Organizing Entropy

Iran and Syria, Compare and Contrast

There's a lot of talk this week about Syria and Iran and the various potential actions the US might or might not take against both countries.  What strikes me as more than a bit strange is that many observers and experts argue that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be a disaster not only for the US, but also for the region, yet consequences are hardly mentioned at all with regard to an attack against Syria with airstrikes for the purpose of regime change.  Actually, only the consequences of inaction in Syria are mentioned, not the consequences of action.  While many pundits make frankly ignorant and ahistorical comparisons about supposed similarities between the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, there is silence on this with respect to Syria.  Why?  Cognitive bias and ideological blindness at work again.

 

After all, Syria, unlike Iran, has an active chemical weapons program and an active arsenal of chemical warheads which could be deployed by aircraft, artillery and ballistic missiles.  Syria has used this arsenal as a hedge against Israel, and this week there were rumors that Syria might use them against the opposition.  What would the regime do with those weapons if it's existence was directly threatened by a Western intervention, even if it's only naval and air power?  What will happen to these weapons if Assad is overthrown?  Can we expect and orderly accounting of these weapons?  No one knows and anyone other than the Assads who believes they know for certain are fools.

 

The proponents of direct military intervention in Syria make a pretty poor effort to cloak the justification as R2P, but of course the reality is that in both cases the goal is regime change.  If anything, the "run-up" to intervention in Syria is the Godchild of the invasion of Iraq, complete with no serious discussion of what would happen once the Alawites fall.  Syria is, like Iraq, a state cobbled together and full of internal factions and age-old animosities that are very likely to reappear and complicate the transition to a post-Assad government. 

 

Syria has other capabilities to strike outside it's borders as well - do those who support going to war against Syria really believe that the consequences would not be severe?  Are we prepared for a civil war in Syria? Have we learned nothing from Iraq, Afghanistan and every other conflict where assumptions about consequences proved completely wrong?  I ask this being fully cognizant of the strategic differences between Iran and Syria, in particular geography and oil.

 

Direct military intervention is ALWAYS uncertain and dangerous.  Advocates for intervention need to do their homework, think through the potential consequences and plan to mitigate them.   If we must intervene, US interests would be better served through covert assistance to the Syrian opposition than through a direct military intervention.  Not only would we have plausible deniability, but the costs to the US would be much less and we would retain the option to militarily intervene should conditions change.

Communication is a Two-Way Street: Deficit Edition

I'm pleased my comment on communication and journalism is climate science got a good reception (it was kindly highlighted by science journalists John Fleck and Tom Yulsman.).  To lend more support to my point in that comment, there is this poll on the federal budget deficit: 

More than 7 in 10 respondents say slashing foreign aid and pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan would result in substantial savings, and large majorities back such moves. Yet foreign aid accounts for about 1 percent of federal spending, and the Pentagon requested $159 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year, less than 5 percent of Obama’s $3.83 trillion federal budget.

Fewer than half of respondents say cutting Medicare benefits or raising the age at which Americans receive Social Security retirement benefits would have a large impact on the deficit, and only 2 in 10 favor cutting Medicare benefits. Such entitlements account for about 40 percent of the budget and are the main drivers of the long-term deficit.

This poll is pretty consistent with other polls on the topic going back years.  Many, many people  in this country fundamentally misunderstand some very basic aspects of the federal budget.  Can this be blamed on journalism?  I don't think so.  Some in the climate concerned community blame "false balance" for muddling the message on climate change which resulted in diminished support for climate-related initiatives.  Some journalists turned this argument on it's head and suggested it was the scientists who failed to convince the public. Yet the public ignorance on the budget is equally large, if not larger, than climate change and there is no "false balance" here.  The biggest criticism I can muster against journalism is that I wish there were more coverage of this topic, but I would expect that everyone would like more coverage of topics that matter to them, so even that criticism isn't very strong.  Journalists do cover the budget deficit and none (at least that I'm aware of!) report anything that would give support to the public's mistaken views. And it's not like the relative size of the foreign aid and medicare budgets are complicated or difficult research questions.  Even on this simple issue, many, many people are misinformed.

 

What does this tell us?  In my opinion it reinforces the idea that communication it much more than simply transmitting knowledge or information.  This example is another demonstration that factually exposing an issue in the media is no guarantee that the public will receive the message, much less come to the conclusions one would expect.

Communication is a Two-Way Street

There's currently a big debate in the climate change community about communication in general and the role of journalists in particular.  On a thread over at Keith Kloor's blog, I left the following comment:

 

I think there are a lot of faulty assumptions that underlie this whole debate.  Communication isn’t simply transmitting information – the information must be received, processed and filtered through the mindset and cognitive biases of each individual.  The common assumption in this debate seems to be that improving the message automatically results in better “communication.”  Further, some suggest that if only the appropriate “facts” were transmitted then people would be convinced to support their particular policy preferences.  The fact that people don’t support those policies is used as evidence that the message is inadequate, resulting in another round of blame the messenger.
 
