Causation Bias
When do you require proven causation?
The public expectation around government or charitable programs is that they will cause change: we expect a direct, proven, and clear connection between the money we spend and the goals. This doesn’t seem biased - it seems prudent. I held this expectation for years until I was confronted with two disturbing inconsistencies:
I don’t require proven causation before spending money and effort on my children...or for anyone else I love. For those people, I’ll happily do whatever will plausibly contribute to improvement. For example, parents don’t look toward random control studies to prove that sports, music, or other extracurricular activities will cause success in life - they typically give their offspring anything that just might contribute toward a better life.
Similarly, nobody pursuing a goal within a complex field (i.e. athletics, academics, professional success, etc.) waits for proven causation before spending their own money and effort. Athletes don’t wait for a random control trial to prove that a better coach or new training approach will cause success on the field. Again, for broad goals in complex environments, money and effort are regularly expended in the hope of contributing toward better outcomes. Proven causation is not required.
On the surface, requiring proven causation might look wise, but when considered in a broader frame it is often biased against those outside our circle of love and concern.