Tag Archives: bias

Confidence and Arrogance

Leave a reply

I bet you think you can tell the difference between confidence and arrogance. But you are wrong. You are biased. If you take offence to that, don’t worry, you aren’t the only one, I’m biased too.

Disagree? Think you can tell the difference?

Sure you can when it’s obvious. But it’s not always obvious.

We have gender biases about what confidence looks like. Age biases. Cultural biases. Friend group biases.

We even have beauty biases… tell me you don’t judge a pretty or handsome person who finds themselves attractive confident, while someone you deem less attractive sharing the same view of themselves being attractive as more arrogant than confident. Why can’t they be confident too? Or, oddly enough, this could be inversely true with the attractive person’s confidence seeming more like arrogance. Or it could be deemed confident for an 8 year old and arrogant for an 18 or 28 year old.

Yes, there is a big difference between confidence and arrogance, but be careful to judge too quickly… or too arrogantly. Confidence can be a superpower, but it’s also fragile. We shouldn’t be too quick to judge others who are confident, or to attack confidence as if it is arrogance.

We tell people it is important to be humble all the time, but we admire confidence more than we admire humility. Are they just showing humility or are they shy? Or are they not confident when they should be? Is it arrogance if they know they are good at what they do and show confidence rather than humility?

It’s all judgement calls. And as I mentioned before, when it’s obvious, it’s obvious, but I think we are more judgemental than we think we are. When judging confidence versus arrogance, we shouldn’t be too confident about our judgement… unless we want to show our own arrogance.

Movie bias

Leave a reply

My wife and I are watching Griselda, a miniseries on Netflix. I don’t usually watch shows like this. However I occasionally watch a series with my wife, and this is one she started a couple weekends ago… and since it’s only 6 episodes, I decided to join her. I don’t tend to like stories that glorify historical villains. To me this is a movie bias that I’m not a fan of.

If you want to create a fictional story like Breaking Bad, that’s fine. But when it’s Capone, Pablo Escobar, or any other real-life criminal, I usually stay away. I am not a fan of glamorizing and even glorifying people who took the lives of others in the quest for money and power. Griselda reminds me why I’m not a big fan of these shows.

If you want to make a fictional villain, that’s fine. But inventing dialogue for real, unpleasant people is a bit much. And there is always the urge to show an appealing perspective that makes the villian likeable before they do awful things.

Another movie bias is that in the movies you are almost always rooting for the rebellion. Dune, Star Wars, Braveheart, Les Misérables, all the way back to Spartacus, the movies are always about the underdog’s rise. This is more understandable, we all love seeing the unlikely hero with little to no chance of success prevail.

But to me glorifying real life villains goes too far. It’s not just that these characters are built up as bigger than life, it also that no matter how they are portrayed, they are always given a stature of someone who accomplished something to be admired.

I’ve openly shared that I think when someone does a heinous act, like a mass shooting, in the media they should only be recognized as ‘an idiot with a gun’. I continued on this topic and said that media coverage of these events is part of the problem. I think movies and series that highlight real-life thugs are the same. They give bad people recognition and fame that they do not deserve.

I’m happy to root for the rebellious underdog any day. I’m a lot less willing to watch shows that highlight the rise and fall of really nasty people whose only causes are greed and power, because the attention we give them are a form of power, and immortalizing their story is ultimately a win for them.

High versus low trust societies

2 Replies

I love when someone adds to my perspective on social media. That’s exactly what happened after I posted Basic assumptions a couple days ago. The post reflected that, “people no longer give each other the benefit of the doubt that intentions are good. This used to be a basic assumption we operated on, the premise that we can start with the belief that everyone is acting in good faith.”

I shared the post on Twitter and Chris Kalaboukis and I had the following conversation thread:

Chris: Reading your post: could we be transitioning from a high-trust to a low-trust society?

Dave: Yes, that seems like an appropriate conclusion. Is there an author that speaks of this idea?

Chris: Not that I can recall, however, if you look at the attributes of low-trust societies you see a lot of what is happening now.

