Skipping the comments

A few days ago I was casting about for topics for Skeptophilia, and was perusing that amazing clearinghouse for everything from the profound to the ridiculous, Reddit.

I ran into a link to a Science Daily article about some delightful research that came out of a collaboration between physicists at four different universities in China, which centered on the physics of skipping rocks.  I absolutely love skipping rocks, and whenever I'm by a lake I will spend inordinate amounts of time finding, and then slinging, the most perfectly flat stones I can find, trying to beat my record (which stands at thirteen skips).

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons Killy Ridols, Stone skimming -Patagonia-9Mar2010, CC BY-SA 2.0]

The math in the original research is way way beyond my ability to understand, despite my bachelor's degree in physics (but to be fair, I kind of sucked as a physics student).  The reader is put on notice that it's going to be rough going immediately, because the first thing the authors do is to define no fewer than 49 different variables they considered in modeling the behavior of a skipping stone.

So I went back to the summary in Science Daily, and found a nicely dumbed-down explanation of what they'd done.  They used an aluminum disk launched by an air compressor in place of the typical round stone and person's arm, with a motorized feature that started the disk spinning at a chosen rate before launch.  Attached to the disk was a set of sensors that monitored the disk while in flight, because -- as you know if you're a rock-skipper -- it can all happen so fast that it's hard to keep track of all-important data like how much the rock's path curves (and which direction), the angle your rock hits the water, and the number of skips you get.

The upshot of it was that the rate of spin is critical, because spinning induces the gyroscopic effect and stabilizes the pitch of the rock as it flies.  Less intuitively obvious, to me at least, is that the vertical acceleration of the rock has to be higher than a certain threshold (which turns out to be about four times the acceleration due to gravity) in order for the stone to bounce.

So I thought all this was pretty cool -- taking a familiar phenomenon and explaining how complex it really is using mathematical modeling.

Then I did what you should never, ever, ever do.

I looked at the comments section.

I swear, I should get fitted out with something like those "Invisible Fence" dog collars, only instead of zapping me when I cross a line on our property, it would zap me when I try to look at the comments section.  Any comments section.  Because I started sputtering with rage almost immediately, when I saw comments like these -- which, for the record, are reproduced here verbatim, because I don't want to write sic over and over:

• This is what scientists do?  Spend their time fucking around throwing rocks in the water.  How about doing stuff that might actually help people.
• I cant believe our tax dollars is going to pay for bullshit "research" like this.
• Whats next, the physics of yoyos?
• Yeah I believe it.  Liberal loonies love this kind of stuff.  Waste of time.
• SMH you can't make this shit up
• Whose approving these grant appliactions?  FFS no wonder nooone trusts scientists to tell the truth when there playing kids games instead of working.

More sensitive readers may want to plug their ears.

WILL ALL OF YOU ANTI-SCIENTIFIC, ILLITERATE YAHOOS KNUCKLE-DRAG YOUR WAY BACK TO YOUR CAVES, AND LEAVE THE INTELLECTUAL COMMENTARY TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE AN ACTUAL INTELLECT?

I mean, really.

First of all, zero American tax dollars were spent on this study, because the entire thing was done in China.  I know we Americans have a regrettable tendency to think "America" = "the entire world," but all you have to do is look at the author affiliation list, or even the line in the Science Daily summary that says the research was done by "scientists from several universities in China."  And while the research itself studied stone-skipping, the model has applications to a lot of important stuff, which you'd have figured out if you bothered to look at the very first line of the original paper: "Although skipping stones seems like a time-honored pastime, an in-depth study of this game is of vital importance for the understanding of the water landing of space flight re-entry vehicles and aircraft, hull slamming, antitorpedo and antisubmarine water entry, etc."

And even if the researchers hadn't pointed out in the introduction to the paper exactly what the potential applications are, I absolutely abhor the attitude that pure research -- investigating a scientific question without regard to immediate utility -- is useless.  It's worth pointing out how many times what seemed like "nothing more than pure research" generated something that turned out to be incredibly important.  Here are a few examples that come to mind:

1. Two researchers, George Beadle and Edward Tatum, were researching nutrition in a mold called Neurospora, and were particularly interested in why some strains of Neurospora starved to death even when given adequate amounts of food.  Their research generated the concept of "one gene-one protein" -- the basis of our understanding of how genes control traits.
2. Charles Richet was studying how the toxin of a rare species of jellyfish affects the body.  His research led to the discovery of how anaphylactic shock works -- and the development of the epi pen, saving countless lives from death because of bee sting allergies, nut allergies, and so on.
3. Wilhelm Röntgen was researching the newly-invented cathode-ray tube, which at that point had no practical applications whatsoever.  That is, he was playing around.  He noticed that when he activated the tube, even though it was completely covered, some fluorescent papers at the other end of the room began to glow in the dark. He had just discovered x-rays.
4. Alexander Fleming was something of a ne'er-do-well in the scientific world. He did a lot of raising of bacteria on plates, and his favorite hobby was to take brightly-colored species of bacteria and paint them on agar media to make pictures.  One day, a mold spore blew in and landed on one of his picture-cultures and spoiled it.  His further messing-about with how the mold spoiled the culture led to the discovery of the first antibiotic, penicillin.
5. Roy Plunkett was working with gases that could be used to quickly cool vessels in scientific experiments, and after one failure he found that the vessel was left coated with a slick substance.  He eventually named it "Teflon."

