Bias
Here is the fundamental under pinning's of many of my viewpoints of late.
Like many I grew up believing that we lose more heat through our heads. And that carrots could improve eye sight. I don't remember when I first started questioning the things I was told. But I remember the day I figured out those two things were incorrect. It was, unsurprisingly, on a cold winter's day, some number of years after a university physics class where I learned a little bit about thermodynamics.
I was getting cold. And I thought to myself "I should have worn a hat, I'm losing a lot of my body heat". And then I thought "wait a minute, my head isn't THAT big (comparative to the rest of my body) and, if anything, it is made of better heat insulating material". The skull is fairly thin and the head is chock full of skin and fat and BRAINS. Furthermore, the bone part is closer to the surface, whereas, in say the legs or the arm, it is at the center (thus pushing the meaty bits we need warmed towards the cold). All of these things, at the least tell me that the head SHOULD lose heat at the same rate as any other exposed body part IF NOT SLOWER. And so I went online. I was right. This belief was based on bad science done by the US military after a failed training exercise in northern Canada.
So I sat around and thought of some more, like carrots improving eye sight. They don't. It was war time propaganda. If you're severely deficient in the vitamins carrots provides it can negatively impact your eye sight or even lead to blindness. But carrots don't improve eye sight. Americans had developed aerial radar, but didn't want their enemies to know. So, they spread propaganda to the US citizens that the reason for their pilots success was that they were eating more carrots. They were exploiting those links between carrots and vision, and spreading the information to their own citizens so that spies would leak it back to their governments.
Where is this going? We tend to put a lot of stock into what other people say.
The difference I've noticed between those who are "book smart" and those who are truly intelligent is this; they are more inclined to question others. Or even themselves.
If you can listen to 100 non-trivial statements by a person, or sit and listen to someone speak for an hour or more and you can say "I agree 100% with everything said", you're not thinking for yourself. And you're probably not all that bright. You're embracing bias.
It is unfortunate, but we are kind of brought up this way. I'm maybe just barely at an age where I've been out of school more than I've been in it. School is a place (for most) where you go, and you accept what is told to you exactly as it is told to you. And you are evaluated, not on your understanding of what you've been told, but upon your ability to faithfully reproduce what you've been told. You solve a math problem using an approach of your own devising? Fail. The teacher was using an outdated textbook, so you provided what should be the correct answer? Fail.
I think we all have either experienced this, or known someone who has. We are conditioned to accept, as true, the views of those perceived to be our superiors. And, biologically we are pre-disposed to this as well. Believing the same version of a story, true or false, provides a group identity mechanism. You can tell who is in "your group" based on their answers to certain questions.
What I find though, are that there are two problems; humans aren't infallible in their logic and perception varies, especially the more abstract the topic. The first point is simple. Analyze enough of what any one person has said, and you will find something factually or otherwise inaccurate. The second point is perhaps more profound though. You won't interpret everything that the speaker says in the same way that they mean it. So, even if something a person says would be true in their context, it holds the capacity to be understood by another in a way which isn't.
We don't all define words the same way. In addition, the emotional and social context of words are different for everyone. We don't all use words the same way. And, we believe we know the meanings of many words, which we actually don't. This is NOT an exhaustive list! But look at it! Think about it for a second.
You SHOULD question what you're told. Not JUST because it might be wrong. But, because it might be right, but you're interpreting in wrong.
The other side of this is fairly simple though. Most people, who aren't teachers, who we listen to at length, are talking about a broad array of topics. Even if they are smarter than you, they aren't a subject matter expert in all areas. And some areas are more subjective than others.
When you combine that with the earlier points, you wind up at a place where, in perhaps as few as 5 random statements in a typical interaction, you should be either accepting that it isn't ALL correct, or asking questions to clarify.
How does this apply to my posts? Well, yesterday I wrote about party politics. And part of what I said was that different party members in different geographic areas are likely to hold a range of different views. A Democrat in South Carolina, may actually be more right-leaning on many topics than a Republican in California. At least, they should be if the senator is a good representation of their constituents, because California is much more left-leaning than S. Carolina. The political center is different. And yet, somehow, when it comes time to vote virtually members of a party vote with their party.
Even more than that though, seemingly, no matter the decision, many who voted Republican will tend to agree with most or all of the parties decisions.
