The Fallacy of Effects and Causes

[Brown]

This week's commentary includes a quote from the London Times.In one experiment, he showed people footage of a fictional president who was shot at, and provided fictional newspaper articles. People were more likely to believe that there was a conspiracy behind the shooting if [the fictional president] was killed than if [the fictional president] was uninjured. He concluded: "People think that a big event must have a big cause, but often things are caused by cock-up or accident, not conspiracy." Prof. John Allen Paulos has written about this phenomenon on many occasions, although not necessarily in the context of conspiracy. From "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper" (1995):There is another psychological foible that a plaintiff's lawyers can exploit. In assigning causes, people are much more likely to attribute an event that has momentous or emotional implications to an agent rather than to chance. In one experiment, for example, a group of subjects is told that a man parked his car on an incline, after which it rolled down into a fire hydrant. Another group is told that the car rolled into a pedestrian. The member of the first group generally view the event as an accident; the second group holds the driver responsible. It's a charming superstition that significant consequences must be the result of significant negligence.In the car example cited by Paulos, the "fault" (if any) by the man who parked his car is the same in both incidents. Only the consequences (or "damages") are different. Every trial lawyer can tell you that a jury is more likely to find fault if the damages are severe, even though the questions of liability and damages are supposed to be distinct. In other words, juries are supposed to make decisions about who was at fault without regard to how badly the plaintiff was hurt, but in practice, juries often don't do that.

This fallacy, that significant effects must have proportionately significant causes, comes up in other contexts as well. Does anyone know if it has a name?

[arcticpenguin]

The fallacy of You could put someone's eye out with that thing.

[JesFine]

Another example is the fact that the legal penalty for murder is worse than the penalty for attempted murder. We talked about this in one of my college psychology courses, so I tried to find its name in my old psychology books but couldn't.

Another weird thing is how most people seem to believe these kinds of things until you point out the fallacy and then they immediately realize they were wrong. That has been my experience anyway -- I wish that attitude carried over into other areas of life as well.

[c4ts]

John Allen Paulos lectured at my school last year.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by JesFine
Another example is the fact that the legal penalty for murder is worse than the penalty for attempted murder. We talked about this in one of my college psychology courses, so I tried to find its name in my old psychology books but couldn't.

Does it not depend on what you believe the sentence represents?

As a deterent, you are right, it makes no sense because the act is the same.

However, as a punishment, should it not be a function of the implications as well as the act? So an attempted murderer just gets lucky, as it were.

[JesFine]

Originally posted by Drooper


Does it not depend on what you believe the sentence represents?

As a deterent, you are right, it makes no sense because the act is the same.

However, as a punishment, should it not be a function of the implications as well as the act? So an attempted murderer just gets lucky, as it were. Well that's how it works now, but it doesn't seem right. For one thing, I don't see how you can separate punishment from deterrence. The reason you are discouraged from doing something wrong is because you will be punished, correct? At least as far as our legal system is concerned.

For another, I was talking about the specific case of killing another human being. If you were trying to rob a bank, but accidentally walked into an empty warehouse and yelled "Everybody be cool this is a robbery!", well yeah then I wouldn't charge you with "attempted bank-robbery". Murder on the other hand deserves equally harsh punishment for any attempt, succesful or otherwise.

Also, giving a lighter sentence for attempted murder basically rewards incompetence, and what kind of message is that to send to the kids? Think of the children!

[DrMatt]

Suicide bombers really screw up the whole mechanism of deterrence.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by JesFine
Also, giving a lighter sentence for attempted murder basically rewards incompetence, and what kind of message is that to send to the kids? Think of the children!

Better incompetant than competant criminals.