4 minute read
Human Factor
Victims of Superficial Thinking
Conclusions are often shaped by personal biases or false assumptions. Learn how to identify mental traps that can obscure the truth. BY JOSEF MARTENS
“T here is so much uncertainty at the moment.” I’ve heard a lot of people say that lately, and I have some big problems with it.
First, there has always been uncertainty. Moments of certainty have been – and always will be – an illusion. In reality, we don’t have control over the future. Secondly, as leaders in our organizations it is our job to deal with uncertainty. That’s one of the main reasons senior folks get higher salaries. It’s to find answers to complex, ambiguous and uncertain problems.
Every time people in senior roles say that there’s more uncertainty today, I’m amazed they really believe what they are saying. How did they come to this conclusion? It’s because they have become victims of their own superficial thinking. That can happen to all of us if we’re not paying attention to our own patterns of thought.
There are three common mental traps that we need to pay attention to. Let’s look at each one in turn.
AVAILABILITY HEURISTICS — How would you respond if I asked you: “Does the U.S. have more librarians or farmers?”
If you don’t happen to know the numbers (like most people), you might give me a gut answer. Your reaction will depend on whether you live in an urban or rural setting. In all likelihood, it will be based on your experiences and what you remember.
We make assessments and decisions based on our available information all the time, answering questions like: “Is the milk in the fridge still okay?” or “What’s the shortest route to work at 6:45 a.m.?”
Dramatic events get emphasized in the media, and it can lead us to make faulty assumptions that certain events are more (or less) likely to occur. What’s more likely: being struck by lightning or attacked by a shark?
How do we become more conscious of what we are assuming? Notice what you pay attention to. Where do you get your information? Just because you know an example or an anecdote that relates to a certain situation doesn’t mean you’ve determined a general rule. Seek contrary data to your beliefs. (There are more farmers than librarians. And a lightning strike is more likely than shark attack.)
CONFIRMATION BIAS — Consider three more questions. Do beggars abuse alcohol? Are people below the poverty line more violent? Will gun control make the country safer?
Our answers depend not just on the information we have, but also on our belief system. Oftentimes, people choose information that they deem credible based on their beliefs, and that confirm their beliefs.
Confirmation bias shapes how we select information and how we evaluate it. Our memory can more easily recall details that support our position. We find it easier to remember stories of confirming facts and data. Over time, we become more entrenched in our way of thinking, and a different position becomes increasingly more difficult to understand.
This results in an unfounded and overconfident way of thinking. It is the key ingredient for a divided society and an “us vs. them” mentality. Challenge yourself to imagine what will happen if you choose to look for evidence that supports a different position. It may not change your mind, but it could help you see a different view. At a minimum, it will allow you to connect better with people who hold a diverse set of ideas.
FALSE DICHOTOMIES — Are you an introvert or an extrovert? Is white wine better or red wine? Should you lose weight through more exercise or better eating? These questions are examples of false dichotomies. They suggest that there are only two possibilities, and they suggest that you have to make a choice.
You probably realize that there are additional options to consider. Or you may think of combinations in the answers.
The examples seem harmless but consider the implications of this statement: “You’re either in favor of the Black Lives Matter movement or you’re against it.” That may appear subtle, but it labels those who do not fully support BLM as adversarial. It leaves out the options of being neutral, unsure, a little bit of both or looking for a balance.
When faced with false dichotomies, get clear about what is good and what is bad about all the options.
When we apply a critical analysis to our thought process, it leads to better decisions for our own personal growth and that of our companies.
Josef Martens helps organizations dramatically improve their performance. You can reach him at JM@JosefMartens.com or (240) 938 1274.
