Showing posts with label confirmation bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label confirmation bias. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Be careful who you follow

Be careful who you follow.

Good intentions are not enough.

Charisma is not enough.

Being nice is not enough.

Echo chambers and halls of mirrors may be comforting but we can get lost in self-deception and confirmation bias.

Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson write in their book Mistakes Were Made (but not by me):
"In normal circumstances," wrote Hitler's henchman Albert Speer in his memoirs, "people who turn their backs on reality are soon set straight by the mockery and criticism of those around them, which makes them aware they have lost credibility. In the Third Reich there were no such correctives, especially for those who belonged to the upper stratum. On the contrary, every self-deception was multiplied as in a hall of distorting mirrors, becoming a repeatedly confirmed picture of a fantastical dream world which no longer bore any relationship to the grim outside world. In those mirrors I could see nothing but my own face reproduced many times. over." 
Given that everyone has some blind spots, our greatest hope of self-corrections lies in making sure we are not operating in a hall of mirrors, in which we see our distorted reflections of our desires and convictions. We need a few trusted naysayers in our lives, critics who are willing to puncture our protective bubble of self-justifications and yank us back to reality if we veer too far off. This is especially important for people in positions of power.
We all have the responsibility of thinking for ourselves -- however, the best leaders go out of their way to seek dissent and encourage lively debate because they know that mandating optimism and confusing collaboration for compliance can lead to awful conclusions.

See the picture.

Friday, May 24, 2013

What myths do we cling to?

In an article titled The Real Problems with Psychiatry, Hope Reese asks psychotherapist Gary Greenberg about something called "drapetomania":
Question: In 1850, doctor Samuel Cartwright invented "drapetomania" -- a disease causing slaves to run away. How do social and historical context affect our understanding of mental illness? 
Answer: Cartwright was a slaveholder's doctor from New Orleans -- he believed in the inferiority of what he called the "African races." He believed that abolitionism was based on a misguided notion that black people and white people were essentially equal. He thought that the desire for freedom in a black person was pathological because black people were born to be enslaved. To aspire to freedom was a betrayal of their nature, a disease. He invented "drapetomania," the impulse to run away from slavery. Assuming there wasn't horrible cruelty being inflicted on the slaves, they were "sick." He came up with a few diagnostic criteria and presented it to his colleagues.
 It's hard not to read this and ask how anyone could be so ignorant or naive?

I think a lot about how often we are satisfied by myths. It's easy to have a good laugh at the expense of people like Dr. Cartwright and his "drapetomania".

What's not easy is to stop and reflect on what myths are we foolishly subscribing to today. What myths are we clinging to today that might make people 10 or 20 years from now laugh at us?

If this kind of thinking interests you, here are a couple concepts you might need to know more about:




Monday, January 7, 2013

Changing School


There is an enormous gap between what we know and what we do.

Let's talk about scurvy.

Between 1500-1800, it is estimated that at least two million sailors died of scurvy. In 1753 research was formally published that scurvy could be eradicated with fresh fruit such as limes and lemons, but it wasn't until 1795 that the Royal Navy introduced fresh oranges and lemons into their sailors' diets. It took 42 years to close the gap between what we knew about scurvy and what we were doing about it.

Consider this.

In the 1950s, Dr. Alice Stewart discovered that at a rate of 2 to 1 children who died from cancer came from mothers who had x-rays while they were pregnant. In 1956, Dr. Stewart published her findings, but it took 25 years for British and American doctors to stop x-raying pregnant women.

Like scurvy and childhood cancer, education also suffers from a considerable gap between what we know about how children learn and what we do in school. Many of us have experienced this first hand, which is why so many people know that school needs to change in order for it to be a good place for all children.

So how do we change school?

While our ultimate goals for children tend to be at least in the same ballpark (happy, trustworthy, responsible, caring, creative, critical thinker, etc), how we attain these goals can pit adults against one another.

