7.1 Causation, Blame, and Policy: Difference between revisions

From Sense & Sensibility & Science
(// Edit via Wikitext Extension for VSCode)
Tag: Manual revert
(// Edit via Wikitext Extension for VSCode)
Tag: Reverted
Line 5: Line 5:
{{Navbox}}
{{Navbox}}


== Useful Links ==
== The Lesson in Context ==


* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e3FfImFu0m2o1xFbPGgeD3RXkySiyBxAZjjuKn4Px9A/edit?usp=sharing Three Column Overview of the Week]
<!-- Always begin section with a description of this lesson in relation to the course as a whole. -->
* [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/11zzvYH2bs44zS-pHO1EjslyXwXe5R0QtiGHoUmVYMNU/edit?usp=drivesdk Lesson Slides (2023 Master)]
This course has so far only discussed general causation, which can be demonstrated through randomized controlled trials and to a weaker extent Hill's criteria. But personal, policy, and legal decisions often depend on singular causation as well. It also sometimes matters whether the causation is by commission or by omission. The famous Trolley dilemma is discussed.
* [https://sensesensibilityscience.berkeley.edu/topic/8 Website Page]


=== Readings and Assignments ===
<!-- Expandable section relating this lesson to earlier lessons. -->
{{Expand|Relation to Earlier Lessons|
{{ContextLesson|6.1 Correlation and Causation}}
{{ContextRelation|RCTs only demonstrate general causation but not singular causation. Correlation is also a statistical relationship between two variables, rather than between two singular events.}}
{{ContextLesson|6.2 Hill's Criteria}}
{{ContextRelation|As a substitute for RCTs, Hill's criteria also only demonstrate general causation, but can be used in some cases as partial evidence for singular causation (especially plausible mechanism and temporal sequence).}}
}}
<!-- Expandable section relating this lesson to later lessons. -->
{{Expand|Relation to Later Lessons|
{{ContextLesson|8.1 Orders of Understanding}}
{{ContextRelation|Any given effect is brought about by a complex combination of many causes (which may interact with each other), with varying degrees of influence on the outcome. This is true for both singular and general causation.}}
{{ContextLesson|9.2 Biases}}
{{ContextRelation|The omission bias is one explanation for the status quo bias, in that humans tend to prefer not actively changing the current situation or trend, even when it may be worse than the potential pitfalls of the new outcome.}}
}}


==== Lecture Video ====
== Takeaways ==


<youtube>https://youtu.be/sWFCyxmZIpM</youtube>
<tabber>


== Learning Goals ==
|-|Learning Goals=


After this lesson, students should
After this lesson, students should
<!-- Learning goals are written as a numbered list. -->
# Distinguish between singular and general causation.
# Distinguish between singular and general causation.
# Distinguish between the evidence needed to establish singular or general causation.
# Distinguish between the evidence needed to establish singular or general causation.
Line 25: Line 38:
# Recognize cases where omission bias and status quo bias can influence decision making, even when this results in a worse outcome.
# Recognize cases where omission bias and status quo bias can influence decision making, even when this results in a worse outcome.


=== Definitions ===
|-|Definitions=
 
<!-- Definitions must be written with the Definition and Subdefinition templates. The first Definition should have the "first=yes" flag at the end. -->
{{Definition|Singular Causation|A causal relation between two specific events; ''A'' caused ''B''.|first=yes}}
{{Definition|General Causation|A causal relation between two variables; ''X'' causes ''Y''.}}
{{Definition|Omission Bias|Omission bias is the tendency to favor an act of omission (inaction) over one of commission (action).}}
{{Definition|Status Quo Bias|A preference for the maintenance of a current or previous state of affairs ("status quo" is Latin for "state in which"), or a preference to not undertake any action to change this current or previous state.}}
<br />
 
