Trust in government institutions and the press is low.

Ironically, the institutions of government themselves have proven resilient to both the president and the number of citizens that wish to halt democratic process. At present, trust in institutions, especially the Court, should be much higher. The levees held.

There are other reasons to be optimistic as well. The election of 2020 was referendum against Trump the candidate. Down ballot Republicans significantly outperformed the president. The Georgia Senate race was trending toward a GOP victory in the polls before Trump asked the Secretary of State for more votes. The tides within his party appear to be shifting away from Trump.

Legal, Observations, Prediction

An Inflection Point: How to Heal the Wound

pollywannamath

I planned to write and publish this post on November 3; but wanted to respect the political climate that surrounded the election and wait until America was certain. From the start of the day, I listened to coverage of the vote turnout and it was clear that Biden was going to be president of the United States on January 20, 2021.

It is easy on November 8, to claim that it was obvious that Biden would be the winner of the election. based on news from November 3. But I contend that it was obvious.

On the morning of November 3, FiveThirtyEight modeled an 89% chance of a Biden win. 89% is not 100%, but it would require shockingly low turnout on election day or a last minute shock to be considered a likely outcome. As an exercise, FiveThirtyEight ran a simulation on November 2 where they recreated the polling error from 2016 and determined who would win the election. In that scenario, Biden won. FiveThirtyEight took the simulation further and awarded the electors from the next two likely states to Trump. In that scenario, Biden narrowly won the presidency.

Not all pollsters forecasted the same outcome as FiveThirtyEight, and I understand that not everybody follows the same news; however, FiveThirtyEight is a modeling institution that considers all mainstream pollsters in their forecast, weighted by historical accuracy. I’m using FiveThirtyEight as a proxy for an average historically-accurate forecast.

Looking at the news on November 3, it was clear to all that the United States was on pace for record voter turnout. Increased turnout has favored the Democratic party over the last few decades. Republicans win mid-terms, largely as a result of smaller turnout.

But the news the night of November 3 conflicted with the observations above. Trump was leading in many states early in the night that he would ultimately lose to Biden. The New York Times identified Michigan as a state that would likely go to Trump during the coverage (Biden ended up winning it by > 150,000 votes).

The reason for the misleading and dramatic counting of the election is twofold:

Instead, news organizations sparked increased concern about the election. Most mainstream media organizations spend election night sowing discontent by expressing their hope that Biden won the election and outlining how Trump might have won. While far-right organizations decried “late surge” of ballot counts for Biden as fraudulent. I will not post a link to that type of reporting; it does not deserve increased attention.

News organizations spent the night forecasting something that happened in the past (voting) and expressing their hope that Trump did not pull off another “miracle.” As an example of news organizations displaying partisan leanings, noted Democrat, George Stephanopoulos moderated ABC News’s bipartisan election coverage; at more than one occasion during the night he asked to see more blue (democratic wins) on the map.

He would see more blue; as soon as the mail-in ballots were counted. These organizations that spent days forecasting an event that previously occurred remind me of a scene from Mean Girls. We, as a nation should have taken them as seriously:

Forecasting past events

To this point, I’ve been pretty critical of the news (although I’ve stopped short of calling it F**e N**s). It comes with good reason. The national push to replace president Trump added to the polarization of the country. News diversity shrunk from 2016-2020 meaning that more news focused on the most polarizing issue: Trump’s presidency.

Traditional news organizations did more to gain trust with liberal-leaning readers than conservatives in 2020. Some may think that is a positive considering the propensity of the Republican president to lie. But liberals do not have a monopoly on the truth; Trump lies frequently, but his critics are not always honest.

Glenn Greenwald recently published an article about a story that was spiked by his editors at The Intercept. The article covered concerns that Hunter Biden leveraged his father’s position to secure lucrative positions with foreign governments and firms. The article falls short of accusing president-elect Biden of personally profiting or advocating policies that would aid the institutions that sponsor Hunter; but clearly and accurately identifies the open questions about the president-elect’s involvement. Greenwald alleges that the article was killed because it was too critical of president-elect Biden.

Similarly, The New York Times refused to publish Op-Eds that were deemed insensitive or objectionable more than once this year. These internal clashes on what should be published made national news.

Preventing the publication of an opinion is not censorship, nor is it a restriction of free speech. News organizations are corporations and are not required to give all writers an equal platform.

However, when mainstream media organizations make consistent editorial decisions that amplifies criticism of one party and restricts criticism of another, it fails the responsibility that it holds as the Fourth Estate. Mainstream media can no longer be an democracy maintaining institution; it becomes another source of division.

The two examples above are not outliers. The mainstream media overwhelmingly favored policies and politicians supported by Democrats.

2020 may prove to be a significant inflection point in American politics. As the level of political polarization in the United States reaches record levels, Joe Biden continues to state his desire to be a president for all Americans: “I don’t see blue or red states, but United States.”

Its time for the mainstream news to do the same. Media bias will always exist, and I am not asking for the solution for general bias. What I ask is that news organizations from Fox News to MSNBC recognize that the election is over and that the 2020 political ratings bump should not be sustained in 2021. Both sides must be willing to praise and criticize president Biden in 2021.

President Biden will not be able to be the president of all Americans, if all Americans live in a news echo chamber. In that world, only the most extreme news organizations will prosper and Biden’s message will be irrelevant.

Legal, Observations, Prediction

A Defense of the Electoral College

pollywannamath

Everybody hates the Electoral College. Vox claims to have found the ‘Definitive Case against the Electoral College‘. The institution is undemocratic. Five times, the Electoral College prevented the candidate who won the popular vote from ascending to the presidency.