Dave: So true! The circle of high trust seems to be shrinking and it really seems like a step backwards… tribalism trumps the collective of a greater community.

Chris: It is. It seems that even our institutions are driving us towards more tribalism and division.

Dave: And how do you suppose we correct this course? I honestly don’t have a clue, and see things getting worse before they get better.

Chris: I think that in reality, most people prefer to live in a high-trust society. We need leaders and media who support that vision.

Dave: I think the biggest problem right now is that most leaders do not want to step into a limelight where both social media and news outlets are only interested in focussing on the dirt. It seems everyone is measured by their worst transgressions, regardless of many positive deeds.

Chris: If it bleeds it leads. we’ve never been able to communicate with more people at the same time but the only communication which seems to get through is negative. It’s all about keeping your attention to sell more ads.

Dave: I sound like quite the pessimist, that’s not usually my stance on things, but I do struggle to see a way forward from here.

—–

The idea Chris shared that we could be ‘transitioning from a high-trust to a low-trust society’ seems insightful and really intrigues me. It isn’t happening at just one level, but many!

• Scam phone calls and emails are perfect examples. We used to operate from a position of trust, but now unknown calls and unsolicited emails are all necessarily met with skepticism.

• Sensationalized news leads with misleading headlines that are more about getting attention and clicks than about providing truthful news. And if the news slant doesn’t match your beliefs, it’s ‘fake news’.

• Sales pitches and advertising promises almost everything under the sun, you aren’t buying a product with a basic function, you are buying a product that is going to change your life or transform how you do ‘X’, or use ‘Y’… your results will surprise you and you’ll be amazed!

• If you are even slightly left wing you are ‘woke’ or ‘Antifa’ in the most derogatory way you can use these words. If you are even slightly right wing you are ‘Alt-right’ and racist. No one gets to sit on a spectrum, you are either viewed as an extreme on one or the other side. And even agreeing on one topic on the other side makes you less trustworthy on your side.

These are but a few ways we’ve become a lower-trust society. Ad hominem and straw man attacks get more attention than sound arguments. A well said lie is easily shared while complex truths are not. Saying a situation is complex and sharing nuance does not make for catchy sound bites, and aren’t going to go viral on TikTok, or Instagram Reels. No, but the snarky personal attack will, as will a one-sided, extreme view that packs a powerful punch.

What’s worse is that moderate voices get shut out. And in general many people feel silenced or would rather not share a view that is even slightly controversial. So the extreme voices get even more airtime and attention.

I feel this often. Writing every day, and sometimes picking controversial topics to discuss, I find myself tiptoeing and treading very carefully. I said in my Twitter conversation with Chris above, “It seems everyone is measured by their worst transgressions, regardless of many positive deeds.” I sometimes wonder what one thing I’m going to say is going to get blown out of proportion? If I write one single inappropriate or strongly biased phrase, will it define me? Will it undermine the 1,500+ posts that I’ve written, and make me out to be something or someone I’m not?

This sounds paranoid, but I wrote one post a few years ago that a friend private messaged me about, then called me and said I’d gone too far with my opinion on a specific point. I totally saw his point, went back and adjusted my post to tone it down… but I feel like that one issue, that one strong and overly biased opinion shared publicly put a rift in our friendship. And that’s someone I respect, not some stranger coming at me, not someone that doesn’t know my true character. My opinion in his eyes is now less trustworthy, and holds less value. That said, I appreciated the feedback, and respect that he took the time to share it privately. That’s rare these days.

The path forward is not easy. We aren’t just swaying slightly towards a less trustworthy society, we are on a full pendulum swing away from a more trustworthy society. Tribalism, nationalism, and extremism are pulling our world apart. Who do you trust? What institutions? Which governments? Who do you consider a neighbour? Who will you break bread with? Who do you believe?