|-|Examples=


* '''Singular Causation'''
<!-- Example formatting is still experimental. -->
*: A causal relation between two specific events; ''A'' caused ''B''.
'''Drug Trials'''
* '''General Causation'''
: A randomized controlled trial for a drug may demonstrate its general therapeutic effect (general causation), e.g. taking this drug reduces the risks of this disease, but it cannot conclusively demonstrate a causal connection in any particular instance of a patient taking this drug (singular causation).
*: A causal relation between two variables; ''X'' causes ''Y''.
{{Line}}
* '''Omission Bias'''
'''Weather and Climate Change'''
*: Omission bias is the tendency to favor an act of omission (inaction) over one of commission (action).
: One can claim that climate change causes extreme weather events (general causation), but not that any particular instance of wildfire was caused by climate change (singular causation).
* '''Status Quo Bias'''
*: A preference for the maintenance of a current or previous state of affairs ("status quo" is Latin for "state in which"), or a preference to not undertake any action to change this current or previous state.


=== Examples ===
|-|Common Misconceptions=


* A randomized controlled trial for a drug may demonstrate its general therapeutic effect (general causation), e.g. taking this drug reduces the risks of this disease, but it cannot conclusively demonstrate a causal connection in any particular instance of a patient taking this drug (singular causation).
<!-- Misconceptions must be written with the Misconception template. The first Misconception should have the "first=yes" flag at the end. -->
* One can claim that climate change causes extreme weather events (general causation), but not that any particular instance of wildfire was caused by climate change (singular causation).
{{Misconception|This drug will absolutely cure you, because there was a really big RCT that showed it works for your exact disease!|RCTs can only establish singular causation.|first=yes}}


=== Common Misconceptions ===
</tabber>


* Some students think that an RCT can demonstrate singular causation, whereas in fact it can only establish general causation.
== Useful Resources ==


== Context ==
<tabber>


This course has so far only discussed general causation, which can be demonstrated through randomized controlled trials and to a weaker extent Hill's criteria. But personal, policy, and legal decisions often depend on singular causation as well. It also sometimes matters whether the causation is by commission or by omission. The famous Trolley dilemma is discussed.
|-|Lecture Video=


=== Before ===
<br /><center><youtube>sWFCyxmZIpM</youtube></center>


: '''[[6.1 Correlation and Causation]]'''
|-|Discussion Slides=
:: RCTs only demonstrate general causation but not singular causation. Correlation is also a statistical relationship between two variables, rather than between two singular events.
: '''[[6.2 Hill's Criteria]]'''
:: As a substitute for RCTs, Hill's criteria also only demonstrate general causation, but can be used in some cases as partial evidence for singular causation (especially plausible mechanism and temporal sequence).


=== After ===
{{LinkCard
|url=https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/11zzvYH2bs44zS-pHO1EjslyXwXe5R0QtiGHoUmVYMNU/
|title=Discussion Slides Template
|description=The discussion slides for this lesson.
}}
<br />


: '''[[8.1 Orders of Understanding]]'''
</tabber>
:: Any given effect is brought about by a complex combination of many causes (which may interact with each other), with varying degrees of influence on the outcome. This is true for both singular and general causation.
: '''[[9.2 Biases]]'''
:: The omission bias is one explanation for the status quo bias, in that humans tend to prefer not actively changing the current situation or trend, even when it may be worse than the potential pitfalls of the new outcome.


== Recommended Outline ==
== Recommended Outline ==


=== Before Class ===
=== During Class ===
 
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;"
|5 Minutes
|Introduce the lesson and go over the plan for the day. Make sure people have groups, spokespeople, etc.
|-
|35 Minutes
|Guide the students through the [[#Singular and General Causation Discussion Questions|singular and general causation discussion questions]].
|-
|15 Minutes
|Discuss the [[#Trolley Problem|trolley problem]] example.
|-
|25 Minutes
|Go through the [[#Life Saving Treatments|life saving treatments]] discussion.
|}
 
== Lesson Content ==


* Review PlayPosit and discussion questions and ask faculty, Gabriel, or Emlen any questions you have.
=== Singular and General Causation Discussion Questions ===
* (Optional) Prepare a presentation.


=== During Class ===
Have your students discuss the following questions in small groups. Each question and sub-question should take around five minutes.