See why I get a little impatient?

But I think what gets me most about this whole thing, and comments sections in general, is how people who are obviously ignorant on a subject still feel like their opinions have relevance.  I have a lot of faults, but at least I try not to pontificate on topics I know nothing about.

It once again reminds me of the wonderful quote by Isaac Asimov: "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"

So, that's my maddening excursion of the day.  To the scientists who did the skipping-stone study, I'll say, "Bravo."  To the people who responded to it with sneers and snarls, I'll say, "Until you learn some science, shut the fuck up."  And to the Invisible Fence people, I'll reiterate my request for a Comments-Section Collar.  I bet you could make some serious cash selling those.

************************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is pure fun: Arik Kershenbaum's The Zoologist's Guide to the Galaxy: What Animals on Earth Reveal About Aliens and Ourselves.  Kershenbaum tackles a question that has fascinated me for quite some time; is evolution constrained?  By which I mean, are the patterns you see in most animals on Earth -- aerobic cellular respiration, bilateral symmetry, a central information processing system/brain, sensory organs sensitive to light, sound, and chemicals, and sexual reproduction -- such strong evolutionary drivers that they are likely to be found in alien organisms?

Kershenbaum, who is a zoologist at the University of Cambridge, looks at how our environment (and the changes thereof over geological history) shaped our physiology, and which of those features would likely appear in species on different alien worlds.  In this fantastically entertaining book, he considers what we know about animals on Earth -- including some extremely odd ones -- and uses that to speculate about what we might find when we finally do make contact (or, at the very least, detect signs of life on an exoplanet using our earthbound telescopes).

It's a wonderfully fun read, and if you're fascinated with the idea that we might not be alone in the universe but still think of aliens as the Star Trek-style humans with body paint, rubber noses, and funny accents, this book is for you.  You'll never look at the night sky the same way again.

[Note: if you purchase this book from the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]

Political change blindness

Like many of my fellow Americans, I had hoped to get through the holiday season without conflict, but was thwarted by the acrimonious times we live in.  As these things go, the conflict I was in was pretty mild.  No dishes were thrown, no fists pounded on tables, no ugly epithets hurled, and we all parted still more or less as friends.

Even so, it wasn't what I would call pleasant.  As someone who despises conflict, and doesn't enjoy either politics or argument for their own sakes, I would very much have liked to avoid it.  One of the things that struck me -- this always strikes me in these situations -- was the sheer immovability of the participants.  No one budged one iota from their positions, not after an hour of heated discussion.  To be fair, neither did I.  But the fact that no one changed even the smallest bit of their opinion brought home how utterly pointless it all was.

We're all rock-solid-sure of our views, pretty much all the time, aren't we?  Well, maybe not as much as we think, to judge from new research out of Lund University (Sweden), by cognitive scientists Lars Hall, Petter Johansson, Andreas Lind, Philip Pärnamets, and Thomas Strandberg.  In their paper that came out recently in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, "False Beliefs and Confabulation Can Lead to Lasting Changes in Political Attitudes," they showed that a simple trick -- a bit of sleight-of-hand -- can lead people to defend a view they originally argued against.

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons David Shankbone, Anger during a protest by David Shankbone, CC BY-SA 3.0]

What they did was striking in its simplicity.  First, they showed test subjects various photographs of human faces, asking them to decide between pairs of them which was the more attractive.  The researchers surreptitiously exchanged the higher-rated photograph for the lower-rated one, and went back through the choices, saying, "This is the one you chose.  Do you still feel that way, or do you want to reconsider your decision?"

Two-thirds of the subjects never caught on.

Well, you might be thinking, that's just about physical attraction, which can change pretty fluidly, and isn't that critical anyhow.  But the researchers went a step further -- pulling the same kind of trick, but this time with political statements (for example, "It is more important for a society to promote the welfare of the citizens than to protect their personal integrity").  The review-your-decision phase of the test took one of the statements they'd agreed with and made it diametrically opposite to what they'd chosen.

Once again, two-thirds never noticed the change, and they were just as articulate in defending their position -- the one that, minutes earlier, had been the opposite of what they believed -- as they were opinions they'd held all along.

