Wrong, yet again…
On a recent phone call with a family member, I was reminded how the mind could lead someone to remember the facts incredibly wrong. This time, the topic was vehicular accidents on the interstate and road safety. Our conversation became circular. Seeking to close, I finally asked, “What leads you to believe there are more accidents now than before?” I was curious about the message source.
They responded, “What do you mean? It’s on the news daily, and I even see accidents in Portland near you. It’s unsafe out there on the roads.”
Hearing the response, I suggested they turn off the television for a few evenings and grab a good book. I followed up in a few days to see if the response had changed. The word misperceptions came to mind.
Bias and more bias
As I explored Duffy’s Why We’re Wrong About Nearly Everything: A Theory of Human Misunderstanding, I thought I would learn and discover more about the individual cognitive processes and judgments involved in human decision-making. Coming off the heels of reading Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow, I initially thought this book was another version solely about cognitive biases and their influence on our thinking. Instead, I was surprised to learn more about cultural and societal influences to which we belong and the importance of understanding the impact of others’ messages upon us.
Duffy examines a series of mental shortcuts that lead to poor decisions, with various examples, including safety, health, economics, and immigration. This is like Thinking, Fast and Slow, where Daniel Kahneman provided two systems of thinking (System 1 and System 2). Recount: System 1’s response is fast, automatic, and intuitive. It operates with low mental effort, relies on heuristics, and is biased toward belief and confirmation.[1] Duffy mirrors Kahneman with his focus on reliance on quick judgments. Both authors agree that a steadfast and deliberate approach toward considering facts and reducing errors improves decision accuracy.
Social psychology
While Duffy also explores cognitive biases and their influence on how quick decisions might lead to errors, he complements Kahneman’s work by focusing on the social or cultural factors that can lead to typical misunderstandings. “One misconception is to infer that we are completely being misled, rather than how we think.”[2] Instead, we must recognize that many forces surround and influence us. “Our delusions need to be seen as arising from a complex system of forces, both in our heads and in the world, that reinforce each other.”[3] There is an increase in social media volumes, and the number of channels only enhances our ability to access experts in the number of like-minded people. These voices are a multiplier of our existing views, cementing them further in our minds and anchoring our biases. This is where we must lean in, recognize the situation, and not fall prey to traps in our decision-making. However, that is becoming increasingly difficult in a world where disinformation spreads like wildfire. How can we readily discern the truth? We must research adequately, become more self-reflective, and slow down.
As Kahneman has offered guidance on working through cognitive biases, Duffy outlines ten ideas to stem the tide and help us form “more accurate views of the world.”[4] These are guidelines for thinking individually and opportunities to take appropriate societal actions. I will focus on one idea that stood out to me, especially in recent weeks, given the organizational changes instituted by the White House administration.
Accept the emotion, but challenge the thought[5]
This is one of Duffy’s recommendations. Recently, I have become increasingly sensitive to the proposed changes by the White House to dismantle the leadership of public organizations. With past administrations, I would have likely been indifferent. So why now? What has changed? I invest little time on social media, but my network is heavily weighted with my class from West Point, who are vocal. My feed is full of comments about restructuring at government agencies. Initially, I kept an objective lens to the changes and could easily navigate through my emotional reactions. This shifted when I discovered two of my classmates from West Point were directly affected by White House decisions. The first is the USAID Director of Security, who was placed on administrative leave in early February. Not soon after, the West Point Board of Visitors was dissolved. My classmate on that board has a long work history with Veterans Affairs. Upon hearing the decision to disband all Board of Visitors at the service academies, I was emotionally charged. I will need to work on ways to unpack these reactions, but it has been a struggle. Because of my social background and cultural influences, what might have been viewed as an arm’s length away is now front and center.
Moving forward
Duffy offers practical advice on dealing with a system of delusion. While marvelously varied, the world is frequently not anywhere near as bad as we think, and we are not as narrow-minded as we imagine.[6] It consoles me that I might not have as much of a defensive posture, and considering the situation, it would be ok to be wrong.
[1] Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, (New York, NY: Farrar, Strous, and Giroux, 2013), 105.
[2] Bobby Duffy, Why We’re Wrong About Nearly Everything – A Theory of Human Misunderstanding, (New York, NY: Hatchette Book Group, 2018), 221.
[3] Duffy, 221.
[4] Duffy, 230.
[5] Duffy, 231.
[6] Duffy, 241.
About the Author
Michael Hansen
9 responses to “Wrong, yet again…”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks Mike. I share your question, ‘How can we readily discern the truth?’ Your answer is similar to my thinking, apart from recognising Jesus as the way, truth and life! However, in the past few weeks, I’ve noticed that I confidently assert some of my thinking around research that actually contradicts with my other equally passionate assertions about research! I have happily asserted that there is evidence for a lot of my belief’s from research and I confidently cite this as if it cannot be challenged. Simultaneously, I am aware that I often speak about the evidence based concept and how it’s ultimately about finance. I say that I could evidence base anything if I had enough colleagues to help me find the right study population. I have said in our Parliament that I am aware that the government pays for studies to evidence the cheaper methods of stabilising those who are distressed, but that they won’t (yet) pay for longitudinal studies on the decrease of symptoms, because I am that would contradict the current conclusions of the short term research. I had overlooked my own contradiction! I use research to defend my belief’s and yet challenge others who use research to defend their opposing beliefs. So whilst I do agree that ‘we must research adequately, become more self-reflective, and slow down’, I also wonder about the research process being viewed with less validity than maybe it seems to hold? Or do I trust the process and procedures and continue to believe that which agrees with my pre conceived views drawn from experience and be more open minded about that which disagrees? Maybe? What do you think?