The circles of trust are getting smaller, and the mechanisms to share bias and misinformation are growing. We are devolving into a less trusting society or rather societies, and it’s undermining our sense of community. We need messages of kindness, love, and peace to prevail. We need tolerance, acceptance, and more than anything trustworthy institutions and leaders. We need moderates and centrists to voice compromise and minimize extremist views. We need to rebuild a high trust society… together.

Interview time

Yesterday I interviewed 3 people for a teaching position. I took extensive notes. All 3 interviews were good, and I could see value in hiring any of them. I ranked the candidates 1-3 then I sent my notes to a colleague. I didn’t share any personal information with the colleague, just my notes. He ranked them in the reverse order that I did.

Very interesting.

I looked over my notes again, thought more about how the answers fit with the position and I can totally see what my colleague saw. Now I’m really stuck. I have no idea which way I’m going to go? I have one more interview today, then I’m going to call my colleague and hear his thoughts.

I don’t think bias plays into it. Both the candidate he and I liked are the same gender, and he had no idea based on the answers shared. But this really has me questioning my skills at hiring. Again, it’s hard because all 3 candidates are good. I think my bias, if I have one, might be experience, and both of these candidates have a lot more experience than the one we didn’t choose, what my colleague made me realize when reading over my notes was how much more relevant his choice’s experience was compared to my choice’s.

My lesson learned from this is that if I’m going to take notes, I need to take the time to read them. When I’m asking questions and trying to capture their responses, I’m not committed to analysis of the answer. Also, when I’m interviewing, the order I interview in matters because I have less to compare to with my first versus my last interview and that may create bias.

I need to do the final interview today, then I need to take the time to go over my notes one more time with an objective eye… and I’ll also call my colleague and confer with him. It’s hard to make a decision like this yourself when you don’t have a gut instinct or glaringly obvious choice to make. Sometimes it’s good to ask for help and get a different perspective.

AI, Evil, and Ethics

Google is launching Bard, its version of Chat GPT, connected to search, and connected live to the internet. Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google and Alphabet, shared yesterday, “An important next step on our AI journey“. In discussing the release of Bard, Sundar said,

“We’ll combine external feedback with our own internal testing to make sure Bard’s responses meet a high bar for quality, safety and groundedness in real-world information.”

Following the link above led me to this next link:

“In addition to producing responses that humans judge as sensible, interesting, and specific to the context, dialog models should adhere to Responsible AI practices, and avoid making factual statements that are not supported by external information sources.”

I am quite intrigued by what principles Google is using to guide the design and use of Artificial Intelligence. You can go to the links for the expanded description, but here are Google’s Responsible AI practices:

“Objectives for AI applications

We will assess AI applications in view of the following objectives. We believe that AI should:

1. Be socially beneficial.

2. Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias.

3. Be built and tested for safety.

4. Be accountable to people.

5. Incorporate privacy design principles.

6. Uphold high standards of scientific excellence.

7. Be made available for uses that accord with these principles.”

But these principles aren’t enough, they are the list of ‘good’ directions, and so there are also the ‘Thou Shalt Nots’ added below these principles:

“AI applications we will not pursue

In addition to the above objectives, we will not design or deploy AI in the following application areas:

  1. Technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm. Where there is a material risk of harm, we will proceed only where we believe that the benefits substantially outweigh the risks, and will incorporate appropriate safety constraints.

  2. Weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people.

  3. Technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms.

  4. Technologies whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.

As our experience in this space deepens, this list may evolve.”

I remember when Google used to share its motto “Don’t be evil”.

These principles remind me of the motto. The interesting vibe I get from the principles and the ‘Thou Shalt Not’ list of things the AI will not pursue is this:

‘How can we say we will try to be ethical without: a) mentioning ethics; and b) admitting this is an imperfect science without admitting that we are guaranteed to make mistakes along the way?’

Here is the most obvious statement that these Google principles and guidelines are all about ethics without using the word ethics:

“…we will not design or deploy AI in the following application areas:

  1. Technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm. Where there is a material risk of harm, we will proceed only where we believe that the benefits substantially outweigh the risks, and will incorporate appropriate safety constraints.”

