Strategy. Innovation. Brand.

Critical Thinking

Epistemological Modesty

Rational or emotional?

Rational or emotional?

I used to be a rationalist. I enjoy math and statistics and I always thought that any problem could be rationally (and quantitatively) parsed, if only we could frame it correctly. The issue, as I saw it, was not our quantitative, logical tools but rather the slippery ambiguity of our language. If we could only make our language as precise, logical, and, yes, quantitative as our tools, we could make huge strides in understanding our world and solving the problems of living together.

Although I enjoy languages, I thought numbers were better. Numbers are precise, rational, and universal. Language, other the other hand, is beautiful but also sloppy. It’s so difficult to convey certain concepts and emotions. You have to approach them elliptically, as novelists do rather than head-on as mathematicians do.

I also assumed that rational thought was superior to all other forms of thought. If only we could be rational and banish emotions from our decision making, we would be far better off.

Now I’m not so sure. The more I read about our brain and the way we make decisions, the more I’ve adopted epistemological modesty (EM). EM is one of those ideas that is fairly easy to understand but more difficult to adopt as a way of thinking and living.

Epistemology asks a simple question: how do we know what we know? I used to think that the best (perhaps the only) way to truly know something was through rational thought and logical deduction. I also thought that rationalism would ultimately – sometime in the distant future – allow us to know everything.

I was very sure of my position. Now I’m much more modest. EM (also known as epistemological humility or relativism) suggests that: 1) there are multiple paths to knowledge, and; 2) there are limits to our knowledge – even teenagers can’t know it all.

I used to think that rational thought was the best way to make decisions. It turns out that most of our decisions are made without any conscious thought whatsoever. Our subconscious does the work. Our best decisions are often based on emotions rather than logic. In fact, there’s a growing body of evidence that we don’t use logic to make decisions at all. We use logic to justify decisions. We use emotions to make them.

As I become more modest in my approach to knowledge, I also wonder whether rationalism doesn’t sometimes cause our problems rather than solve them. Our business schools teach a very rational approach to business. Just put it into a spreadsheet and you can manage it successfully. Yet, as business thinkers ranging from Peter Drucker to Paul Nutt point out, most of our business decisions are just plain wrong. Perhaps it’s because we’re too much in love with the rational, quantitative, and logical approach.

In my critical thinking classes, I teach that the first thing to do in making a decision is to step back and look around. Consider multiple alternatives rather than just one. Perhaps it’s time to do the same thing with the way we think. Let’s step back and think about our thinking. Let’s not assume that there’s one right way to think. By being epistemologically modest, we may just think our way to a better place.

How Does It Feel To Commit Prematurely?

Is it too soon to get married?

Is it too soon to get married?

In February, I wrote about premature commitment. According to Paul Nutt in his book, Why Decisions Fail, premature commitments all too often lead to debacles — decisions gone spectacularly and publicly wrong. The process is fairly simple: 1) we have a problem; 2) a beguiling solution is proposed; 3) we jump on the solution with undue haste and without considering our options or searching for alternatives. After all, we have a solution, don’t we? Why bother looking for another one?

As we read Nutt’s book in my classes, I can tell that students are grasping the general concept intellectually. It’s clear — intellectually and academically — that you shouldn’t commit too soon. Step back, look around, ask questions, survey the possibilities — then make a decision.

That’s all well and good in the classroom but will my students actually be patient when the pressure is on and everyone wants to be a hero? I’m not so sure. So, I’ve been looking for ways to show students what it feels like to make a premature commitment. By experiencing the process — rather than just reading about it — I’m hoping to imprint something on them. When you’re under pressure and a crisis is looming, it’s hard to think clearly. It’s easier to remember an experience than it is to organize your thoughts and respond to a novel situation.

I’ve discovered a video that helps students make the connection. Actually, I’ve known about the video for some time but I used to use it for a different purpose. Then it dawned on me that the video provides a good demonstration of a premature commitment. So, I’m re-purposing the way I teach it. Perhaps that’s an example of mashup thinking.

The video requires you to concentrate your attention for about 90 seconds and count the number of times a specific action happens. Here’s what I’d like you to do: Watch the video twice. The first time, focus intently on the task at hand (the video will explain what to do). Count the number of times the specified action happens and record the number. There is one (and only one) correct answer.  Then watch the video a second time and don’t bother to count. Just observe what goes on. Don’t read on until you’ve watched the video twice. You can find the video here.

