I was walking down the street the other day and I saw three White guys beating the heck out of a Black guy. The Black guy was down on the ground and the three White guys were taking turns pummeling him. I rushed up and yelled “Stop, what the heck do you guys think you are doing.” One of the White guys answered “what does it look like, we are beating the shit out of a Black guy.” “What did he do”, I asked. “What do you mean what did he do? “He was being Black” came back the reply.
“Are you guy’s crazy? You can’t just beat someone up for being Black.” I retorted.
The three guys huddled for a minute and finally one of the three (A guy with bright red hair and lots of tattoos) came out of the huddle and took me by the shoulder. “Look he said, you look like a fairly intelligent guy.” Two of my friends over there never went to college. I went for a few years so they nominated me to talk to you. “
“What is there to talk about? You have no right no beat up on this poor man”, I answered.
“Aahh, that is where you are wrong” said Tattoo Guy. “We have every right. In fact, we have a constitutional right to beat him up.”
“Are you serious or trying to kid me, I ask.”
“No I am not kidding” said Tattoo Guy, “I am very serious. It is our constitutional right.”
“OK,” I say, “I will bite, what is the right you think you have?”
“Well” says Tattoo Guy, “have you ever heard of ‘Freedom of Expression.’ The constitution s
ays every American citizen has Freedom of Expression. Thus, we are just expressing our free rights as American citizens to beat up on people we don’t like.”
“I am not sure that is what the Founding Fathers meant by Freedom of Expression”, I answer.
“Well, frankly we don’t give a fuck what you think. Furthermore, if you keep interfering we might just sue you for violating our constitutional rights.”
“Hold on now. I thought we were having a friendly conversation here. Now you are threatening to sue me. On what grounds?” I ask.
I could see Tattoo Guy thinking about my question for a while and then he answered “Well, since you are being so polite about it, we won’t sue you, at least not for now.”
“Wow, thanks” said I.
“Look, said Tattoo Guy, we voted for Donald Trump and he respects our Freedom of Expression rights. We are sick and tired of the PC shit you pussies and commies have been spreading in this country for years. We are tired of watching what we say and do because we might be called rednecks or bigots or even racists. It’s a new day for America. We are going to make our country great again.”
“With Donald Trump as president, I can call anyone I want a nigger, kike, frog, wop, dago, spook, wetback, cunt, fag, pussy, greaser, Jap, slope. It’s my Freedom of Expression” says Tattoo Guy.
“So basically you were sick and tired of having your Freedom of Expression curtailed by anti-hate laws and people who are sick of being insulted because of their color or sex” I asked?
“You are more or less on the right track” says Tattoo Guy. “Used to be you could tell some nigger jokes, put up pinups of nude girls, even grab a few pussies once in a while and no one bothered you. Then, all this PC stuff started and before you knew it, you had to watch what you said and did. A White person’s Freedom of Expression went down the drain. Well, no more PC now. So can we please get back to beating the shit out of this nigger?”
“What about this man’s Freedom of Expression” I ask. “Don’t you think he also has some rights?”
“Sure” says Tattoo Guy, “He can say whatever he thinks. We don’t care. Just as long as he doesn’t call us rednecks or bigots or racists.”
“That sounds like a double standard” I answer.
“I don’t think so. You intellectuals think too much. You need to do more and think less” says Tattoo Guy.
“Well, what if I told you that I had a Glock Model 40 10mm in my pocket and that if you hit this man one more time, I will take it and blow your fucking brains out. What would you think of that” I replied indignantly.
“That changes the entire nature of our issue here” says Tattoo Guy. “We respect your Second Amendment rights to own and bear arms and use them in defense of your country and family. May I ask if this Black Guy is part of your family?”
“Haven’t you ever heard of John Donne” I asks? “Donne says”:
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man’s death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
“So you are sort of saying that this Black guy here is part of your extended family?” asks Tattoo Guy.
“Exactly,” I reply.
“Well, that’s a horse of a different color then. If you are related to us because you are White and we are White and he is related to you, even if he is Black, then he is also related to us, which means he is part of our family too. That’s great, now we have a new brother. How about if we all go get a beer together?” says Tattoo Guy.
“Sounds like a better idea than beating each other up or my blowing your brains out. Do you know any good brew pubs? First round on me” I reply.
Time for Questions:
Do you think all such stories as mine have a “happy” ending? What rights do people have not to be insulted or harassed because of their color or sex? Do you think some rights might supersede other rights? Why or why not?
