Mind Traps

Causation and correlation

Even if A and B are correlated, it doesn’t mean A causes B nor vice versa.

For example, suppose you lost your weight after you started taking an expensive supplement you got at Amazon.com. You may think that the supplement worked, but, in fact, we never know, since there are many other possible causes such as that you slept really well, that something stressful was gone in your work environment, or that you recovered from some unknown disease that had caused you gaining weight. Unless all these variables are well controlled in scientific laboratories, you cannot make any claim that the supplement actually works to you.

Similarly, even though undeveloped brain and risky behaviors are correlated, no scientific research has found that an undeveloped brain caused certain risky behaviors typical to teens. First, it is unethical to make teens actually take high-risk behaviors in a controlled setting. Therefore, scientists can experiment only on non-risky behaviors such as a gambling game, which cannot fully replicate risky behaviors in a variable-free setting. Collecting data from what actually happened in the society have other possible variables such as cultures, classes or peer-environments of teens.

Seeing what we expect to see

Once people form beliefs, people often unintentionally seek information that confirms their beliefs as well as find flaws in information that disconfirms their beliefs.

For example, suppose you wanted to get a new car, and you already have your favorite BMW in your mind. Any good review on the BMW easily get your attention, but any bad critique to the car only prompts you to question the reviewer by saying like “This author comments more on the BMW’s aesthetics compared to the one I read in the other magazine. He may not be an expert in mechanics. Why should I believe him?” We like confirming information maybe because we don’t have much time and resources to contemplate every decision we make.

Similarly, once people believe that teens behave badly because of their immature brains, they seek evidence that supports the belief. For example, suppose parents concluded the myth is true because they couldn’t discipline their kids well. After forming the belief they may unintentionally start finding evidence that supports the myth because, in their hidden desires, they do not want to spend more time on what they have already concluded.

Leveling Information

When the speaker/writer needs to be informative and interesting, they may present only parts that attract people.

For example, a car dealer tells that your favorite BMW has a super efficient gas mileage, 50mpg. However, what he does not tell you is that when and where the car has that mileage. Usually, the mileage in a car catalog is often measured at the manufacturer’s test course that is flat and oval like a track for athletes. The weather is nice too. Therefore, we cannot really tell how a car is really efficient in gas unless somebody tests it in a real environment.

Similarly, many newspaper articles, popular magazines and speakers for discipline seminars do not always give you the whole picture of primary scientific findings. For example, the NY Times articles in Read this/Not that section don’t mention limitations to their claims such as that scientists haven’t found any causation between the teenage brain structure, or functions, and risky behaviors typical to teens. It may be understandable because newspaper articles have limited space to provide attractive information to the reader. Since mentioning limitations to primary findings may spoil sensations to the reader, they may unintentionally, or intentionally, level information from primary sources that is less attractive to the reader.