Asking the Right Questions的Chapter10讨论的是Rival Cause”, 什么是Rival Cause” (替代原因)呢？ 我们先来看一个小视频:
A rival cause is a plausible alternative explanation that can explain why a certain outcome occurred.
很多结果并不是只由一个或几个原因引起的，往往是由很多个原因同时引起的。尤其在尝试解释一件事情背后的根本原因时，如果能想到作者没有提出的的其他原因，作者原本提及的原因很可能就没那么靠谱了。
Be wary of accepting the first interpretation of an event you encounter. Search for rival causes and try to compare their credibility. Consider other perspectives from which the event of interest might be viewed. Read multiple versions of events to help expand your viewpoints. We must accept the fact that many events do not have a simple explanation.
语文课上我们学到“造成祥林嫂悲剧的直接原因和间接原因”; 我们讨论时事的时候也会说“造成这种局面是受社会大背景影响”。我们往往看到是 “the cause”而不是 “a cause”，这样就容易把问题的原因过于简单化，因此我们需要想一想其它的rival causes(替代原因)是什么。
The experts may claim to have the answer, but they are not likely to know it. That is because a frequently made error is to look for a simple, single cause of an event when “the” cause is really the result of a combination of many contributory causes—causes that help to create a total set of conditions necessary for the event to occur. For example, the impetus to commit mass murder likely results from unique combinations of many contributory causes.
我们习惯了“因果关系”的逻辑，但是要想想“造成这种结果的原因可能还有哪些？” 当我们把这些Rival causes罗列出来，我们可以更全面的去看这个问题。陈思诚在酒店夜会两女，网友们戏称是三人斗地主，这就是一个rival cause...
想一想其它的可能原因是什么，可以防止过度简化因果关系谬误(Causal Oversimplification)。
Causal Oversimplification: Explaining an event by relying on causal factors that are insufficient to account for the event or by overemphasizing the role of one or more of these factors.
In some sense, almost all causal explanations are oversimplifications; therefore, you have to be fair to those who offer explanations that do not include every possible cause of an event. Causal conclusions, however, should include sufficient causal factors to convince you that they are not too greatly oversimplified, or the author should make clear to you that the causal factor she emphasizes in her conclusion is only one of a number of possible contributing causes—a cause, not the cause.
因为每个人的perspective不同，我们对“原因”的解读也不同。我们的观点越开放，越见多识广，我们能够想到的替代原因就越多。找出替代原原因就好像做一名出色的侦探，当我们发现“可能还有其它原因”的时候，我们要问自己以下几个问题:
Can I think of any other way to interpret the evidence?
What else might have caused this act or these findings?
If I looked at this from another point of view, what might I see as important causes?
If this interpretation is incorrect, what other interpretation might make sense?
如何从众多可能原因中选择靠谱的那个呢？我们可以利用一下几点标准来过滤。深夜酒店叫两个女孩来斗地主这个就不靠谱。
要注意：“相关”(Association)不能证明因果关系(Causation)，也就是说A事件与B事件相关并不代表A是造成B的原因。例如我对参加我课程的朋友们，如果你觉得你和我一起学习自己有了进步，那最应该感谢的人只是你自己。因为我认为真正地进步来源于自己认识到自己的问题并且为之付诸行动，其他人只是起到推动和刺激的作用。
我们习惯把“相互联系”或者“相继发生”的事件认为是互为因果:
That is, we conclude that because characteristic X (e.g., amount of energy bars consumed) is associated with characteristic Y (e.g., performance in an athletic event), X causes Y.
Remember: Association or correlation does not prove causation!
举一个例子来说明:
A recent study reported that “ice cream causes crime.” Researchers studied ice cream sales and crime rates over the last five years in the ten largest U.S. cities and found that as ice cream sales increase, so does the crime rate. They hypothesized that eating ice cream triggers a chemical reaction in one’s brain an inclination toward crime.
We hope you can now see that ice cream eaters need not be concerned that they are about to commit a crime. What rival causes did you think of？Couldn’t the increased summer heat account for the association between ice cream sales (X) and crime (Y)?
关于这一点有两个推理谬误:
1) Confusion of cause and effect fallacy (因果混淆谬误)，简单说就是“分不清因果“
Confusing the cause with the effect of an event or failing to recognize that the two events may be influencing each other.
2) Neglect of common cause fallacy (中译文第10版翻译为”忽略常见原因谬误”,我认为common在这里是“共同”的意思。)
Failure to recognize that two events may be related because of the effects of a common third factor.
例如上面ice cream和crime的例子，把两者关联起来的原因或许是a common third factor(夏天天热)。
Post Hoc Fallacy
另外还要注意的一个谬误就是post hoc, ergo propter hoc (meaning: “after this, therefore because of this”) fallacy
Post Hoc: Assuming that a particular event, B, is caused by another event, A, simply because B follows A in time.
我小时候考试之前妈妈会给我做一个火腿肠和两个鸡蛋，说这样就可以考100分了。此种”迷信“就是post hoc fallacy — one event follows another in time does not by itself prove causation; it may be only a coincidence.
Fundamental Attribution Error
最后我们在判断原因和寻找替代原因是需要注意的是“很多事情并非只有一种解释”，其次“我们是解释事情的方式深受各种社会力量的影响，同时还受到与信仰有关的个人心理视角的影响。”
有一种常见的偏见是Fundamental attribution error(基本归因错误)，即“人们在考察某些行为或后果的原因时高估倾向性因素（谴责或赞誉人）、低估情境性因素（谴责或赞誉环境）的双重倾向。”
That is, we tend to see the cause of others’ behavior as coming from within (their personal characteristics) rather than from without (situational forces).
联系客服