Nowhere is this reflected more than in the countries views of their leaders (at least, that is the case here in North America). On Facebook, I saw a post the other day ripping into Trudeau for spending on foreign aid while veterans are facing issues. Except, under Trudeau, foreign aid spending is DOWN. And of course, these same groups said NOTHING when Harper was in power and the number was higher. This is one of many points. The group and its followers are anti-Liberal or anti-Trudeau. Either way, they will categorically refuse to see any decision he makes as good. Which, is of course an opposite but equal form of the above.
Trudeau is not an inept despot. He is bound to, no matter your background or beliefs, make SOME decisions you should agree with. Similarly, if the person you're championing is in power, they will make decisions you should disagree with.
Agreeing with someone you dislike isn't a sign of fondness. It is a sign of potential intelligence. It shows an openness to see past petty differences and consider words and actions on their merit. Likewise, disagreeing with someone you look up to or trust isn't an insult. In fact, it is a sign you're actually paying attention and attempting to understand what they are saying. Yes, it may lead you to, even after reaching an understanding, maintain a stance of disagreement. But you're an individual. It should be a statistical improbability that you will ever find someone you truly agree with 100% of the time.
So, if you find yourself (in a non-school setting) listening to anyone either repeatedly, or for long stints at a time and find that you agree with everything stated; chance are, you're neither being honest with yourself, nor thinking for yourself. And you do neither yourself, nor the speaker any favours.
If you care about what I say. If you ascribe any value to my words. You will eviscerate them. You will show me you're reading them, and that you're hungry to understand and accept what is right and reject what is wrong. I'm not offended when people disagree with me. I'll probably argue with you. I believe what I'm saying after all (as do you [I hope]). And I care about what you're saying enough, not to argue for the sake of arguing, but to get to the bottom of who is right. And if what you provide me either shows I'm wrong or that you're right, I will concede. But more than that... I will absorb what I've learned and become better.
The difference between walking a path and reading or hearing about it is something too immense to measure. When it comes to oral knowledge, you read or hear about the path by listening or reading. And you walk it, not by accepting, but by discussing and debating. If the conclusions you drew don't stand up to discussion and debate, they aren't worth holding. If you aren't even willing to put your views out there to have them discussed, consider the reason? Do you know they're wrong? Are you afraid they are? Would you rather hold onto an untested truth or lie than come to a deeper understanding?
Like many I grew up believing that we lose more heat through our heads. And that carrots could improve eye sight. I don't remember when I first started questioning the things I was told. But I remember the day I figured out those two things were incorrect. It was, unsurprisingly, on a cold winter's day, some number of years after a university physics class where I learned a little bit about thermodynamics.
I was getting cold. And I thought to myself "I should have worn a hat, I'm losing a lot of my body heat". And then I thought "wait a minute, my head isn't THAT big (comparative to the rest of my body) and, if anything, it is made of better heat insulating material". The skull is fairly thin and the head is chock full of skin and fat and BRAINS. Furthermore, the bone part is closer to the surface, whereas, in say the legs or the arm, it is at the center (thus pushing the meaty bits we need warmed towards the cold). All of these things, at the least tell me that the head SHOULD lose heat at the same rate as any other exposed body part IF NOT SLOWER. And so I went online. I was right. This belief was based on bad science done by the US military after a failed training exercise in northern Canada.
So I sat around and thought of some more, like carrots improving eye sight. They don't. It was war time propaganda. If you're severely deficient in the vitamins carrots provides it can negatively impact your eye sight or even lead to blindness. But carrots don't improve eye sight. Americans had developed aerial radar, but didn't want their enemies to know. So, they spread propaganda to the US citizens that the reason for their pilots success was that they were eating more carrots. They were exploiting those links between carrots and vision, and spreading the information to their own citizens so that spies would leak it back to their governments.
Where is this going? We tend to put a lot of stock into what other people say.
The difference I've noticed between those who are "book smart" and those who are truly intelligent is this; they are more inclined to question others. Or even themselves.
If you can listen to 100 non-trivial statements by a person, or sit and listen to someone speak for an hour or more and you can say "I agree 100% with everything said", you're not thinking for yourself. And you're probably not all that bright. You're embracing bias.
It is unfortunate, but we are kind of brought up this way. I'm maybe just barely at an age where I've been out of school more than I've been in it. School is a place (for most) where you go, and you accept what is told to you exactly as it is told to you. And you are evaluated, not on your understanding of what you've been told, but upon your ability to faithfully reproduce what you've been told. You solve a math problem using an approach of your own devising? Fail. The teacher was using an outdated textbook, so you provided what should be the correct answer? Fail.
