Posts Tagged ‘evidence’

Learning to Argue with Yourself

November 23, 2019

This the ninth post in the series of posts based on Dr. Martin Seligman’s important book Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life. As we all likely have argued with others, to be optimistic we also need to argue with ourselves. There are four important ways to make disputations convincing:

*Evidence?
*Alternatives?
*Implications?
*Usefulness?

The best way of disputing a negative belief is to show that it is factually incorrect. Fortunately, much of the time we will have facts on our side, since pessimistic reactions to adversity are typically overreactions. So we adopt the role of detective and ask, “What is the evidence for this belief?”

Seligman notes that it is important to see the difference between this approach and the so-called “power of positive thinking.” Positive thinking often involved trying to believe upbeat statements such as “Every day, in every way, I’m getting better and better” in the absence of evidence, or even in the face of contrary evidence. Many educated people, trained in skeptical thinking, cannot abide this kind of boosterism. In contrast, learned optimism is about accuracy.

Research has shown that merely repeating positive statements to yourself does not raise mood or achievement very much, if at all. It is how you cope with negative statements that has an effect. Usually negative beliefs that follow adversity are inaccurate. Most people catastrophize: From all the potential causes, they select the one with the direct implications. One of your most effective techniques in disputation will be to search for evidence pointing to the distortions in you catastrophic explanations. Most of the time you will have reality on your side. Seligman writes, “Learned optimism works not through an unjustifiable positivity about the world but through the power of ‘non-negative’ thinking.”

Rarely nothing that happens to you has just one cause; most events have many causes. Should you do poorly on a test, all of the following might have contributed: how hard the test was, how much you studied, how fair the professor is, how the other students did, how tired you were and so forth. Pessimists typically latch onto the worst of all the possible causes—the most permanent, pervasive, and personal ones.

Disputation usually has reality on its side. Since there are multiple causes, why latch onto the most insidious one? Rather, latch onto the most innocuous one. Focus on the changeable (not enough time spent studying), the specific (this particular exam was uncharacteristically hard), and the non-personal (the professor graded unfairly) causes. You may have to push hard at generating alternative beliefs, latching onto possibilities you are not fully convinced are true. Remember that much pessimistic thinking consists of just the reverse.

Of course, facts won’t always be on your side. The negative belief you hold about yourself may be correct. In this situation, the technique to use is decatastrophizing. You ask yourself, even if this belief is correct, what are its implications? How likely, you should ask yourself are the awful implications? Once you ask if the implications are really that awful, repeat the search for evidence.

Sometimes the consequence of holding a belief matter more than the truth of the belief. Is the belief destructive? Some people get very upset when the world shows itself not to be fair. We can all sympathize with that sentiment, but the belief that the world should be fair may cause more grief than it’s worth. Sometimes it is very useful to get on with your day, without taking the time to examine the accuracy of your beliefs and then disputing them. Here the example Seligman provides is a technician doing bomb demolition. He might think, “This could go off and I might be killed”—with the result that his hands shake. In this case Seligman recommends distraction over disputation. Whenever you have to perform now, you will find distraction the tool of choice.

Another tactic is to detail all the ways you can change the situation in the future. Even if the belief is true now, is the situation changeable? If so, how can you go about changing it?

Why False Confessions Trump Evidence

June 30, 2015

Perhaps the most blatant example of the title  is the case of the Central Park Five.  This case attracted enormous attention as it supposedly characterized “wildings”  that were taking place.  Here five black men were convicted of raping and brutalizing a young woman.  There is a video piece on this that I encourage you to watch should you get the opportunity. You will see how the police interrogated these suspects, not with the hope of getting at the truth, but rather at getting them to confess, which they did.  However, it was quite clear from the physical evidence that the police were intent on getting confessions rather than seeking the truth.  The physical evidence at the scene indicated that this was not a gang rape.  And the DNA evidence, which is regarded as close to a gold standard as one can find for legal proceedings, completely exonerated these five men.

One of the reasons that confessions are regarded so highly is that juries ask themselves “Why would individuals incriminate themselves?  Don’t they know about their Fifth Amendment rights?
If you have viewed or get the opportunity to view the interrogations of the Central Park Five  you will see the extreme pressure these individuals are placed under in uncomfortable conditions for prolonged periods of time.  Moreover, there is psychological research showing that people can be falsely convinced that they did actually commit the crime (see the healthy memory blog post “False Memories Leading to Confessions” ).  And they are told that the investigation will continue, so being desperate or wrongly convinced, they reason that eventually truth will out and that they will be exonerated.

Research has indicated why these false confessions are so powerfully persuasive.  Common sense informs people that people will not incriminate themselves, these confession contain credible narratives (which often are created during the interrogation process), these narratives corrupt other evidence and undermine the truth-seeking process.

So what can be done about this?  First of all,  people, police, prosecutors, judges, juries, and appeals courts should be made aware of this research and question the reliability of these confessions.  Interrogations should be videotaped and reviewed.  There are recommended procedures for these interrogations and these procedures need to be followed.