Life is just beginning.
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
- To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[Shouting] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). - To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). - To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). - To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). - Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). - Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
Freedom of speech does includes the right:
- Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). - Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). - To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). - To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). - To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). - To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
Denial generally means that we refuse to accept any logic, evidence, experience, data, facts, authority or any other means of Truth finding. It is an outright refusal to accept anything that will change the deniers mind. One example of this is the current debate (at least among some) as to the issue of global warming. Climate deniers argue that there is no change in the overall earth’s temperatures and that the warming is simply consistent with overall weather patterns in the earth’s history. Those opposed to this view point to a considerable stockpile of evidence, facts and data to show that the weather changes are not part of a historical pattern but are indeed a change in past weather patterns. Nevertheless, climate deniers refuse to change their minds.
Thus, we typically ignore or give a pass to someone who is “delusional” because we think either they are sick or that they are not in a good state to make decisions. No sane person would try to talk or argue a person who is delusional out of their Delusions. However, what if the person is sane and they engage in Delusions? This seems impossible but it happens all the time. One example will suffice: Anderson Cooper was interviewing some Trump supporters on his show. He asked one young woman what it was she liked about Trump. Her response was “He is just like us, except he is a billionaire.” Millions of Americans seemed (if voting was any indication) to agree with this statement. To any logical person looking at the background, upbringing and behavior of Trump, this statement would seem ludicrous. It would seem to indicate an extreme case of delusional thinking. But, by all standards of psychiatric analysis, this woman and her supporters are not insane.
The basic premise of the work by Kahneman and others in his field is that while most of us try to be logical and rational, our decision making is often flawed by biases and heuristics that influence our decisions. The book Judgment Under Uncertainty catalogs the major types of cognitive errors that we make and gives many examples of each. One of the most common ones that many people recognize has been called the “Gamblers Fallacy.” Let us say that you are rolling a dice. The odds of any one number being rolled are 6 to 1. So let us say that you roll four three times in a row. What are the odds that you will roll a 4 on your next toss? Higher or lower than 6 to 1? Many if not most people would now assume the odds against rolling another four might be 30 or even 40 to one. In fact, the odds for rolling a four on the next toss are still 6-1. This fact would surprise many people. Mentally, we confuse the odds of an individual toss with the odds of running a series. The odds of rolling four in a row on a dice are much greater than the odds of rolling any particular number. What are the odds of rolling a number four times in a row on a dice? We can calculate it as follows:
After even a slight perusal of these fallacies, you might be thinking: “Why bother, we can never find the Truth, there are too many roadblocks out there.” It probably seems like a hopeless task, something akin to finding the Holy Grail or the Ten Commandments. I admit that the recent Presidential election and its results would seem to support the invincible nature of stupidity and ignorance. The world seems overwhelmed with those who would dwell in biases, bigotry and hypocrisy and have little interest in finding the Truth. The Truth becomes whatever they are told or choose to believe. The media parrots disinformation, misinformation and outright lies. How can anyone find the Truth amidst this forest of propaganda and distortion?
One of the most unnerving but interesting books I have ever read was the book “True Believer” by Eric Hoffer. This book explains the thinking or lack of thinking behind zealots, fanatics and what Hoffer calls “True Believers.” After reading this book, it was clear to me that ideologies, whether left wing, right wing, fascist or even liberal could be dangerous. The Greek Golden Mean “All things in moderation” kept coming to my mind. A “True Believer” will not tolerate or listen to dissent or argument. They are so convinced that their way is the only way that dialogue and discussion with them is fruitless. In fact, many “True Believers” will happily kill you for their ideology.
Furthermore, because our ideologies are so good, we cannot believe that anyone has the right to reject them. We do not care if the rest of the world does not want to share them, we will bomb and kill you until you see how good our ideologies are. We are totally closed minded in our belief that Democracy and Free Enterprise are truly universal virtues that the rest of the world must adopt. We have become a nation of True Believers in the “American Dream.”
Emotional biases are formed by experiences or ideas derived from each of the four categories of knowing and believing that I briefly discussed earlier. We can derive an emotional bias from a strong attachment to anything and it does not matter whether we have Facts, Data, and Evidence. An emotional bias comes from the heart as opposed to a cognitive bias which comes from the brain. Of course, in practice both sets of biases tend to overlap and support each other. Someone with a strong cognitive bias can become very emotional about their beliefs and someone with a strong emotional bias may tend to only accept Facts which support their bias. In either case, we face the same difficulties with trying to get the individual to seek the Truth. Notice, I did not say see the Truth. Perhaps, some or more of what they already believe is the Truth or at least part of the Truth.