Nate Silver’s presidential forecast estimates a greater than 10% chance of Donald Trump losing the popular vote for a second time, but winning the election over Joe Biden. In fact, a scenario where Biden wins the popular vote by 2-3%, Trump is favored to win the election. The Electoral College may, for the second consecutive election, award the presidency to a candidate who did not win the popular vote.

Attacks on the Electoral College traditionally fall into one of a few categories:

  • The Electoral College is an antidemocratic institution
  • The Electoral College favors Republicans and enables a form of Gerrymandering
  • The Electoral College disenfranchises all but the “battleground states”

There is an obvious element of truth to each claim (at least when applied to recent elections). However, none are compelling enough to warrant abolishing the institution.

The Electoral College is a body of 538 electors who directly elect the president of the United States. Each state, and the District of Columbia, are awarded an allocation of voters based on population recorded in the last Census. The allocation of voters for the 2020 election are based on the 2010 Census, the allocation of voters for the 2024 election will be based on the 2020 Census. A candidate must win a majority of votes from the College to win the presidency. If no candidate wins a majority, the Congress will choose the president and vice-president.

Too often, the word democracy is used as a value positive term. When we say something is “democratic” we mean to say that it is just; conversely, when we label something as “antidemocratic”, we mean to say that it is corrupt or communist. The critique that the Electoral College is antidemocratic, is not a critique, its a fact. It, like the Senate or Supreme Court, was designed to protect the country from direct democracy. The political parties of our founding fathers were Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, not Direct-Democrats:

The second and third common critiques of the Electoral College center on disenfranchisement and the value of a single vote. It is true that the Electoral College values individual votes differently. A single Electoral College vote in Washington DC contains half as many citizens as a single vote in Texas. This means that each Texas voter is half as important as a voter in Washington DC (Wyoming/California has the widest gap).

However, the inequality of Electoral College simply mirrors that of Congress (1 voter per Senator/Representative) and I don’t hear the same concerns with Congressional allocation. Surely, there is something worse than the Electoral College vote allocation that causes the level of disenfranchisement in US presidential elections. Or is it that the Electoral College always benefits one party? In the case above, I presented a scenario that generally benefits Democratic candidates (D.C is blue and Texas is generally red) over their Republican opposition. Because the elector allocation is based off of Census population, the bias changes over time. In ’92, ’96 and ’04 the Electoral College favored the Democratic candidate.

The Electoral College only determines how votes are allocated and the process for directly electing the president. States determine how elections are conducted by their populations. Currently, 48 of 50 states and the District of Columbia require that all Electoral College votes go to the candidate that won the state or act as a “faithless Elector” (where allowed).

If 3 million people vote for the Republican candidate in Pennsylvania and 2.9 million vote for the Democratic candidate, the Republican wins 20 votes and the Democrat wins 0. The Electoral College, as an institution, does not create this outcome, the state of Pennsylvania does. When only Maine and Nebraska allow for split votes, voting for the US president begins to feel like an exercise in futility.

Abolishing the Electoral College and moving to a national popular vote would resolve the problems in the winner-take-all nature of presidential elections, the national popular vote loses some of the Electoral College benefits. Additionally, abolishing the Electoral College isn’t politically viable.

Abolishing the Electoral College requires an amendment to the Constitution that both abolishes the institution and sets a new standard for electing the US president. The last amendment added to the Constitution, a single line preventing Congress from passing their own pay increase, was ratified in 1992. Nothing has been ratified in the 25+ years since.

A policy compromise is in order. The state legislatures should form a pact to abolish their own winner-take-all rules. Asking the states to undo these laws is not unprecedented, nor is it naïve. Sixteen states, and the District of Columbia have already signed a compact to award their Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote, once the compact has over 270 votes in its constituency. If 36% of the Electoral Votes are already pledged to this contract (which violates the promise of both the Electoral College and local elections), it is not unthinkable that 50% of entities would agree to abolish their winner-take-all elections.

I’ve labelled this post “A defense of the Electoral College,” and so far have not defended it. The Electoral College is an institution, like many in the US government, designed to protect smaller interests and add efficiency to an inefficient process. Allow me to provide a few scenarios where the Electoral College is beneficial:

  • The candidate who wins the popular vote falls ill, or dies, between the election and inauguration.
  • The candidate who wins the popular vote falls victim to scandal that leaves her unfit for the office of the presidency
  • Election tampering or voting error in one state prevents the national election from being able to record the popular vote in that state through November.

None of these cases are particularly far-fetched. Especially when looking at an election rife with scandal of two septuagenarians. The Electoral College’s 538 voters are able to vote closer to the inauguration (because their votes can be easily counted and they cannot be tampered with) and react to critical changes without looking to millions of people (where allowed by their state). If one state cannot determine the popular vote (cough…..cough Florida), the Electoral College can still elect a president.

In a typical election the Electoral College helps protect diverse interests. Often this is phased as the Electoral College bolsters small states at the expense of larger ones. I content that the more densely populated an area, the more similar their needs from a national government. The Electoral College overvalues areas with sparse populations (with the exception of DC) who have more individualistic needs of a national government in terms of infrastructure, educational policy, financial incentives, environmental policy). While a few cities would not control the national popular vote, states such as Wyoming, Montana, Hawaii, and Alaska who have diverse needs, would be irrelevant.

The president has unilateral authority in certain arenas. To prevent Congress from being dominated by a minority of states, the Constitution awards Senate votes equally. Why should the president, who also has some unilateral governing authority, be exempt from the same voting concerns?