Some Disparate Commentaries on Causation

Although there's a brief conclusion at the end, the following is a collection of self-contained commentaries on causation, NOT an actual essay. 

The Need For "Scientific Holistic Thinking"

The primary law of this Universe is the law of causality, which states that for every effect, there’s at least one cause that precedes it. But there is nothing inherent to the law that says that causality must be simple, tangible, or understandable to humans. Unfortunately, people are programmed to believe exactly the opposite. Although the term has undergone many iterations throughout the extralogical reasoning literature, extralogical reasoning now calls this the causation bias, the natural human tendency to be too quick to assume that the relationship between cause and effect will be ascertainable and satisfying. 

 

The factors/variables relevant to causation are greater, less tangible and articulable, and more interactive than most people think. Organization and complex events can also occur without conscious intervention much more readily than assumed--in other words, people naturally underestimate the power of self-organization or the proverbial “invisible hand.” Extralogical reasoning's casual defects are: the underestimation of the number of relevant variables, their intangibility, the complexity of their interactions, and the power of self-organization. The defects are the provenance of the causation bias. Due to the causation bias and the common desire for satisfactory explanations, extralogical reasoning recommends people be wary of explanations with "big shining lights on it." Inferences that are so OFTEN true and satisying are ensnaring for that very reason--BECAUSE they can so neatly explain things. But that never guanrntees that they will be true in individual cases.  

 

No person can possess any attribute, resource, or ability in an isolated universe: No person can possess any attribute, resource, or ability in the absence of other such entities; and no person can possess any set of these things in the absence of a complex external environment. Reductive or reductionistic thinking—that is, trying to understand a collection of variables by just looking at a small number of parts in isolation—is ineffective for the simple reason that it doesn’t treat the collection of variables for what it is (in the overwhelming majority of cases). Although one must still understand how the variables fit in with each other, Math, science, and engineering are exceptional because they ARE reductionistic: There are typically less variables, and the variables tend to have much better defined relationships. Few things are reductionistic and, obviously, should not be treated as such.

 

The complex dynamics of causal variables--especially in complex systems like ecosystems, economies, and societies--makes prediction difficult. Complex systems must be stable, able to maintain their approximate identities while perpetually changing, and tend to be governed by many known laws (biological, social, economic, etc.); thus, they must have “guess-ability.” Complex systems, like businesses, have enough predictability to justify the merits of research, general knowledge, and intelligent planning. But the rise of numerous (publicly) unpredicted technologies in the past century shows that people don’t really know what they want until they get it; this, in turn, shows the power of the potential complexity, unknowability, and sheer quantity of causal variables.  

 

Some would argue that the World is predictable, that most events are predicted. Perhaps some, or even most, things have been predicted (loosely speaking), but there are also lots of people making lots of predictions; naturally, some will come true. Predictions, I suspect, have a confirmation and survivors bias, especially among those who make them. Predictions that come true are more likely to SURVIVE and be CONFIRMED among the many that are made. Adding to the illusion is RETROSPECTIVE “predictability.” Many things happen in complex systems, and many, in turn, can serve as POSSIBLE explanations for events ex post facto. More is known after the fact, and for every correct explanation, there can be countless POSSIBLE explanations. In school, most things are studied in retrospect, and all courses must have ascertainable answers and explanations, further reinforcing the illusion. Retrospective predictability is exploited by politicians as a means of taking credit for things they had nothing to do with. This is based on the famous post hoc fallacy: assuming A caused B simply because it preceded it.

As explained in the third part of the intro to extralogical reasoning, the modern World is not something people are well-suited to understand. Peopled evolved to deal with instances of causation that involved far less variables. Scientific holistic thinking is the opposite of reductionistic thinking, and treats reality and its variables/ collections of variables for what they actually are.      

        

 

Some Causational Terminology 

 

The Causational Hierarchy  

A trigger is something “small” that sets something into motion that is already on the edge of being set into motion. For a mentally ill person, this is a small stressor like a vaginal period, a bad day at work, or lack of sleep. A catalyst is something that gives something already prone to occur a path or context to occur. An enzyme is a catalyst. Enzyme's never facilitate otherwise impossible chemical reactions or change the energy between the relevant products and reactants; they interact with them and/surrounding molecules to lower the required energy, allowing them to happen in sufficient time. Misbehaving children don't create incompatibilities between parents, but the misconduct and the need to remedy it can create a context for their incompatibilities to manifest. This may not cause divorce, but it's catalyzed more than a few. An immediate cause is a combination of a catalyst and a secondary cause. When kids go on shooting sprees after being ridiculed by their friend’s, the latter is the immediate cause, while the ultimate cause is mental illness; if a mentally ill person has an episode after a devastating personal crisis, the personal crisis is the immediate cause. An ultimate cause is the main or “true” reason why something has happened. 

 

But sub-ultimate causes are often confused with ultimate causes. People with addictions, mental illnesses, or unresolved psychological issues often mistake ordinary stressors as the true causes of episodes. When distressed, the HTO (human thinking organ) naturally tries to “latch onto” whatever causes and effects will explain why the person feels the way they do. 

 

As most educated people know, correlation and causation are often confused, which includes mistaking causes for effects and vis versa. For example, I think the tendency to set goals is more an EFFECT of motivation than its CAUSE. Because variables and subsystems (within a complex system, for example) are interactive, things are often both, making the fallacy even easier to commit. 

 

Causational Defaults

Causational defaults are attractive sources that can neatly explain events. They include gods and government executives; in other words, “The Powers That Be.” Sometimes The Powers That Be, like gods, are created for the very purpose of “explaining” things people don’t understand. Ancient cultures had gods for pretty much everything—celestial bodies, air, fire, water, etc. Today, causational defaults still exist, just in more secular targets, like corrupt CEOs and government executives. Academia is a causational default for intellectual progress and has been given far more credit for it than is deserved (see the works of Nassim Taleb).    

 

 

As explained throughout the intro to extralogical reasoning, humans evolved in a far simpler environment, one that didn’t require they account for or FILTER THROUGH anywhere near as much information/variables as in the modern World. Due to this and the many other disadvantages and limitations of the human thinking organ discussed in other posts, many have argued that causality is largely beyond human comprehension. There may be some truth to this. But just as everyone is programmed to unfailingly believe in free will, the same is true of the “ascertainably of causality.” In fact, people are almost incapable of following a sequence of events or performing analysis without a discernable causal narrative—something heavily exploited by politicians and the media. The HTO is programmed to put too much stock in what it knows and not take sufficient account for what it doesn’t (the availability heuristic bias). If nothing else, people can comprehend the limitations of their understanding, allowing them to better manage their thinking and avoid making common mistakes.