I am working to prepare for a chess match with my neighbor. I happen to note in the paper the Fact that tomorrow will be a quarter moon. Does this Fact have any relevance to my playing chess? I don’t think so. Thus, I don’t really care that there will be a quarter moon. As far as my limited cognition or perception, I can see no relevance between the Fact of a quarter moon and my preparing for my chess match. I could be wrong. We can always mis-perceive the relevance of some information to an issue. This is often done in science and in police work. We don’t see the connection between two issues and we misjudge the outcomes. This provides one good reason for diversity and numbers in problem solving. You have less chance of being blindsided if you have a variety of opinions rather than just your own.
Let us look at another example where the issue of relevance is more salient. I am planning to go on a trip to England in 2017. I want to plan my trip for the best possible time of the year. I hypothesize that two Facts or Data points are very important to my planning. The first is the temperatures at various times of the year in England. The second is the rain fall. I found the ranges for this data on a weather site and used the information to plan my trip. Of course, some of the decisions anyone makes will depend on their own weather preferences. I wanted to minimize rainfall and also keep the temperature in a moderate range. What I call sweater weather. Thus, both these set of factors were relevant and important to my planning. I would call them Evidence to support the time of year that I decided to go.
On the other hand, if you like rain, you might have picked a different time of the year than I did. There were other mitigating factors which played a role in my decision making. These factors included costs for lodging during the year and transportation costs during the year. In general, off season times have better rates but are somewhat the worse for weather. Another factor was the value of the pound to the dollar. I considered the value of the dollar to the pound post Brexit but concluded that I did not have enough information to effectively evaluate the impact of this data on my decision. I am assuming that with the volatility involved in the situation, the value of the dollar might go either way against the pound. My best guess is that I will benefit if I go as soon as possible. The news has recently noted that after Brexit the value of the pound fell 14 percent against the dollar. This would mean I could get a significant cost advantage if I purchase anything in England. I am hoping this situation will continue until after my trip but there are too many variables at play here for me to use this information. I can only hope.
A more common example of relevance can be found by looking at police work. We are all familiar these days with what is called Forensic science. I am sure most of you reading this have watched some police show. As soon as a crime is discovered, the Crime Scene Unit (CSI) is brought in to collect Evidence. Keep in mind that everything at a crime scene is not Evidence. Only what may have a possible relationship to the crime. This can be a real problem. The CSI unit is going to be limited by their assumptions concerning what might be relevant. For instance, I doubt any Crime Scene Investigator will care whether or not the light bulbs are “bright” or “soft white” in the kitchen or bathroom. It is impossible to collect all the “Evidence” of stuff that might be related to the crime. Thus, relying on experience and training, the police investigators do their best to collect Facts and Data that appear to be relevant to the crime. The relevant Data and Facts are not just interesting, they are Evidence. The more they relate to the crime, the stronger the Evidence will be.
An eyewitness can provide Evidence via his/her testimony as to the events of a crime. The relevance of any eyewitness is high but the reliability of an eyewitness can be much lower. Second hand testimony is not as relevant as first hand testimony and is thus weaker Evidence. Testimony that might be compromised by some factors such as police record, bias, discrimination, physical disabilities might be relevant but will be weaker Evidence because the validity of the Evidence is suspect. That is why lab procedures and chain of custody is so important to police work. They may have the most relevant Evidence imaginable but if the validity of the Evidence can be comprimised because of sloppy police work, the Evidence will be useless.
It is seldom that findings of Evidence in police work or business are subjected to as much scrutiny as occurred in the so called development of cold fusion. Perhaps, since this was a finding of great scientific importance, it was held to a more rigorous standard than would occur in many other scientific studies. I am thinking in particular of findings in the health field, nutrition field and drug field. In each of these fields we often have much less rigor before results are posted or accepted. Business is even worse with advertisers spouting outright lies and fabrications. Little known phenomenon are routinely heralded as being highly reliable Evidence of the benefit of some product or service that someone wants to sell you. All kinds of spurious Facts and Data are then marshaled as Evidence to support the phony claims by Madison Avenue advertisers.
