\u201cThere is a strong linear relationship between confidence and being wrong\u201d<\/p>\n
-Bobby Duffy-<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n One of the main things in this book that challenges my comfort zone in thinking is when Bobby Duffy also references the theory of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which identified that the illusory superiority bias\u2014our tendency to think we\u2019re better than others\u2014has an interesting relationship with our cognitive abilities.[1]<\/a> Usually, I have felt comfortable in the belief that being a pastor and having a more extensive educational background than most people automatically makes me a better thinker than others. Especially in the Indonesian context, pastors are often placed in a higher position than others. Debating or challenging the opinion or thoughts of a pastor is still considered taboo by most Christians here. Therefore, when reading this book, I immediately questioned, whether what I have been thinking all along is true? Haven\u2019t other people also been given the ability by God to develop their thoughts in such a way?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Duffy’s writing prompts me to engage in a process of dismantling my thinking patterns and mentality. This process involves breaking down my preconceived notions and biases, which is facilitated by Duffy’s exploration of our tendency to seek out information that reinforces our beliefs, our inclination towards negativity, our vulnerability to stereotyping, and our tendency to conform to the opinions of the majority.[2]<\/a> The initial information that we receive, particularly from sources that we consider important and authoritative, is often perceived as the sole truth. This belief has led me to think that when I pass on information that I believe to others it should not be rejected by anyone. Duffy reminds us of the tendency that we not only have a built-in bias towards focusing on the vivid and threatening, but we also tend towards thinking things were better in the past and therefore are worse now.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The impact of this tendency is that we always consider references to truth and goodness in the past as unshakable guides. This attitude leads someone to reject criticism and intellectual challenges from others, even though they are based on reality and actual facts. With great fervor, Duffy firmly believes that facts still hold significant value in shaping our perspectives and behaviors. The act of promoting delusions for personal gain or to conform to popular opinions is unacceptable. Recognizing the influence of our emotions and thought patterns is crucial in understanding our mistakes and aiding us in approaching reality and facts more accurately. The primary objective of Duffy’s perspective is to uphold a fact-based comprehension of our surroundings.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n On the subject of a mental deconstruction, Duffy’s writing challenges me to question a phenomenon he refers to as the “availability heuristic”, a mental shortcut whereby we reach for information that\u2019s readily available, even if it doesn\u2019t quite fit the situation or give us the full picture.[5]<\/a> I usually find comfort in a thinking system that assumes that all answers are available in the form of templates for any questions or problems I face. I have been inclined to use System 1 thinking, in Daniel Kahneman’s terms[6]<\/a>, as my way of thinking. However, Kahneman has demonstrated that there is a second thinking system, which aligns with Duffy’s reminder in his writing to avoid the “availability heuristic” tendency mentioned earlier. This resonates with what Kathryn Schulz conveys in her book “Being Wrong”. Schulz says another issue with avoiding the acknowledgment of our wrongness is that we deprive ourselves of the opportunity to fully experience it. Embracing our fallibility requires a certain level of emotional resilience, as being wrong is an inherently emotional experience, akin to falling in love or grieving. While these experiences can be painful, they are also an essential part of the human experience. As the saying goes, if you haven’t felt the intensity of these emotions, you haven’t truly lived.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Encountering various required textbooks for this class, including reading Bobby Duffy’s writing, has made me grateful. It has made me realize that my way of thinking has a great potential for error and building a castle of comfort in it. Duffy exposed all of that, even though my ego was reluctant to admit it at first. This experience helped me to truly think and analyze systematically before I give answers in Bible studies, before I deliver sermons, or before I engage in pastoral conversations, including what I am trying to build and construct in my NPO research.<\/p>\n I believe it\u2019s time to examine and rid myself of the tendency of the Dunning-Kruger effect that perhaps is inside me.\u00a0Therefore, my recent understanding about myself is that I am a fallible human being with the possibility of making mistakes or errs. To broaden my knowledge, I should strive to learn from others who possess the diverse abilities that God has bestowed upon them. As the Bible says: Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits (Romans 12:16)[8]<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Bobby Duffy, \u201cWhy We\u2019re Wrong about Nearly Everything: A Theory of Human Misunderstanding\u201d (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2019), 170.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Bobby Duffy, \u201cWhy We\u2019re Wrong about Nearly Everything, 14.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Duffy, 103.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Duffy, 21.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Duffy, 25.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> System 1 functions swiftly and unconsciously, requiring minimal effort and lacking any perception of deliberate control. On the other hand, System 2 directs attention towards mentally demanding tasks that necessitate conscious effort, such as intricate computations. System 2’s activities typically correlate with the personal feeling of agency, choice, and focused attention. System 1 is impulsive and intuitive; System 2 is capable of reasoning, and it is cautious, but at least for some people it is also lazy.\u00a0 See: Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow<\/em> (London: Penguin Books, 2012), 22, 47.<\/p>\n