I expect your field of research may be less human centred, qualitative and emotion based and therefore could be less easy to manipulate? Or have I oversimplified you as an ‘engineer type’ who only uses quantitative research methods and so now I have shown a conscious bias and preconception about your research methods. I am sorry…I will bow out now quickly!
Betsy,
This might require a 45-minute Zoom to unpack further.
It is the latter perspective that you share. If I correctly interpret your question, “I trust the process and procedures and continue to believe that which agrees with my pre-conceived views drawn from experience and be more open-minded about that which disagrees?”
First, I will share that I am a mechanical engineer by degree, not as a practitioner, and that I was commissioned directly into the Army upon graduation. I have leveraged these engineering skills during my career, but only to support leading teams and sometimes help design products/processes/equipment.
This is a bit tricky because I want to share that I have led with numbers (truth) in the past, and that answer was unnecessary. Understanding others and extending grace in that moment were required. The facts were the non-disputable facts.
Reengaging with Kahneman’s book after letting it simmer for 12 years was amazing. Not that statistics is my love language, but it drives much of what and how I operate daily in my environment. You can’t escape it. But when I only look at the numbers, that is the miss. Where is the grace? Where is God creating value, and what is His intent? How do I lead with heart?
I must seek to be a better leader, which doesn’t mean abandoning what has helped me reach this point in life. However, it requires my attention to be more intentional and might require shifts, healthy engagements, and disagreements. Hopefully, all parties engaged will be open to having a healthy discussion.
Again, I would love to catch up and discuss other related topics or this in particular. I appreciate your insight and collaboration.
Thanks, Mike.
I voted beside Duffy’s ten ideas using my scientific scale of ‘*’, ‘?’, ‘x’, and ‘~’. For some reason, “2. Accept the emotion, but challenge the thought” got no vote whatsoever. Your post caused me to rethink the idea and give it a ‘~’. Why? You give two examples of the availability heuristic. The first is easy to rationalize as a news segment showing accidents in the Portland area is not valid grounds to move or sell the car. I can separate emotion from thought. The second is more difficult to rationalize because you have the two personal examples that clearly paint the entire picture. It takes a really big person to be able to challenge the thought that personal experience might not be the complete story. I think that is the difficulty I have with Chapter 11 and, to some extent, the greater truths of the book. Duffy is brilliant in pointing out why we are wrong about nearly everything. Understanding bias is the first step. Doing something about it—overcoming our point of view—is not trivial.
Rich,
I agree entirely. Now, the ball is back in our personal court. What are the next appropriate steps? I have spent a few weeks thinking about God’s guidance and direction, and my classmates will ultimately persevere. What struck me was these individuals’ proximity and corresponding roles. I am still wrestling with the what/how of an appropriate response.
As you mentioned, Kahneman and Duffy overlap in concepts and ideas as it seems many of our books have. It is good to have a look at the way we think from different perspectives. This all reminds me of the Kathryn Schulz’s book Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error. Remember way back when we started this program? She wrote about how unreliable our memory can be. I was shocking to me how we think we remember things so vividly, but studies show that so much of the memories could not have been true.
Jess,
That is a superb recollection and an outstanding point. I have also discovered that, at times, debating statements have proven unhealthy. While I may disagree, I purposely steer the conversation differently to avoid potential debate and added friction.
It seems like a few weeks since we have picked up that other book…I appreciate the suggestion and need to reexplore that option.
Thanks for this piece, Mike. Two things stand out to me. One is that we should discern what we should stay engaged in politically, socially, economically, etc. Your recap of the situation in the US affecting your colleagues was a good reminder that things that may seem “far off” can actually be closer than we imagine. In such a case, does our voice make a difference? How might we use Duffy and Kahneman’s knowledge to define new ways of thinking and shaping narratives?
The second thing that struck me is that seeking to become a better leader does not mean abandoning what has got us to this point. I will be reflecting on this statement this week. Thanks again.
Alex,
I appreciate the question. Our voices make a difference, but crafting a constructive and passionate narrative often takes time and courage. Actually, I have not used these avenues in the past. I have not really shown interest or considered it an option. It might be an opportunity to learn something new.
Michael, I agree; while there is a lot of evil in this world and we don’t want people to suffer, the world is not nearly as bad as we perceive. It’s almost as if we thrive on drama in our lives and feel the need to express it. Duffy encourages us to slow down and reflect on our decision-making. What practical habits do you think individuals or organizations can adopt to avoid falling into these mental shortcuts, particularly in fast-paced environments?