Are you a poor logician? Logically, you might never know

A great story about stupidity, from The Conversation
It was written by Stephann Lewandowsky, Chair of Cognitive Psychology at University of Bristoland Richard Pancost, Professor of Biogeochemistry, Director of the Cabot Institute at University of Bristol.

This story includes a clip worth watching, by John Cleese.

"It is an unfortunate paradox: if you’re bad at something, you probably also lack the skills to asses your own performance. And if you don’t know much about a topic, you’re unlikely to be aware of the scope of your own ignorance.Type in any keyword into a scientific search engine and a staggering number of published articles appears. “Climate change” yields 238,000 hits; “tobacco lung cancer” returns 14,500; and even the largely unloved “Arion ater” has earned a respectable 245 publications.Experts are keenly aware of the vastness of the knowledge landscape in their fields. Ask any scholar and they will likely acknowledge how little they know relative to what is knowable – a realisation that may date back to Confucius.Here is the catch: to know how much more there is to know requires knowledge to begin with. If you start without knowledge, you also do not know what you are missing out on.This paradox gives rise to a famous result in experimental psychology known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. Named after Justin Kruger and David Dunning, it refers to a study they published in 1999. They showed that the more poorly people actually performed, the more they over-estimated their own performance.People whose logical ability was in the bottom 12% (so that 88 out of 100 people performed better than they did) judged their own performance to be among the top third of the distribution. Conversely, the outstanding logicians who outperformed 86% of their peers judged themselves to be merely in the top quarter (roughly) of the distribution, thereby underestimating their performance.John Cleese argues that this effect is responsible for not only Hollywood but the actions of some mainstream media.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU

Ignorance is associated with exaggerated confidence in one’s abilities, whereas experts are unduly tentative about their performance. This basic finding has been replicated numerous times in many different circumstances. There is very little doubt about its status as a fundamental aspect of human behaviour.

Confidence and credibility

Here is the next catch: in the eyes of others, what matters most to judge a person’s credibility is their confidence. Research into the credibility of expert witnesses has identified the expert’s projected confidence as the most important determinant in judged credibility. Nearly half of people’s judgements of credibility can be explained on the basis of how confident the expert appears — more than on the basis of any other variable.Does this mean that the poorest-performing — and hence most over-confident — expert is believed more than the top performer whose displayed confidence may be a little more tentative? This rather discomforting possibility cannot be ruled out on the basis of existing data.But even short of this extreme possibility, the data on confidence and expert credibility give rise to another concern. In contested arenas, such as climate change, the Dunning-Kruger effect and its flow-on consequences can distort public perceptions of the true scientific state of affairs.To illustrate, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions from our economic activities are altering the Earth’s climate. This consensus is expressed in more than 95% of the scientific literature and it is shared by a similar fraction — 97-98% – of publishing experts in the area. In the present context, it is relevant that research has found that the“relative climate expertise and scientific prominence” of the few dissenting researchers “are substantially below that of the convinced researchers”.Guess who, then, would be expected to appear particularly confident when they are invited to expound their views on TV, owing to the media’s failure to recognise (false) balance as (actual) bias? Yes, it’s the contrarian blogger who is paired with a climate expert in “debating” climate science and who thinks that hot brick buildings contribute to global warming.‘I’m not an expert, but…’How should actual experts — those who publish in the peer-reviewed literature in their area of expertise — deal with the problems that arise from Dunning-Kruger, the media’s failure to recognise “balance” as bias, and the fact that the public uses projected confidence as a cue for credibility?Speaker of the US House of Representatives John Boehner admitted earlier this year he wasn’t qualified to comment on climate change.We suggest two steps based on research findings.The first focuses on the fact of a pervasive scientific consensus on climate change. As one of us has shown, the public’s perception of that consensus is pivotal in determining their acceptance of the scientific facts.When people recognise that scientists agree on the climate problem, they too accept the existence of the problem. It is for this reason that Ed Maibach and colleagues, from the Centre for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, have recently called on climate scientists to set the record straight and inform the public that there is a scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is happening.One might object that “setting the record straight” constitutes advocacy. We do not agree; sharing knowledge is not advocacy and, by extension, neither is sharing the strong consensus behind that knowledge. In the case of climate change, it simply informs the public of a fact that is widely misrepresented in the media.The public has a right to know that there is a scientific consensus on climate change. How the public uses that knowledge is up to them. The line to advocacy would be crossed only if scientists articulated specific policy recommendations on the basis of that consensus.The second step to introducing accurate scientific knowledge into public debates and decision-making pertains precisely to the boundary between scientific advice and advocacy. This is a nuanced issue, but some empirical evidence in a natural-resource management context suggests that the public wants scientists to do more than just analyse data and leave policy decisions to others.Instead, the public wants scientists to work closely with managers and others to integrate scientific results into management decisions. This opinion appears to be equally shared by all stakeholders, from scientists to managers and interest groups.

Advocacy or understanding?