When I started working with Process Management International in 1986 after completing my doctorate degree at the University of Minnesota, I met the famous quality improvement expert and renowned statistician, Dr. W. E. Deming. Over the next seven years, he had the most profound influence on my life in terms of helping me to understand process improvement, statistics, quality and the use of Data to improve everything from widgets to health care. Under the influence of Dr. Deming, our company adopted his motto “In God we trust, all others bring Data.” Dr. Deming also said “Without Data, you’re just another person with an opinion.” So what is Data? 
If we understand what Data is, you have now entered the deep forest. However, we have a long way to go before we can get out of the forest. There are numerous obstacles along the way. Referring again to the concepts of validity and reliability, we must ask ourselves the same questions we asked about our Facts. Is our Data reliable and valid? How did we collect the Data? What method did we use to collect the Data? Are we taking a few samples each day for several weeks or are we taking a few samples for only a few days? Are we using a random sample or a stratified random sample? Different methods of collecting Data will lead to different results. And we are not even talking about interpreting the Data yet. For instance, when I worked at W.T. Grants cutting shades back in the late 60’s, I was told to make sure I took my measurements with a metal tape measure and not a cloth or plastic measure. The reason given was that it was easier to stretch a cloth tape measure and get a false result. This would lead to cutting a shade that was too large and would not fit.
Unfortunately, the scientific method is not infallible. It is subject to bias and disagreement over Data and interpretations. Even more problematic is that the scientific method is not a strong method when it comes to testing subjective theories that cannot be verified by Fact. For instance, “Is the Mona Lisa beautiful?” As stated, this is a subjective question that each individual will hold a different opinion on. However, if I asked: “Is the Mona Lisa the most beautiful painting in the world?” I could attempt to answer that question with a bit more objectivity. I could conduct a survey to see what percentage of people think it is the most beautiful. Subjective studies are not as strong as objective studies since they usually lead to results that follow a bell shaped curve. Thus, if we conducted the above survey, we would probably find that a certain percentage of people thought it was the most beautiful painting and a certain percentage did not. As in politics, opinions of beauty would be all over the place. This is why politics is so much more difficult to “Fact check” than issues like the atomic mass of hydrogen. Politics is a very subjective field that resists efforts to test and Fact check. Some examples that would be difficult to test with the scientific method would include:
Finally, if I have left you with some understanding of the difficulty with interpreting Data, I will have felt successful. The first step to knowledge is awareness of our cognitive limitations. We also need to be more skeptical when people present us with Facts and Data. My father used to say “Believe nothing of what you hear and half of what you see.” I still consider this good advice. There are too many fools and charlatans out there trying to convince us of things for a multitude of reasons that will benefit them and not us. Just as we would not walk down a dark alley in an unknown city by ourselves, we need to exercise caution when presented with Data and Facts. The more we understand the limits of Data and Facts, the more prepared we will be to make decisions based on Data and Facts that have a higher degree of validity and reliability. If the Data, Facts and Evidence that you base your knowledge on are not accurate than everything you think you know will be at best a half truth and at worst a total lie.
“The prosecution had expert witnesses that testified that the Evidence was often mishandled. Photos were taken of critical Evidence without scales in them to aid in measurement taking; items were photographed without being labeled and logged, making it difficult, if not impossible, to link the photos to any specific area of the scene. Separate pieces of Evidence were bagged together instead of separately causing cross-contamination; and wet items were packaged before allowing them to dry, causing critical changes in Evidence.” 
A validity error is when we are not measuring the right thing. IQ tests have been repeatedly criticized for not really measuring the intelligence of a human being or for being biased by many cultural Factors. Thus opponents of IQ tests argue that they are not valid measures of intelligence. A reliability error is when our measures are not consistent. The scale example given above illustrates the problem with reliability. Most people use a scale to weight themselves and most scales have problems with reliability. However, if you tried to equate your weight with your health, you would be assuming that the scale could also measure health and this would be a problem with validity. Scales cannot measure health although health might be correlated to some degree with appropriate height and weight.
Before we move on to looking at the concept of Data, we will look at two more problems with the concept of Facts. These are distortion and bias. Distortion relates to twisting the meaning of something. This can happen by taking something that someone has said out of context. For instance, I might be talking at a conference and say something in sarcasm such as “Yeah, I will definitely vote for Trump.” My words could be repeated verbatim and it would sound like I was endorsing Trump. It is difficult to detect sarcasm. To most people reading or hearing my words second hand, it will sound like I am a strong Trump supporter. Slick politicians and advertisers will often distort a Fact to make it sound like the Fact is supporting their position.
Aging Capriciously 