* (5 min) Come up with some fun way to assign the roles of spokesperson and notetaker (e.g. earliest birthday in the year, lives furthest from campus). Remind them of the responsibilities of these roles.
==== Question 1 ====
* (35 min) Guide the students through the [[#Singular and General Causation Discussion Questions|singular and general causation discussion questions]].
* (15 min) Discuss the [[#Trolley Problem|trolley problem]] example.
* (25 min) Go through the [[#Life Saving Treatments|life saving treatments]] discussion.


=== After Class ===
Which kind of causation can an RCT establish?
{{BoxAnswer|General causation. The purpose of an RCT is to average away all the nuances that arise from the singular cases of the individuals in the trial.}}
==== Question 2 ====


* Collect answers from notetakers for the forum / plenary.
Suppose we conduct an RCT that determines salt causes heart disease. Suppose Sally is in our study, has a high level of salt, and contracts heart disease. Did Sally's salt intake cause her heart disease?
{{BoxAnswer|It's impossible to say for sure. All we really know is that Sally was more likely to develop heart disease than someone with less salt intake. In this way the trial is suggestive that the salt intake played some role in causing her heart disease. But, that's all our trial tells us.}}
==== Question 3 ====


== Lesson Content ==
On January 4, 2022, a federal inquiry into the Dixie Fire of August 2021, the second largest wildfire in California history, determined the wildfire began when a tree came in contact with a power line operated by PG&E.


=== Singular and General Causation Discussion Questions ===
===== Sub-question 3a =====


In small groups, have students discuss the following questions:
Is this a statement of singular or general causation?
# Which kind of causation can an RCT establish?
{{BoxAnswer|Singular causation.}}
#: {{Answer|General causation. The purpose of an RCT is to average away all the nuances that arise from the singular cases of the individuals in the trial.}}
===== Sub-question 3b =====
# Suppose we conduct an RCT that determines salt causes heart disease. Suppose Sally is in our study, has a high level of salt, and contracts heart disease. Did Sally's salt intake cause her heart disease?
#: {{Answer|It's impossible to say for sure. All we really know is that Sally was more likely to develop heart disease than someone with less salt intake. In this way the trial is suggestive that the salt intake played some role in causing her heart disease. But, that's all our trial tells us.}}
# On January 4, 2022, a federal inquiry into the Dixie Fire of August 2021, the second largest wildfire in California history, determined the wildfire began when a tree came in contact with a power line operated by PG&E.
## Is this a statement of singular or general causation?
##: {{Answer|Singular causation.}}
## It is well established that climate change increases the number and intensity of wildfires in California. Given this known fact, why did the federal investigation not immediately conclude that climate change was the cause?
##: {{Answer|Although climate change tends to result in worse wildfire seasons, it has to do this via some mechanism. It can lead to hotter weather and drier foliage. This doesn't cause fires directly but increases the likelihood that other things that tend to start fires actually end up doing so. Identifying which mechanism was the singular cause of this fire can help us find additional general causes (such as uncleared foliage and unmaintained infrastructure) that work in conjunction with climate change.}}
## PG&E has faced criminal charges from multiple California counties for the role of its equipment in causing wildfires. When determining guilt or innocence, does the legal system typically focus on singular or general causation?
##: {{Answer|The legal system typically punishes acts of singular causation. However, this is done with the intent of discouraging future acts. In this way, it acts generally as well. Class action suits can involve general causation, as when a toxin causes cancer in some but not all people exposed.}}
## Assume you're in charge of creating policy to prevent California wildfires like the Dixie Fire from happening in the future. What are some policies that might have prevented the Dixie Fire? Does policy making typically focus on singular or general causation?
##: {{Answer|Policies to address climate change and increase infrastructure standards would help prevent cases like the Dixie Fire. These focus on general causation. Even policies that increase the punishment for having roles in starting fires are ultimately addressing general causation as well, since they aim to have a broad impact.}}
# Why do you think it is so tempting to assume that each event has a singular person or entity to blame? When is this useful or not useful?
#: {{Answer|One possible reason is that it's much easier to think about and deal with singular entities because it's simpler to intervene on one entity than on many. Additionally, we tend to over perceive the effects of individual agents, which are singular factors. This could be because they are more important to notice in the short term. For example, it is more important to notice an enemy that tripped you than a series of small factors that led to you being tripped. And, as previously noted, the former is easier to act on.}}