You can’t get to, “Where there is a material risk of harm, we will proceed only where we believe that the benefits substantially outweigh the risk“… Without talking aboutethics. Who is the ‘we’ in ‘we believe’? Who is deciding what benefits outweigh what risks? Who determines what is ‘substantial’ in the weighting of benefits versus risks? Going back to Principle 2, how is bias being determined or measured?

The cold hard reality is that the best Google, and Chat GPT, and all AI and predictive text models can do is, ‘Try to do less evil than good’ or maybe just, ‘Make it harder to do evil than good.’

The ethics will always trail the technological capabilities of the tool, and guiding principles are a method to catch wrongdoing, not prevent it. With respect to the list of things AI will not pursue, “As our experience in this space deepens, this list may evolve“… Is a way of saying, ‘We will learn of ways that this tool will be abused and then add to this list.

The best possible goals of designers of these AI technologies will be to do less evil than good… The big question is: How to do this ethically when it seems these companies are scared to talk directly about ethics?

Everything is so political

I’ve got the song ‘Political‘ by Spirit of the West going through my head, even though this song is about a relationship breakup and not politics.

Chris Kennedy’s recent post, ‘My “Top 3” List for 2022‘ on his blog, Culture of Yes, got me thinking about being political. Here is the section that inspired my thoughts:

Top 3 Issues that I see in US media that I am keeping an eye on (and worried about):

  1. Book bans

  2. Limits on classroom discussions

  3.  ‘Parents Rights’ push

I know there are some, largely isolated for now, examples of these topics in Canada, but we see them regularly in our news feeds with the constant volume of US media.  The book banners are back, taking on many of the classics again.  There are many lists that circulate, including this one from CBS News of the 50 most banned books in the United States.  Also in the news a lot is discussion over what topics teachers can and can’t talk about.  Here is an article from earlier this year indicating 1/4 of all teachers were in positions where they were being asked to limit discussions on certain topics.  Finally, the parents rights push is one that gives parents greater control over what their children are taught.  It is actually related to the other two issues, as all three are coming out of a conservative legislators in the United States.  I am always hesitant to write about what is happening in the US, as I find some people are already believing we are in the same position.  We have very different systems, but it is regularly on our televisions and in our social media feeds so it is worth following.

I commented:

Season’s greetings Chris!

Like you I’m always hesitant to share US concerns, but there has been a definite creep of bad ideas into our country. Example: I’ve chosen every election since becoming an educator to be non-partisan and just promote voting, but this year I openly spoke out against a very conservative and dishonest group of candidates for Board of Education Trustees in our district. It seems we only have two choices these days, allow bad ideas to seep in, or be openly political and speak up before those ideas take hold. The coming year is not one to wait and watch what happens without participating in the conversations of ideas that concern us. We can not be a silent majority, we can not be apolitical. We must be active participants in a system that, while better than the one south of the border, is not immune to the influences of a very dichotomous and politically charged neighbouring country.

It’s not fair to say that this is just a US issue. Italy has a new far-right government, and nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment can be felt in many other countries. The reality is that there is a very vocal minority who seem to garner too much attention and interest because the counter opinion is either silent, or an equally small opposing minority that are extreme in their opposing views. In fact some of the views coming from the far left are actually more fascist than the views on the right. For example, choosing violence to combat opposing views to a point where free speech is no longer truly free. 

2023 will be a year to speak up and speak out. You don’t have to support a political party, but if you think you can be vocal and not also be political, you are probably mistaken. Your politics will permeate your point of view, and choosing to be silent is no longer just non-partisan or apolitical; it’s choosing to allow lesser, more biased people to share their minority points of view as if they are the majority. The silent majority can be silent no more.

___ ___ ___

If you are interested in education, it’s worth taking the time to read Chris’ post, ‘My “Top 3” List for 2022‘, especially these three sections, ‘Top 3 Shifts in BC Education in 2022’, ‘Top 3 Education Topics We Should Talk More about in 2023’, and ‘Top 3 Education Topics from 2022 that need long-term fixes’. And while you are at it, subscribe to his blog.