The real kicker: they were retested a week and then three weeks later, and most of them stuck with the view they didn't intend but had been forced to justify.

And didn't even know they'd changed.

I don't know about you, but I find this kind of hopeful.  It shows that human perception and memory are even more unreliable than I'd realized, which is rather humbling.  But it does mean that we can shift our views.  I suspect that the most powerful aspect was that the subjects were asked to defend the position they'd initially disagreed with, and that forced them to consider the opposite side's views without engaging the emotional side of the brain by identifying them as contrary to their own beliefs ahead of time.  This squares with an experience I had long ago.  A teacher in a high school English class had us all write position papers, and then debate them -- but we had to research and defend the opposite stance.  If your paper was about strengthening gun control laws, you had to argue in the debate on the side of loosening them.

It was an intensely uncomfortable experience, but it did make me aware of the fact that my opponents' views did have support, that they weren't simply unfounded and unjustified opinions.  I don't think the exercise changed my particular viewpoint, but it did make me appreciate that there was another defensible side.

So maybe political discourse isn't as hopeless as it seems.  It remains to be seen, however, how to engage this mental plasticity without the emotional brain screaming it down -- which it did with the argument I was in over the holidays.  But if we could, we might find that the acrimony largely vanishes -- and that our opinions may not be as far apart as they'd seemed.

****************************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is one of personal significance to me -- Michael Pollan's latest book, How to Change Your Mind.  Pollan's phenomenal writing in tours de force like The Omnivore's Dilemma and The Botany of Desire shines through here, where he takes on a controversial topic -- the use of psychedelic drugs to treat depression and anxiety.

Hallucinogens like DMT, LSD, ketamine, and psilocybin have long been classified as schedule-1 drugs -- chemicals which are off limits even for research except by a rigorous and time-consuming approval process that seldom results in a thumbs-up.  As a result, most researchers in mood disorders haven't even considered them, looking instead at more conventional antidepressants and anxiolytics.  It's only recently that there's been renewed interest, when it was found that one administration of drugs like ketamine, under controlled conditions, was enough to alleviate intractable depression, not just for hours or days but for months.

Pollan looks at the subject from all angles -- the history of psychedelics and why they've been taboo for so long, the psychopharmacology of the substances themselves, and the people whose lives have been changed by them.  It's a fascinating read -- and I hope it generates a sea change in our attitudes toward chemicals that could help literally millions of people deal with disorders that can rob their lives of pleasure, satisfaction, and motivation.

[If you purchase the book from Amazon using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to supporting Skeptophilia!]

Argue with me

In recent months, I've done several posts that reference the backfire effect -- the tendency of people to double down on their previous beliefs when challenged, even when shown hard evidence that their views are incorrect.  But of course, this brings up the question, if people tend to plant their feet when you offer counterarguments, how do you change someone's mind?

A quartet of researchers at Cornell University, Chenhao Tan, Vlad Niculae, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Lillian Lee, have studied this very question, and presented their findings in a paper called, "Winning Arguments: Interaction Dynamics and Persuasion Strategies in Good-faith Online Discussions."  My wife stumbled onto this study a couple of days ago, and knowing this was right down my alley, forwarded it to me.

What the researchers did was to study patterns on r/ChangeMyView, a subreddit where people post opinions and invite argument.  If someone does succeed in changing the original poster's view, the successful arguer is awarded a ∆ (the Greek letter delta, which in science is used to represent change).  By seeing who was awarded deltas, and analyzing their statements, the researchers were able to determine the characteristics of statements that were the most successful, and the ones that were generally unsuccessful.

Argument Irresistible, by Robert Macaire (from the magazine Le Charivari, May 1841) [image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

And the results are a fascinating window into how we form, and hold on to, our opinions.  The authors write:

Changing someone's opinion is arguably one of the most important challenges of social interaction.  The underlying process proves difficult to study: it is hard to know how someone's opinions are formed and whether and how someone's views shift. Fortunately, ChangeMyView, an active community on Reddit, provides a platform where users present their own opinions and reasoning, invite others to contest them, and acknowledge when the ensuing discussions change their original views.  In this work, we study these interactions to understand the mechanisms behind persuasion. 

We find that persuasive arguments are characterized by interesting patterns of interaction dynamics, such as participant entry-order and degree of back-and-forth exchange.  Furthermore, by comparing similar counterarguments to the same opinion, we show that language factors play an essential role.  In particular, the interplay between the language of the opinion holder and that of the counterargument provides highly predictive cues of persuasiveness. Finally, since even in this favorable setting people may not be persuaded, we investigate the problem of determining whether someone's opinion is susceptible to being changed at all.  For this more difficult task, we show that stylistic choices in how the opinion is expressed carry predictive power.