As an educator and a parent, I've worked with others to rethink some of their unquestioned assumptions about school. Along this journey, I have learned a great deal about how to (and how not to) work with others to make school a better place for children (read: I've made mistakes and turned people off). I've often been described as passionate about education which can be a compliment (he gets it) and a criticism (he won't shut up).

Whether you want to talk about homework, testsandgrades, classroom management, religion, punishment, due dates, recess, literacy, numeracy, curriculum, technology, or lesson plans, here are the steps I try and use as both an educator and parent to engage people who may have a different vision for how to do school:

1. Develop a relationship. At the heart of all learning and progress are relationships. Without a healthy relationship, it doesn't matter how right or smart you are. People won't care what you know until they know you care about them.

2. Ask and listen. You're going to be tempted to start by sharing your own knowledge, expertise or perspective, but you're better off asking questions and listening first. Consider starting by asking others for their opinion. There are two goals here: 1) whoever you are talking with needs to know that you are listening and that you are not simply waiting for your turn to talk. 2) You need to listen carefully so that you can gain insight into their beliefs and motives. We all tend to have good intentions, so try and find out what their good intentions are.

3. Share a story. After you've gained insight and they know you've listened to them, it might be your turn to talk. Again, it is best to resist lecturing on your soap box. Instead, take a highly specific example for how your child or student was affected by traditional school. If you do this right, whoever you are talking with should experience this story not as a reward or punishment but as information. No judgement. The goal here is not to win an argument, but to engage in a two-way conversation.

4. Read and share. If you want to influence others, you need to be credible so you will need to be well read and well researched. You will need to familiarize yourself with both the anecdotal evidence and scientific research that supports and counters your position. Once you've nurtured a relationship, you can start to ask questions about how and why we do things and implicitly or explicitly share examples for how and why we might do things differently. Share articles, research and books. Engage.

5. Know when to be patient and when to pursue. People don't resist change -- they resist being changed. The whole idea here is to avoid adversarial relationships. Others need to experience you less like a judge-in-waiting and more like a safe and caring ally. The only way to avoid being ignored or labelled a trouble-maker is to do nothing and remain silent, but keep in mind the slippery slope of the status quo is fuelled by silence, so you will need to be selective with when it is worth speaking up.

6. Organize and mobilize. One person with a point or problem may be easily dismissed but two, three, four, five people with a point or problem are much harder to dismiss. Talk and work with others to create a connected network that influences change through collaboration.

I have some bad news.

Even if you do all this really well, you need to know about something called confirmation bias. When people hear information that contradicts their current beliefs, we tend to go out of our way to criticize, distort or dismiss it so we can maintain our existing beliefs - this is confirmation bias.

So can anything be done to break up the echo chamber?

Yes.

Some call it surprising validators.

Dismissing information that contradicts our existing beliefs may comfort us, so the challenge may be to have information presented by a source that we would be uncomfortable dismissing. In other words, disagreeing with contradictory ideas may be easy, but disagreeing with people we trust might be enough to make us rethink our positions.

Confirmation bias is most destructive where its least acknowledged. People who are wilfully blind lose awareness of what they are doing. Drawing attention to these destructive tendencies can help reduce their hold over us.

Change is fuelled by constructive conflict brought on by cognitive dissonance inspired by engaged conversations but is stifled by needless combativeness which breeds disengagement and defensiveness.

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

You have to open your own eyes

I'm not here to convince anyone of anything, nor am I here to motivate others. I can't change your mind and I can't motivate you.

Only you can do either.

 We don't resist change - but we do resist being changed, and we can't motivate anyone but ourself.

The best anyone can do is create an environment where others will motivate themselves to change and improve.

This can be incredibly frustrating.

But wait. It gets worse.

In their book Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson explain a little thing called confirmation bias:
"So powerful is the need for consonance that when people are forced to look at disconfirming evidence they will find a way to criticize, distort, or dismiss it so that they can maintain or even strengthen their existing belief."
Why is this? Why are we so set on defending what we think we already know to be true even if it means ignoring new evidence that would allow us to improve? Why is it that we are so much more likely to seek out others who will support our current opinions at the expense of those who would challenge us and help us grow?