In a recent article, we wrote that “the only unequivocal tool for minimising climate change uncertainty is to decrease our greenhouse gas emissions”. Does this constitute advocacy, as portrayed by some commenters?It is not. Our statement is analogous to arguing that “the only unequivocal tool for minimising your risk of lung cancer is to quit smoking”. Both statements are true. Both identify a link between a scientific consensus and a personal or political action.Neither statement, however, advocates any specific response. After all, a smoker may gladly accept the risk of lung cancer if the enjoyment of tobacco outweighs the spectre of premature death — but the smoker must make an informed decision based on the scientific consensus on tobacco.Likewise, the global public may decide to continue with business as usual, gladly accepting the risk to their children and grandchildren – but they should do so in full knowledge of the risks that arise from the existing scientific consensus on climate change.Some scientists do advocate for specific policies, especially if their careers have evolved beyond simply conducting science and if they have taken new or additional roles in policy or leadership.Most of us, however, carefully limit our statements to scientific evidence. In those cases, it is vital that we challenge spurious accusations of advocacy, because such claims serve to marginalise the voices of experts.Portraying the simple sharing of scientific knowledge with the public as an act of advocacy has the pernicious effect of silencing scientists or removing their expert opinion from public debate. The consequence is that scientific evidence is lost to the public and is lost to the democratic process.But in one specific way we are advocates. We advocate that our leaders recognise and understand the evidence.We believe that sober policy decisions on climate change cannot be made when politicians claim that they are not scientists while also erroneously claiming that there is no scientific consensus.We advocate that our leaders are morally obligated to make and justify their decisions in light of the best available scientific, social and economic understanding.

How lucky are we?

Gavin Hegney, is often interviewed on ABC Local Radio for his expertise in property investment. He quoted some figures, partly to justify the expensive housing market in Australia, but also showing how lucky we are.
The most wealthy 10 per cent of people in the world have assets of more than $77,000. This compares to average Australian wealth of $225,000 per person. Also, the top 1 per cent of the world has assets of only $798,000 or more.
World-wide, to be middle class, annual income would need to be more than only $3,600.
Of course, this raises the further question of whether this degree of wealth in Australian makes us happier - a much more complex question to be answered.

Great quotes from Gough

Some of Gough's great quotes have recently been replayed -
What will you do, if you find out after you die, that God is real and you have to face him?
" I would treat him as an equal, of course".

And -
"People seem to think I act as if I am immortal. Of course I am not, but I am eternal."

In recent years, (is it decades?), Gough has played to his image of an arrogant, self-important person. However one of his achievements was to reform the Labor party before being elected as Prime Minister. To achieve this, he must have been a skilled negotiator, and some of the eulogies support this assumption.

The best Eagle in 2014 ? - depends on how you measure things

Eric Mackenzie was chosen as the Eagles top player for 2014, despite Matt Pridis winning the AFL highest award, the Brownlow.

Different voting systems favour different styles of play, Umpires votes favour spectacle and involvement in the play, with midfielders scoring better. On the other hand, the club voters may know the real contribution to a game plan, for example recognising a defender who has nullified and important opponent.
New coach Adam Simpson and the Eagles match committee slightly modified their voting system this year, Instead of a consensus match committee vote, now each of the five members contributes one, two or three votes - a potential total of 15 votes for a player for each game. This will reward consistency, and recognise defensive play.
Discussion of the merits of different voting systems adds to the interest of the game, and with all the complexities of the game, the system will never be perfect.
In farming, complexity is perhaps even greater, and annual bench-marking of farm data is published which discusses the "fairest and best" - characteristics of the top 25 per cent of businesses. Like judgments about who is the top footballer, such discussion about the most successful farm business needs to be tempered by recognition of what you are trying to measure.

Doubts across the world about Genetic Modification

Two bits of news I found today show doubts across the world about genetically modified crops.
One is from China -  the world's most populous, and single party State. Apparently, they have bowed to public opinion and banned imports of genetically modified soybean variety -
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/26/china-grains-gmo-idUKL3N0RK1C420140926

The other story from the United States, is a second discovery of unauthorised genetically modified wheat, which has caused several Asian countries to temporarily ban imports of wheat from the United States.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/usda-makes-2nd-discovery-gmo-wheat-25784235

Forget that GM crops may be quite safe - just watch the price signals. W.A. farmers seem to be doing this - after five years, only 17 per cent of the canola crop is planted to GM varieties.
http://davidreesconsulting.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/where-is-gm-profit-margin.html

Are the Chinese better farmers than us?

I now have a couple of newspaper stories suggesting that the Chinese think they can farm better than the locals. The latest one was this one, targeting the dairy industry -

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/business/dairy/chinas-dairy-churn-we-can-get-more-milk-out-of-your-cows/story-fnkeqg0i-1227061082840


Presumably they will not be constrained by lack of capital - that will be a good start to doing a better job. The other key seems to be their plan to bring in Chinese workers, who may work harder for less money, which would also help.

A similar story was published about the Beidahuang Group's Ongerup plans -

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/24193062/china-riding-on-sheeps-back/


Again, with plenty of capital to achieve the economies of scale, together with their own labour force, they would be off to a good start.

From previous attempts by outside investors, we might have the advantage of local knowledge, but this may not always be the case. You could argue that sometimes outsiders have been more innovative than locals such as newland farmers in Western Australia several decades ago, who pioneered innovation such as no-till. Our challenge will be to continue such innovation, without abandoning lessons already learned.

No horses for Albany parade

Apparently, public safety now demands that horse representing the Light Horse Brigade will not be able to participate in the Albany Anzac centenary celebrations on November 1st. Yet local politician, MHA Peter Watson has some 30,000 signatures to support including the horses.
Billy Kingston (pictured below) has been parading on his horses for years in Albany parades up York Street. Now this has become a public risk.



This decision may seem absurd, but such concerns about public safety have become established in all parts of society. Farming has been relatively isolated, but the new corporate investors are much more attuned to what is required, and may help with guidance for locals.