=== Commission and Omission Discussion Questions ===
It is well established that climate change increases the number and intensity of wildfires in California. Given this known fact, why did the federal investigation not immediately conclude that climate change was the cause?
{{BoxAnswer|Although climate change tends to result in worse wildfire seasons, it has to do this via some mechanism. It can lead to hotter weather and drier foliage. This doesn't cause fires directly but increases the likelihood that other things that tend to start fires actually end up doing so. Identifying which mechanism was the singular cause of this fire can help us find additional general causes (such as uncleared foliage and unmaintained infrastructure) that work in conjunction with climate change.}}
===== Sub-question 3c =====


==== Trolley Problem ====
PG&E has faced criminal charges from multiple California counties for the role of its equipment in causing wildfires. When determining guilt or innocence, does the legal system typically focus on singular or general causation?
{{BoxAnswer|The legal system typically punishes acts of singular causation. However, this is done with the intent of discouraging future acts. In this way, it acts generally as well. Class action suits can involve general causation, as when a toxin causes cancer in some but not all people exposed.}}
===== Sub-question 3d =====


The point of the trolley problem is to emphasize the effect of omission bias. In doing so, it shows the different weights society and individuals tend to put on acts of commission versus acts of omission.
Assume you're in charge of creating policy to prevent California wildfires like the Dixie Fire from happening in the future. What are some policies that might have prevented the Dixie Fire? Does policy making typically focus on singular or general causation?
{{BoxAnswer|Policies to address climate change and increase infrastructure standards would help prevent cases like the Dixie Fire. These focus on general causation. Even policies that increase the punishment for having roles in starting fires are ultimately addressing general causation as well, since they aim to have a broad impact.}}
==== Question 4 ====


If you deem it appropriate, you can show [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWb_svTrcOg this clip] from the show ''The Good Place''.
Why do you think it is so tempting to assume that each event has a singular person or entity to blame? When is this useful or not useful?
{{Caution|The clip has some violence and gore. Make sure to provide a disclaimer before showing it.|right=small}}
{{BoxAnswer|One possible reason is that it's much easier to think about and deal with singular entities because it's simpler to intervene on one entity than on many. Additionally, we tend to over perceive the effects of individual agents, which are singular factors. This could be because they are more important to notice in the short term. For example, it is more important to notice an enemy that tripped you than a series of small factors that led to you being tripped. And, as previously noted, the former is easier to act on.}}


In small groups, have students discuss the following questions:
=== Activity 1 ===
# Would you pull the lever to shift the trolley from the track with five people to the track with one (assuming whoever is on the track will be crushed)? 👀
# Are you causing the death of 1 person if you do pull the lever?
# Are you causing the death of 5 people if you don't pull the lever?
# Is there a significant distinction between the deaths that result from you pulling the lever (commission) vs the deaths if you don't (omission)?


==== Life Saving Treatments ====
[Brief description of and motivation for the activity]
{{BoxCaution|[Common misconception or thing to look out for.]}}
{{BoxWarning|[Thing you really need to look out for!]}}
{{BoxTip|title=[Title]|[Useful tip, guideline, or other background.]}}


Bring the students back and have them share what they talked about. Then explain a hypothetical scenario where you are a doctor in a hospital where there are five sick people whose lives could be saved using the organs of one healthy person, who will die when their organs are taken. Have the students discuss the following questions:
==== Instructions ====
# Should the healthy organs of the one person be used to save the five people?
# What if instead of organs, it was a drug that could save either one person or five other people? Would you choose to save one person or five people?
# Why do you think we place more blame on "sins of commission" than on "sins of omission?" Is it (never/sometimes/always) rational?