Why is it that conventional wisdom is shaped by so many urban myths about parenting and educating children?

I believe we have a vision problem -- both literally and metaphorically.

We cannot fix a problem that we refuse to acknowledge. We know that confronting a problem is the only way to resolve it, but any real resolution will disrupt the status quo -- but disturbing the special momentum of the status quo is a great way of being labelled a "troublemaker".

Paradoxically, being a "troublemaker" may be the most effective way of getting fired, but it's also the surest way of differentiating between "doing things right" and "doing the right things".

In her book Wilful Blindness, Margaret Heffernan explains:
In business circles, this is known as the "status quo trap": the preference for everything to stay the same. The gravitational pull of the status quo is strong - it feels easier and less risky, and it requires less mental and emotional energy, to "leave well enough alone." Nobody likes change because the status quo feels safer, it's familiar, we're used to it. Change feels like redirecting the riverbed: effortful and risky. It's so much easier to imagine that what we don't know won't hurt us.
The slippery slope of the status quo is fueled by silence which Heffernan calls the language of inertia. In an ever changing world, inertia won't just keep things the same, rather it will guarantee things get worse. It's like trying to stand on top of a rolling yoga ball; sure, we might find the right balance between left and right, up and down, but if we want to remain on the ball, we're going to need to constantly adjust and readjust.

What works one moment, won't necessarily work the next.

Business guru Jim Collins warns, "If you notice marked decline in the quality of debate and dialogue around your workplace, things are on the decline." This kind of work environment favours compliance at the cost of engagement. It's like nothing is wrong, but everything is wrong. We are snookered into believing that the absence of conflict is the equivalent to happiness and so there may be plenty of polite conversation but nothing meaningful.

It's not unheard of for widespread knowledge and widespread blindness to coexist. There's a reason why some scandals or problems are known by all but no one will admit it. If an entire society, institution or company is built on denial because self preservation, survival or advancement demands blindness to the truth - disaster is imminent.

This is what Heffernan calls the paradox of blindness: We think turning a blind eye to the truth will make us safe even as it puts us in danger. As long as the work or learning environment convinces us that it is safer to say and do nothing, injustices can and will likely continue. There is a real danger in having a fixed view of the world and not being open to evidence that you're wrong until it is too late. Ironically, some of the most educated professionals can end up the most blind because they come to see their expertise as definitive.

So how can we best counter the harmful effects of confirmation bias and willful blindness?

There's no one answer to such a complex question, but the first step might be understanding that we all have blindspots.

No one is exempt.

Like the best drivers, the most successful people navigate through the hustle and bustle of their daily lives knowing that they have blindspots -- things that they just cannot or will not see. Tavris and Aronson explain:
Drivers cannot avoid having blind spots in their field of vision, but good drivers are aware of them; they know they had better be careful backing up and changing lanes if they don't want to crash into fire hydrants and other cars. Our innate biases are, as two legal scholars put it, "like optical illusions in two important respects - they lead us to wrong conclusions from data, and their apparent rightness persists even when we have been shown the trick." We cannot avoid psychological blind spots, but if we are unaware of them we may become unwittingly reckless, crossing ethical lines and making foolish decisions. Introspection alone will not help our vision, because it will simply confirm our self-justifying beliefs that we, personally, cannot be coopted or corrupted, and that our dislikes or hatreds of other groups are not irrational but reasoned and legitimate. Blind spots enhance our pride and activate our prejudices.
We are all better off when we are willing to catch ourselves sacrificing truth in service of self-justification, but to do this we have to stop believing that we are above bias. Because we all have a personal or professional interest in how the things we do turn out, objectivity is a myth.  The most successful people understand that just because they can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist which is precisely why the best leaders challenge themselves to never mandate optimism, always openly and actively seek dissent and continually surround themselves with trusted naysayers. All this is in an effort to reduce their authority and disrupt groupthink.

If you aspire to this kind of profound leadership and acute awareness you have to understand that the best anyone can do is tap you on the shoulder. You have to open your own eyes and choose to see.