I think we all have either experienced this, or known someone who has. We are conditioned to accept, as true, the views of those perceived to be our superiors. And, biologically we are pre-disposed to this as well. Believing the same version of a story, true or false, provides a group identity mechanism. You can tell who is in "your group" based on their answers to certain questions.
What I find though, are that there are two problems; humans aren't infallible in their logic and perception varies, especially the more abstract the topic. The first point is simple. Analyze enough of what any one person has said, and you will find something factually or otherwise inaccurate. The second point is perhaps more profound though. You won't interpret everything that the speaker says in the same way that they mean it. So, even if something a person says would be true in their context, it holds the capacity to be understood by another in a way which isn't.
We don't all define words the same way. In addition, the emotional and social context of words are different for everyone. We don't all use words the same way. And, we believe we know the meanings of many words, which we actually don't. This is NOT an exhaustive list! But look at it! Think about it for a second.
You SHOULD question what you're told. Not JUST because it might be wrong. But, because it might be right, but you're interpreting in wrong.
The other side of this is fairly simple though. Most people, who aren't teachers, who we listen to at length, are talking about a broad array of topics. Even if they are smarter than you, they aren't a subject matter expert in all areas. And some areas are more subjective than others.
When you combine that with the earlier points, you wind up at a place where, in perhaps as few as 5 random statements in a typical interaction, you should be either accepting that it isn't ALL correct, or asking questions to clarify.
How does this apply to my posts? Well, yesterday I wrote about party politics. And part of what I said was that different party members in different geographic areas are likely to hold a range of different views. A Democrat in South Carolina, may actually be more right-leaning on many topics than a Republican in California. At least, they should be if the senator is a good representation of their constituents, because California is much more left-leaning than S. Carolina. The political center is different. And yet, somehow, when it comes time to vote virtually members of a party vote with their party.
Even more than that though, seemingly, no matter the decision, many who voted Republican will tend to agree with most or all of the parties decisions.
Nowhere is this reflected more than in the countries views of their leaders (at least, that is the case here in North America). On Facebook, I saw a post the other day ripping into Trudeau for spending on foreign aid while veterans are facing issues. Except, under Trudeau, foreign aid spending is DOWN. And of course, these same groups said NOTHING when Harper was in power and the number was higher. This is one of many points. The group and its followers are anti-Liberal or anti-Trudeau. Either way, they will categorically refuse to see any decision he makes as good. Which, is of course an opposite but equal form of the above.
Trudeau is not an inept despot. He is bound to, no matter your background or beliefs, make SOME decisions you should agree with. Similarly, if the person you're championing is in power, they will make decisions you should disagree with.
Agreeing with someone you dislike isn't a sign of fondness. It is a sign of potential intelligence. It shows an openness to see past petty differences and consider words and actions on their merit. Likewise, disagreeing with someone you look up to or trust isn't an insult. In fact, it is a sign you're actually paying attention and attempting to understand what they are saying. Yes, it may lead you to, even after reaching an understanding, maintain a stance of disagreement. But you're an individual. It should be a statistical improbability that you will ever find someone you truly agree with 100% of the time.
So, if you find yourself (in a non-school setting) listening to anyone either repeatedly, or for long stints at a time and find that you agree with everything stated; chance are, you're neither being honest with yourself, nor thinking for yourself. And you do neither yourself, nor the speaker any favours.
If you care about what I say. If you ascribe any value to my words. You will eviscerate them. You will show me you're reading them, and that you're hungry to understand and accept what is right and reject what is wrong. I'm not offended when people disagree with me. I'll probably argue with you. I believe what I'm saying after all (as do you [I hope]). And I care about what you're saying enough, not to argue for the sake of arguing, but to get to the bottom of who is right. And if what you provide me either shows I'm wrong or that you're right, I will concede. But more than that... I will absorb what I've learned and become better.
The difference between walking a path and reading or hearing about it is something too immense to measure. When it comes to oral knowledge, you read or hear about the path by listening or reading. And you walk it, not by accepting, but by discussing and debating. If the conclusions you drew don't stand up to discussion and debate, they aren't worth holding. If you aren't even willing to put your views out there to have them discussed, consider the reason? Do you know they're wrong? Are you afraid they are? Would you rather hold onto an untested truth or lie than come to a deeper understanding?
Comments
Post a Comment