The problem, of course, is that the sender of information is only half of the equation. Further, in my opinion the sending side is less important than the receiving side when it comes to effective communication and I think the cognitive science literature supports that opinion. Journalists and scientists can always improve their messaging and narratives, but they should be cognizant that there are real limitations to what the “message” can do.  The assumption that people will be convinced if they are only shown the “facts” is naive.  Anyone who has tried to convince their best friend that the person they are in love with is a philandering scoundrel understands this.
 
Additionally, the sad fact of the matter is that a lot of people don’t trust journalists and, these days, a lot of people aren’t exposed to journalism at all, much less a journalist who specifically covers science.  When journalists relay information contrary to people’s predilections and biases then distrust is only heightened.  The same goes for scientists.  Eviscerating each other over perceived failures in messaging does nothing to solve the real communication problem, which is on the receiving end.  The number of people who are genuinely open to convincing evidence one way or another is quite small.  Brink Lindsey explains this better than I can. Although he focuses on partisanship, the description is not limited to partisans (emphasis added):
 
It’s not just that partisans are vulnerable to believing fatuous nonsense. It’s that their beliefs, whether sensible or otherwise, about a whole range of empirical questions are determined by their political identity. There’s no epistemologically sound reason why one’s opinion about, say, the effects of gun control should predict one’s opinion about whether humans have contributed to climate change or how well Mexican immigrants are assimilating — these things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Yet the fact is that views on these and a host of other matters are indeed highly correlated with each other. And the reason is that people start with political identities and then move to opinions about how the world works, not vice versa.
 
This is not something that journalists and scientists can easily overcome.  Convincing people will be a long, hard slog no matter how convincing the message appears and no matter how much one believes one’s facts “speak for themselves.”  If climate scientists want to convince the public, they should not make unnecessary enemies of journalists and instead consider alternative approaches.

This communication problem isn't confined to climate change, or even science in general.  I experienced the challenges personally many times in the intelligence community.  Even though our role in the IC is specifically mandated to inform policymakers, convincing them on an issue contrary to what they already believe is almost always a challenge.  That is not their fault, and really, this problem is not anyone's "fault" since cognitive bias and mindsets are features of the human mind that we cannot change.

On Paradoxes in Progressive and Conservative Ideology

Charles Hugh Smith has a couple of excellent posts up on the internal paradoxes in the two prevalent political ideologies in the US.  I'm not crazy about his writing style, but once you get past that, I think he identifies the paradoxes in both ideologies.  First, the Progressives:

"Progressives" don't like The Patriot Act and other Central State over-reach, but they are passionately wedded to an ever larger and ever more powerful Savior State that can impose "solutions" on the planet and the nation.

The "good" Savior State and the "bad" Central State are one in the same. You can't create a Central State that collects ever more powers to control, intercede, intervene and manipulate and not get a Central State that over-reaches and bloats into a collection of self-aggrandizing, self-serving fiefdoms and State-chartered monopolies like the Military-Industrial complex and "healthcare," to name but two State-cartel partnerships.

 

So-called "Progressives" love these State-monopoly partnerships because they invite "top-down" "solutions" which can be shoved down the food chain. The idea that people can sort out their own lives is anathema to "Progressives" because it would deprive them of the large-scale bureaucracies and concentrations of power that they see as the foundations of "solutions."

 

Next, Conservatives: 

So-called "Conservatives" claim to want small government, but they can't resist fattening themselves at the trough of the Central State/Savior State. Reaching for the very pinnacle of hypocrisy, not only do so-called "Conservatives" greedily lap up all the State largesse enjoyed by proponents of the Savior State--the overflowing troughs of Medicare, for example--but they do other welfare recipients one better by gorging on tax breaks, oil leases on government land and offshore tax-avoidance scams that others at the Central State trough can only dream of.

 

The number of "small government Conservatives" who renounce their Savior State largesse-- Social Security and Medicare--is essentially zero.

Read them both.

 

It's not just liberalism

Armed liberal laments the ad hominem practiced by some on the left.  This is in response to Brad Delong writing that someone shouldn't be listened to because they are "not a good person":

 Not - "he's deeply wrong because," Not even "He's deeply wrong."

"He's not a good person."

While I agree, I would only point out that his complaint applies across the spectrum.  It's not a problem with "liberalism" it's a problem with some liberals (and conservatives and most everyone else). There's too much ad hominem and much too little regard for the opinions of others.  We are all, after all, citizens of the same nation and we need to at least recognize that the interests of those we disagree with matter.

