Emotionally Delusional Herding
As I read through Bobby Duffy’s Why We’re Wrong About Nearly Everything, I would ask myself, my husband and sons the questions from the surveys and was pleasantly surprised that our estimates where closer to the actual numbers than the average reply. This clearly shows that my family is the exception to the rule, and we do not have delusions. Obviously, I say this in jest, our assumptions revealed a lot of how we see the world. On teenage births,[1] the 4-year Muslim population,[2] and immigrant population[3] we were close to the actual and even estimated closely for other countries. The survey on women in politics was an eye-opener for us. We were all shocked that only 19% of American politicians are women.[4] The men in my family are champions of women in leadership, my husband advocating nationally for equal women leadership in our denomination. To realize that our country was still so behind, was disheartening. We chuckled (because we didn’t want to cry) at the question on who would win the election between Clinton and Trump.[5] How could so many countries, including our own, think Clinton would win and then have it end in victory for Trump. This little family survey was fun and gave insight, but I should probably move on to the real deal.
Emotionally Delusional
Duffy makes a key point that emotional responses shape peoples view of reality, making for one-sided delusions.[6] Emotions are significant to how we see politics. People are not the rational decision makers that objectively elect politicians based on preferred policies. Politicians often play on voter’s emotions misdirecting them from true reality.[7] Duffy encourages individuals and society to be aware of the emotional views that are brought into what we choose and our understanding of what will happen[8]. Emotional response to issues that concern us, lend to overestimating its prevalence in the community.[9] Immigration, unemployment and poverty are examples of concerns that Duffy uses to show how people feel like the issue is much bigger than it is. We should not deny how much our emotions play into our perceptions but should seek to understand them. The key is to challenge the immediate thinking that accompanies the emotion and spend time complimenting on the thoughts.[10] Buffy uses Kahneman’s system 1 and 2 to explain deeper thinking to move from the reactive emotion to rational system 2 thinking.[11]
Misinformation
In our current political situation, it seems misinformation is continually increasing. Trump has often claimed fake news of opposing media, while, also, being connected to many false stories and claims himself[12]. Media and the internet continue to spread biased misinformation. Buffy talks of how our online community confirms our biases because we will receive mostly information, whether true or not, that confirms our existing views.[13] We share, like, and comment what others would expect us too in our media circles, further filtering what information we see.[14] I immediately thought back to The Atlantic article by Johnathan Haidt, “The Dark Psychology of Social Networks”. Haidt shared how the more inflammatory or emotional a post is the more it gets liked and shared. This is how misinformation spreads.[15] The American Psychological Association confirms this effect, “People are more likely to share misinformation when it aligns with personal identity or social norms, when it is novel, and when it elicits strong emotions.”[16]
Duffy ends with light at the end of the tunnel. He encourages individuals to have deeper engagement[17] and society to work on regulations to control the spread of misinformation.[18] While he recognizes that dealing with delusions is multi- faceted and complex, he says there are practical ways for truth to emerge with rational thinking and the importance of our emotions.[19] He leaves us with the hope that things aren’t as bad as they seem.[20]
___________
[1] Duffy, Bobby. Why We’re Wrong About Nearly Everything. New York, Hachette Book Group. 2018; 59
[2] Duffy 109
[3] Duffy 95
[4] Duffy 141
[5] Duffy 168
[6] Duffy 20
[7] Duffy 149
[8] Duffy 170
[9] Duffy 144
[10] Duffy 231
[11] Kahneman, D. Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Penguin. 2011
[12] Duffy 161
[13] Duffy 177
[14] Duffy 178
[15] Haidt, Johnathan, Tobias Rose-Stockwell “The Dark Psychology of Social Networks” The Atlantic. December 2019: 5
[16] American Psychological Association. “How and why does misinformation spread? March 1, 2024. https://www.apa.org/topics/journalism-facts/how-why-misinformation-spread
[17] Duffy 239
[18] Duffy 235
[19] Duffy 241
[20] Duffy 241
About the Author
Jess Bashioum
6 responses to “Emotionally Delusional Herding”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Jess,
I am curious to what you would attribute your family’s above-average perspective of reality to? If I recall correctly, you spent a chunk of time outside of the US. Do you think this played a role in how you responded to those questions?
I find it interesting how some countries are “less wrong” and wonder how country-specific social dynamics play a part in this.
Jess & Darren, I had the same question, so I’ll tag in here for the answer!
I also wonder if broader (and deeper) exposure to other parts of the world reduces the tendency Duffy points out to presume everyone else thinks the same way we do.
Ha, I hope I did not portray a more “above average” family than I actually have. Despite my family, I do believe those who have had to interact with more then one culture and language, does make a person become much more aware of their default thinking. When an entire culture thinks very differently than you, it challenges you to think deeply about what really is true. Things become less black and white.
One example from Jordan, we had friends who wanted to study the Bible with us. We were reading a section that included John 3:23 “One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him.” My friend was amazed at the Arabic translation of this seemingly unimpressive verse. The Arab word used for “reclining next to” literally means to lay against one’s chest. The King James Version translates it closer to the greek and Arabic meaning, “Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.” Anyway, this verse stood out so deeply to my Arab friend, Ziad, because leaning on one in this way shows a deeply intimate relationship. Only the closest relatives who know you deeply, would ever sit in this way. Ziad was astonished that this amazing, possibly divine man, Issa would be so familiar with a normal everyday John. This one verse changed how he perceived Jesus. In an Arab culture that reclines on mats on the floor to eat and socialize, and that shows male affection, Jesus was displaying a love and mutual respect that was uncanny. We Americans probably just understood two guys who are good friends sitting next to each other or if we read the King James, would probably feel a little uncomfortable at a man laying on Jesus “bosom” like that. But to my Arab friend it showed the love and intimacy one can have with God.
Thank you Jess. I love your focus on the interlink between emotion and reaction and beliefs. I find it terrifying how much evidence there now is from neuroscience about the correlation between emotional stimulation, the formation of beliefs and long term memory which is held with emotional memory embedded. I worry about those who know this who are using it as intentional manipulation and control. And how we prepare people to find peace and ability to think critically and notice their emotional response. I guess facilitating honest, authentic, emotionally safe conversations where people can explore what they think and change their minds is what is needed. It sounds like your family can do that together which is beautiful.
Jess, I appreciate your generosity with sharing experiences. I would have saved the exchange with Ziad for a future blog. Seriously, though, Michaela tells me how truths in the Bible can really jump out when read in different languages.
I was grateful that Duffy ended with a forward-looking concluding chapter rather than, “Good luck!” His ten ideas require maturity and an intellectual focus to overcome a book full of reasons why we can’t successfully form a more accurate view.
You interact with a wide range of people across your multiple responsibilities. Based on those interactions, is it reasonable to think that ‘we’ can implement these ideas?
Hey Jess,
As someone who is a naturalized immigrant to the USA and often navigating culture from that perspective, one of the observations I had in this most recent election cycle was how emotional the entire process had become.
I think that it’s fair to say that we can expect experienced leaders to understand the mechanics and importance of human emotion and speak with others accordingly. However, in this past election cycle, I observed one major candidate focus their campaign with the (ancient) tactic of addressing people’s fears and desire for change, and the other major candidate openly campaign on “vibes.” It was as if any sort of nuance or pretense that their appeals were emotional were jettisoned. They openly demonstrated that this was about how people felt, not rationale, as you say.
When do you think it is appropriate to remember that we are emotional creatures and tailor our interactions with others accordingly, and when does it become manipulative?