The News in Question

I’m already not a fan of the news. My wife will often watch the 6pm news and I usually put headphones on and listen to something else. A few days ago I was cutting some vegetables and the news was on in the background, and after 5 depressing reports one after another I had to stop listening.

Yesterday and today I had a number of news items cross my social media feed. One was a tragic incident in Korea where people were crushed and trampled. This is actual news, and, like above, very depressing. But a few other items were about news being faked or misinformation sharing.

Here is an example: A viral video of a politician being stopped by chanting audience members who were doing a derogatory chant… except in the actual footage the crowd is happily chanting the politician’s name. The fake version is the one going viral, and even making it onto supposed ‘news’ websites.

It’s bad enough that news is so negative to begin with, but it’s hard to weed out what’s real and what’s fake. It’s getting much harder to recognize the difference. And it’s getting even more important to be able to discern the difference. Do most people even try? Or do they just choose their news sources and narratives they want to follow and follow them blindly?

When I read any sensational headlines these days my first instinct isn’t to be shocked or enraged, my instinct is to question: Is this real? What’s the bias? Where should I look to fact check or validate this?

The news used to answer the questions who, what, where, when, how, and why… now it’s me that questions the news.

Fully missing the point

I saw a post on LinkedIn yesterday that was more like a post you’d see on Facebook. It was essentially a ‘proud’ American saying, ‘This is my Pride flag’ with a picture of an American flag. And while I see no issue with an American being proud of their flag, I think that’s a purposefully insensitive way to express it. The comments were quite literally written from two fractured camps, and included comments that discussed women’s rights and abortion.

Then today there was this LinkedIn story, “TikTok has a new reigning champion. Khaby Lame, a 22-year-old Senegalese-born creator, became the most-followed person on TikTok last night, surpassing American TikTok star Charli D’Amelio”, and the headline was, “World’s most followed person on TikTok, Khaby Lame, is a Hafiz and practicing Muslim.” I’ve seen previous articles emphasizing that he was a factory worker. In both cases there were comments asking why his religion or his poor beginnings mattered?

What I find frustrating to see is how many people miss the point:

You can be proud of a country without intentionally belittling the pride flag. When Charli D’Amelio became the number one person followed on TikTok the storylines did not have the same emphasis as Khaby Lamé’s. I’m not sure if anyone can tell you her faith based on headlines written about her?

But it’s not just the headlines, it’s all the people that are in the comment section who also miss the point. That’s what concerns me. The headlines are a problem, but so too is the fact that so many people not only don’t see the problem with the headlines but actually support them.

Headlines matter, and when they miss the point, so do many that read the message.

On bias… continued

I wrote about measuring bias yesterday. This comment by Joe Truss (my uncle) adds a lot to the conversation:

To add to the importance of Dave’s comment: a critical aspect of bias is the effect our local environment and context have on our opinions about what is happening in the world at large. People are very poor natural statisticians. When confronted with two similar events we begin to think ‘this is how it is for everyone’. An even deeper ‘local’ event is when we are upset or depressed, the entire world seems to be in line with our feelings. When we feel bad, the world seems bad. 

See: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen?language=en

https://www.gapminder.org
Take the awareness test on this link. ;-)}

Take the awareness test. I started guessing correctly not because I expected the result I was guessing, but because I was expecting the result to surprise me. We really aren’t good at estimating statistics and we make so much of the very little data we do know… and this shapes our bias… poorly.

Measuring bias

It’s not easy to see your own biases, and it’s really easy to see others. This in itself is a bias we all hold; This prevents us from measuring bias without bias.

And so, when we hold an ideology, it’s very hard for that ideology to be changed from the outside. A simple conversation won’t do it. It often takes a profound experience. The difference in scale needs to be large, or our own biases prevent us from making the leap.

It’s hard to measure how much our own biases change the way we look at the world, but if you think you see the world as it really is… well then it’s time to look deeply at that bias.