The strange thing, to me, anyway, is that such speach is counterproductive.  Does Mr. Delong seriously believe that Mickey Kraus will change his behavoir through name-calling?

What is "False Equivalence?"

I get frequently get accused of "false equivalence" by partisans after criticizing their side in some way.  Typically, they will complain about something the other faction did.  I will point out that their faction does the same thing.  They will then argue the other faction is worse, or does it more often, or whatever.  The list of potential justifications is endless although sometimes they simply state that it's "obvious" the other side is worse.  The constant in this equation is the other side is always worse. 

After that is established, the partisan will often make the accusation that by criticizing both factions, I'm applying "false equivalence" because both sides aren't the same (of course, what they are really upset about is that I criticized their faction). They will then try to get me to acknowledge the constant, invariable truth that the other side is worse.  If I demur or refuse, then tribal psychology kicks in and I'm branded as a member of the enemy faction, although generous partisans will suggest instead that I'm perhaps a useful idiot or am ignorant "of the facts."

If I demonstrate my tribal loyalty by saying that, yes, the other side is worse, then sometimes the partisans I'm conversing with will grudgingly admit that their side "isn't perfect" or "has a few otherwise well-meaning people who occasionally step over the line."  In short, partisans are predisposed to interpret the wrongs committed by their own side more favorably than the wrongs committed by the opposition.  So, in the partisan mind, there can never be equivalence even if two acts are, indeed, equivalent. 

Of course, this is a generalization and there are exceptions.  There are outliers which even partisans can't ignore or make excuses for.  A recent example is former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (At this point liberal readers will probably be thinking something along the lines of: "but people were making excuses for him!"  Well, that is true - some partisans have consumed a lot more kool-aid than others and are unreformable).

To be honest, most of the time I do think one side is worse than the other - and I will usually say so - but that is ultimately of limited relevance to me.  I have my own standards for what I think is appropriate behavior in the political arena.  If someone crosses the line they will get criticism from me.  Both sides cross that line with regularity - so often I couldn't quantitatively compare them even if I was inclined to do so. Applying a single standard and "enforcing" it equally (at least as equally as I can - I'm only human after all) is not false equivalence by itself - it's only false equivalence if I'm not only keeping score, but trying to keep the score at 50/50.  That is something I try to avoid. I purposely don't keep score as I don't view politics as a zero-sum competition between two opposing factions.

So I think the primary difference between me and the partisans is that they are primarily interested in keeping score and I am not.  I'm am not invested in either party so I have no inherent interest in seeing either succeed and so have no interest in keeping score.  I'm also not an ideological "centrist" attempting to always straddle some invisible ever-moving line dividing the two factions.  That is another accusation often leveled against me in partisan debates.  It's frankly hard for them to conceive that there are people who have not intellectually bought into the party system.

This is not to say that I'm special or somehow immune from cognitive failings and confirmation bias.  I am, although by training I endeavor to discover such errors and correct them if possible.  The difference is that my biases aren't based in partisan identity and the tribal psychology that dominates partisanship.  I have my standard and I will continue to criticize those who fail to meet it no matter their partisan affiliation and I will make no apologies in doing so. 

Meme's Die Hard: California Missile Edition

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that many people still believe the airplane contrail seen near LA on the 9th was actually a missile. I've already mentioned how, once established, false notions become hard to dispel even when the evidence becomes overwhelming.  It doesn't help when people with impressive sounding resume's, who should know better, keep these meme's alive.

Two in the latter category are being widely cited as evidence that it was actually a missile.  The first comes from Doug Richardson, editor of Jane's Missile and Rockets, who is quoted in several news reports:

"It’s a solid propellant missile," he told the Times. "You can tell from the efflux [smoke]."

Richardson said it could have been a ballistic missile launched from a submarine or an interceptor, the defensive anti-missile weapon used by Navy surface ships.

It will be interesting to see if the next issue of Missiles and Rockets will run an article on it.  Somehow I doubt it.  I am guessing (and hoping) that once Mr. Richardson looks into it a bit more, he'll realize his first impression was incorrect.

Next is this article by Wayne Madsen who does have a long history of making conspiratorial allegations.  The article sourcing is extremely vague, but apparently it's good enough for Madsen to simply declare that it was not only a missile, but a Chinese missile.  Pentagon denials are merely spin. The article itself is filled with obvious errors - for example, he suggests the missile impacted on Chinese territory, but no Chinese SLBM's have the range to reach China from off the LA coast.  In all, it's a pretty bad article but it does have a veneer of credibility which is sure to confuse non experts.  Good conspiracy theories always do.