Then introduce "omission bias," which is the human tendency to favor an act of omission (inaction) over one of commission (action). For example, people give more blame to bad consequences of action than bad consequences of inaction; people give more credit for action with good consequences than inaction with good consequences. It is one explanation of the status quo bias, in that people prefer not to actively change the current situation, even if the change is more likely to result in a good outcome. The omission bias itself is not necessarily rational or irrational.
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;"
|[n] Minutes
|[Activity.]
|-
|[n] Minutes
|[Activity.]
|}


Finally, provide [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.3960030404 this real world example]. Here, "subjects are reluctant to vaccinate a (hypothetical) child when the vaccination itself can cause death, even when this is much less likely than death from the disease prevented."
==== Discussion Questions ====


Suppose there is an emergent disease in a population. If left untreated, 1 million people will die from it. A new vaccine is available with 100% effectiveness in preventing the disease. However, if the whole population were vaccinated, then an estimated 100 people would die as a result of adverse reaction to the vaccine.
[Question 1]
# Show of hands: Would you give this vaccine to your child?
{{BoxCaution|[Possible misconception that may need to be corrected and clarified.]|small=right}}
# Show of hands: Would you authorize the distribution of this vaccine if you were the FDA?
{{BoxAnswer|[Intended answer to the above question.]}}
# What's the largest number of deaths from the vaccine that you would tolerate and still give it to your child? (0, 1, 100, 1 thousand, 10 thousand, 100 thousand, 1 million, above 1 million) Authorize if you were the FDA?{{Caution|This last question could be in a Google Form, so that the distribution of numbers over the entire class can be presented in the plenary.}}
{{Line}}
[Question 2]
{{BoxCaution|[Possible misconception that may need to be corrected and clarified.]|small=right}}
{{BoxAnswer|[Intended answer to the above question.]}}


{{NavCard|prev=6.2 Hill's Criteria|next=7.2 Emergent Phenomena}}
{{NavCard|prev=[Previous Lesson]|next=[Next Lesson]}}
[[Category:Lesson plans]]
<includeonly>[[Category:Lesson plans]]</includeonly>

Revision as of 18:31, 1 August 2023

Topic Cover - 7.1 Causation, Blame, and Policy.png

Distinguishing singular causation (A caused B) from general causation (X tends to cause Y).



The Lesson in Context

This course has so far only discussed general causation, which can be demonstrated through randomized controlled trials and to a weaker extent Hill's criteria. But personal, policy, and legal decisions often depend on singular causation as well. It also sometimes matters whether the causation is by commission or by omission. The famous Trolley dilemma is discussed.

6.1 Correlation and CausationTopic Icon - 6.1 Correlation and Causation.png
  • RCTs only demonstrate general causation but not singular causation. Correlation is also a statistical relationship between two variables, rather than between two singular events.
6.2 Hill's CriteriaTopic Icon - 6.2 Hill's Criteria.png
  • As a substitute for RCTs, Hill's criteria also only demonstrate general causation, but can be used in some cases as partial evidence for singular causation (especially plausible mechanism and temporal sequence).
8.1 Orders of UnderstandingTopic Icon - 8.1 Orders of Understanding.png
  • Any given effect is brought about by a complex combination of many causes (which may interact with each other), with varying degrees of influence on the outcome. This is true for both singular and general causation.
9.2 BiasesTopic Icon - 9.2 Biases.png
  • The omission bias is one explanation for the status quo bias, in that humans tend to prefer not actively changing the current situation or trend, even when it may be worse than the potential pitfalls of the new outcome.


Takeaways

After this lesson, students should

  1. Distinguish between singular and general causation.
  2. Distinguish between the evidence needed to establish singular or general causation.
  3. Identify different policy implications of singular or general causation.
  4. Recognize cases where omission bias and status quo bias can influence decision making, even when this results in a worse outcome.

Singular Causation

A causal relation between two specific events; A caused B.

General Causation

A causal relation between two variables; X causes Y.

Omission Bias

Omission bias is the tendency to favor an act of omission (inaction) over one of commission (action).

Status Quo Bias

A preference for the maintenance of a current or previous state of affairs ("status quo" is Latin for "state in which"), or a preference to not undertake any action to change this current or previous state.

Drug Trials

A randomized controlled trial for a drug may demonstrate its general therapeutic effect (general causation), e.g. taking this drug reduces the risks of this disease, but it cannot conclusively demonstrate a causal connection in any particular instance of a patient taking this drug (singular causation).

Weather and Climate Change

One can claim that climate change causes extreme weather events (general causation), but not that any particular instance of wildfire was caused by climate change (singular causation).