More simply put, Tan et al. found that it wasn't the content of the argument that determined its success, it was how it was worded.  In particular, they found that the use of calmer words, statements that were serious (i.e. not joking or sarcasm), and arguments that were worded differently from the original statement (i.e. were not simply direct responses to what was said) were the most effective.  Quotes from sources were relatively ineffective, but if you can post a link to a corroborating site, it strengthens your argument.

Another thing that was more likely to increase your success at convincing others was appearing flexible yourself.  Starting out with "You're an idiot if you don't see that..." is a poor opening salvo.  Wording such as "It could be that..." or "It looks like the data might support that..." sounds as if it would be a signal of a weak argument, but in fact, such softer phrasing was much more likely to be persuasive than a full frontal attack.

Even more interesting were the characteristics of the original posts that signaled that the person was persuadable.  The people who were most likely to change their minds, the researchers found, wrote longer posts, included more information and data in the form of lists, included sources, and were more likely to use first-person singular pronouns (I, my) rather than first-person plural (we, our) or third-person impersonal (they, their).

Unsurprising, really; if a person is basing his/her opinion on evidence, I'd expect (s)he would be easier to convince using different evidence.  And the "I" vs. "we" vs. "they" thing also makes some sense; as I posted a couple of weeks ago, despite our technological advances, we remain tribal creatures.  If you engage that in-group-identity module in the brain, it's no wonder that we are more likely to hang on to whatever views allow us to keep our sense of belonging to the tribe.

The Tan et al. research, however, does give us some ideas about how to frame arguments in order to give us the greatest likelihood of success.  Stay calm, don't rant or ridicule.  Give your reasoning, and expand on your own views rather than simply responding to what the other person said.  If you have links or sources, post them.  Especially, show your own willingness to be persuaded.  If the person you're arguing with sees you as reasonable yourself, you're much more likely to be listened to.

Most importantly, don't give up debate as a completely fruitless and frustrating endeavor.  Vlad Niculae, who co-authored the study, found their results to be encouraging.  "If you’ve never visited [ChangeMyView]," Nicolae writes, "the concept that people can debate hot topics without getting into flame wars on the internet might be hard to believe.  Or, if you read a lot of Youtube comments, you might be inclined to believe the backfire effect, and doubt that graceful concession is even possible online.  But a quick trip to this great subreddit will undoubtedly make you a believer."

Change of heart

So another election has come and gone, and most of us on both sides of the aisle are more or less recovering from the shock of the results.  I've been known to make some strong political statements in the past -- yesterday's post being a case in point -- but there's a part of me that sometimes wonders why I bother.  I have the sense that those posts are, in essence, futile.  All such ranting does is to make half of the people who see it shout "Yeah!  Exactly!  Right on!" and the other half mumble "Damn ijit."

So it was with great interest that I read a study just released two days ago by the Pew Research Group showing that in fact, some minds are changed by what shows up on social media... just not very many.

According to a survey conducted this summer of over ten thousand U.S. adults, 20% of social media users said that they have had their opinion swayed by something they've seen posted.  Conservative Republicans were the least likely to change (13%) and liberal Democrats the most (25%), which is perhaps unsurprising given two things -- studies have shown that conservatives have a greater desire for certainty and intolerance of ambiguity, and that conservatives tend to have a greater distrust of media in general than do liberals.

Still, it surprised me that so many people report changing an opinion.  We tend to surround ourselves, both on social media and in real life, with people who think like us -- the so-called "echo chamber" effect -- so a lot of us don't get presented with well-thought-out opposing opinions in any case.  But respondents on the Pew survey report being swayed on some pretty important issues.  Here is just a small sampling of responses:

• Black lives matter vs. All lives matter: I’m white. Initially, I saw nothing wrong with saying "All lives matter" – because all lives do matter. Through social media I’ve seen many explanations of why that statement is actually dismissive of the current problem of black lives seeming to matter less than others and my views have changed.
• My view on the police has dramatically changed after being faced with case after case of police violence especially against communities of color.
• More pro-gun laws now due to statistics presented in specialized social media presentations of gun laws elsewhere in the world and their effect on public violence.
• I would say that I’m for a harder approach on immigration after reading social media.

I don't know about you, but I find this fairly heartening.  The cynical side of me -- never very deeply buried -- has been reinforced considerably by the posturing and snarling I've seen during this election cycle, in some cases by people who previously I had considered to be thoughtful and tolerant.  It's good to know that my pessimism may, in some cases, be unwarranted.  20% may not seem like a lot, but it does attest to a level of flexibility that I had not anticipated.

Nice, sometimes, to find myself in that 20% -- induced to change my mind, in this case with regards to a rather dismal view of my fellow humans.