The best analysis I've seen on this actually comes from the Daily Show:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Missile: Impossible
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

 

As Stewart notes, it's impossible for it to be a missile if the cameraman filmed it for ten minutes. 

 

Here is, for example, an actual missile launch under similar lighting conditions:

 

 

There are two things to take from this video.  First is the fact that in the real launch the missile drops below the horizon in less than four minutes.  This is because it is arcing around the curvature of the earth.  Secondly is the light on the plume.  The missile starts out in darkness, then passes through the orange glow of twilight, then becomes bright as it gains altitude and it illuminated by the full sun.  In the California "missile" video the entire plum was bathed in orange twilight.  That means the entire plume (contrail) was at roughly the same altitude.  Had it actually been a missile, it would have rapidly risen into full sun and would have been brightly illuminated as happened in the real rocket launch.

Implications of Mistaking a Jet for a Missile

On the evening of Nov. 8th near LA, a news helicopter shot some video and the local news station ran this report:

 

Pretty much everyone either agreed with the given conclusion about what the video showed or trusted that the news people (and the "expert" they consulted) knew what they are talking about.  This judgment about what the video shows is seamlessly transformed into an indisputable "fact," so the discussion immediately moves to who launched it and why. "A picture is worth a 1000 words" indeed.

The speculation on the internet began immediately and the outrage poured out that our security establishment had "no clue" about this "missile" launch.  Someone had the sense to look in the NOTAM system to see if there was a closure area associated with a missile launch.  There wasn't, but there was a restricted flight area announced for the following day for China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station.  The NOTAM made the rounds as confirmatory evidence that something was afoot despite the obvious facts that the NOTAM was not for a missile launch, was not for the area where the "missile" was seen, was on the wrong day, was for an organization that doesn't do ballistic missiles testing, etc.  People simply accepted the NOTAM as relevant evidence without much additional thought. The NOTAM did, however, focus speculation into two predominant theories: This missile launch was either an accidental test or was some kind of secret warning or message to China.  Of course, after real experts were consulted the credibility of the indisputable fact was finally called into question.

So what happened?  People were engaging in normal, human cognitive bias.  This incident shows just how difficult it can be for the human mind to challenge a "fact" once it becomes established.  It shows how the human mind will believe the weakest "evidence" if it supports a "fact" and will consider extreme explanations to explain the "fact." It shows how people will accept evidence as confirmatory even when it isn't and interpret ambiguous evidence unambiguously.

This is a useful example because we humans make these kinds of cognitive mistakes all the time.  Cognitive science has definitively shown that once ideas or "facts" are established - once they become "mindsets" - then it becomes very difficult to challenge them.  The amount of evidence required to overturn an established mindset is usually extraordinary.  This incident is a perfect example of this kind of cognitive bias at work.

The implications should be pretty obvious.  One can only wonder what the Chinese thought of all the speculation that this "missile" was a "message" aimed at them.  One wonders if they believed it was a missile too and perhaps heightened their readiness a bit in response.  Fortunately, the "fact" was corrected relatively quickly in this case. 

The sad reality, however, is that we humans make similar cognitive mistakes all the time.  We make them individually and collectively on issues big and small up to and including war and peace.  The belief in WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion of Iraq is but one example.  I know, because I was in the intelligence community at the time and believed that Iraq retained at least some of its chemical weapons.  I wasn't alone.  While it's true that the administration sought to strengthen its case by essentially making shit up and interpreting any ambiguity in a way to support their policy for war, it's also true that their chicanery gained traction because of the mindset that developed over the course of the 1990's, a mindset that I and many others had bought into. Their justifications for war would not have been believed had there not been many people who thought Iraq retained chem weapons along with at least the desire to reconstitute other programs.

By comparison, once the "missile" launch off the California coast became established "fact" then all sorts of otherwise crazy theories became reasonable.  They became reasonable-sounding because people were trying to fit the narrative to the established "fact."  Without that "fact," is it reasonable to suggest that the US would launch a missile, without warning, in a manner completely inconsistent with established missile operations, very close to a major American city, for the purpose of sending a message to China (or any purpose actually)?  Is it reasonable to suggest that a US ballistic missile submarine would "accidentally" launch one of it's missiles (Something that has never previously happened)?  Is it reasonable to suggest that a Chinese submarine, out of the blue, would launch a missile right off a US population center in order to send us a message?  In normal circumstances those theories (and the many others put forth as explanations) are crazy.  In circumstances where people believe a missile really was fired they appear reasonable.  Perceptions matter.

One wonders how many wars over human history owe their cause to such misperception?  How many have died as a result?  Many millions probably.  That alone should cause us all to engage in a little more introspection and perhaps do a little more to question our own established narratives, particularly when we begin to consider "reasonable" solutions that in a different context would be downright crazy.