This drug will absolutely cure you, because there was a really big RCT that showed it works for your exact disease!

RCTs can only establish singular causation.

Useful Resources


Discussion Slides Template

The discussion slides for this lesson.


Recommended Outline

During Class

5 Minutes Introduce the lesson and go over the plan for the day. Make sure people have groups, spokespeople, etc.
35 Minutes Guide the students through the singular and general causation discussion questions.
15 Minutes Discuss the trolley problem example.
25 Minutes Go through the life saving treatments discussion.

Lesson Content

Singular and General Causation Discussion Questions

Have your students discuss the following questions in small groups. Each question and sub-question should take around five minutes.

Question 1

Which kind of causation can an RCT establish?

General causation. The purpose of an RCT is to average away all the nuances that arise from the singular cases of the individuals in the trial.

Question 2

Suppose we conduct an RCT that determines salt causes heart disease. Suppose Sally is in our study, has a high level of salt, and contracts heart disease. Did Sally's salt intake cause her heart disease?

It's impossible to say for sure. All we really know is that Sally was more likely to develop heart disease than someone with less salt intake. In this way the trial is suggestive that the salt intake played some role in causing her heart disease. But, that's all our trial tells us.

Question 3

On January 4, 2022, a federal inquiry into the Dixie Fire of August 2021, the second largest wildfire in California history, determined the wildfire began when a tree came in contact with a power line operated by PG&E.

Sub-question 3a

Is this a statement of singular or general causation?

Singular causation.

Sub-question 3b

It is well established that climate change increases the number and intensity of wildfires in California. Given this known fact, why did the federal investigation not immediately conclude that climate change was the cause?

Although climate change tends to result in worse wildfire seasons, it has to do this via some mechanism. It can lead to hotter weather and drier foliage. This doesn't cause fires directly but increases the likelihood that other things that tend to start fires actually end up doing so. Identifying which mechanism was the singular cause of this fire can help us find additional general causes (such as uncleared foliage and unmaintained infrastructure) that work in conjunction with climate change.

Sub-question 3c

PG&E has faced criminal charges from multiple California counties for the role of its equipment in causing wildfires. When determining guilt or innocence, does the legal system typically focus on singular or general causation?

The legal system typically punishes acts of singular causation. However, this is done with the intent of discouraging future acts. In this way, it acts generally as well. Class action suits can involve general causation, as when a toxin causes cancer in some but not all people exposed.

Sub-question 3d

Assume you're in charge of creating policy to prevent California wildfires like the Dixie Fire from happening in the future. What are some policies that might have prevented the Dixie Fire? Does policy making typically focus on singular or general causation?

Policies to address climate change and increase infrastructure standards would help prevent cases like the Dixie Fire. These focus on general causation. Even policies that increase the punishment for having roles in starting fires are ultimately addressing general causation as well, since they aim to have a broad impact.

Question 4

Why do you think it is so tempting to assume that each event has a singular person or entity to blame? When is this useful or not useful?

One possible reason is that it's much easier to think about and deal with singular entities because it's simpler to intervene on one entity than on many. Additionally, we tend to over perceive the effects of individual agents, which are singular factors. This could be because they are more important to notice in the short term. For example, it is more important to notice an enemy that tripped you than a series of small factors that led to you being tripped. And, as previously noted, the former is easier to act on.


Activity 1

[Brief description of and motivation for the activity]

[Common misconception or thing to look out for.]

[Thing you really need to look out for!]

[Title]

[Useful tip, guideline, or other background.]


Instructions

[n] Minutes [Activity.]
[n] Minutes [Activity.]

Discussion Questions

[Question 1]

[Possible misconception that may need to be corrected and clarified.]

[Intended answer to the above question.]

[Question 2]

[Possible misconception that may need to be corrected and clarified.]

[Intended answer to the above question.]


[[[Previous Lesson]|⟨]]

[[[Previous Lesson]|Previous]]

[[[Previous Lesson]]]

[[[Next Lesson]|⟩]]

[[[Next Lesson]|Next]]

[[[Next Lesson]]]


Retrieved from "https://sensibility.berkeley.edu/index.php?title=7.1_Causation,_Blame,_and_Policy&oldid=5345"