*************************************************************

Watch the video (twice) before proceeding

*************************************************************

Did you miss anything the first time you watched the video? Did you notice it the second time? (I’m not going to give it away here but, if you find this confusing, send me an e-mail and I’ll explain it).

About two-thirds of the people who follow the instructions miss an important element of the video the first time they watch it. Perhaps the key phrase here is “people who follow the instructions”. Basically, I conned you into making a premature commitment. I convinced you that — to get the right answer — you needed to pay close attention to the action and count carefully. You decided that it was important to get the right answer, so you played by the rules I imposed. Because you played by the rules, you missed something important in the environment.

What’s the message here? It’s easy to get caught up in the situation. It’s easy to buy into the “rules” that a situation seems to impose on you. It’s easy to let other people rush you to judgment. It’s easy to con yourself. The next time you’re at work and a problem arises and everybody is rushing to find a solution, just ask yourself: “Am I missing the gorilla?”

Social Animals and Systems 1 and 2

Your pupils are dilated!

Your pupils are dilated!

I’ve been reading David Brooks’ book, The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement. The basic idea is fairly simple: we are not alone. How we interact with each other strongly influences who we are and what we become.

Often, however, we don’t recognize just how strong those social forces are. Many of them operate at subconscious levels. Citing Strangers to Ourselves, by Timothy Wilson, Brooks estimates that our minds can take in 11 million pieces of information at any given time. But we’re only aware of 40 of them, at most. Wilson writes that, “Some researchers … suggest that the unconscious mind does virtually all the work and that conscious will may be an illusion.”

Brooks compares the conscious mind to a “… general atop a platform, who sees the world from a distance…” while the unconscious mind is “…like a million little scouts.” The scouts “… maintain no distance from the environment around them, but are immersed in it.”

Brooks also cites Daniel Patrick Moynihan in writing that “… the central evolutionary truth is that the unconscious matters most. The central humanistic truth is that the conscious mind can influence the unconscious.”

If you think that this sounds like System 1 and System 2 that Daniel Kahneman writes about (click here), well… you’re probably right. System 1 is always on, it’s automatic, and it makes quick decisions, often without your realizing it. System 1 is the default setting. Unless System 2 intervenes, System 1 will spin merrily along, running your life. While System 1 is right most of the time, it can make systematic mistakes.

While Brooks’ writing covers similar territory, he approaches from a different angle than Kahneman. He treats not only the influence of the two systems but also the influence of others. How we behave is remarkably influenced by other people.

I expect to write more about Brooks and Kahneman and how they compare. Today, however, I’ll just summarize some interesting tidbits that I’ve picked up from Brooks.

  • You can’t consciously control the ends of your eyebrows. When you smile (genuinely) the ends of your eyebrows dip a bit. If you’re faking a smile, they don’t. It’s a clue that’s subconscious to both the sender and receiver – but is usually seen and correctly interpreted.
  • You’re sexier when your pupils are dilated. It’s a subtle, subconscious sign of attraction that is usually correctly interpreted even if we aren’t aware of it. (Greek women seemed to understand this and used eye drops to dilate their pupils). As Kahneman points out, dilated pupils also indicate a high level of System 2 activity. So, if you want to look sexy, just do some complex math in your head. Your pupils will dilate and people will think you’re more attractive.
  • In general, women are less visually aroused than men. Mena are looking for (visual) fertility clues. Women are looking for evidence of stability.
  • Women, on average, are “… 60 to 70 percent more proficient than men at remembering details from a scene and the locations of objects placed in a room.” Simply put, women are more observant.
  • People can make judgments about a person’s trustworthiness in a tenth of a second. “These sorts of first glimpses are astonishingly accurate in predicting how people will feel about each other months later.”
  • Height is important, at least for men. According to one study, “…each inch of height corresponds to $6,000 of annual salary in contemporary America…” Other people’s height influences our behavior.

I hope these tidbits capture your imagination. They certainly have captured mine and I’ll write a lot more about Brooks and Kahneman in the coming weeks.

Verbal, Vocal, Visual – Body Language and You

Let me explain quantum mechanics.

Let me explain quantum mechanics.

A woman says to a man, “Oh, you’re such a brute.” What does she mean? Well, it depends. The words have meaning in themselves but the way they’re delivered also counts for something.

Let’s say that she delivers the line with an aggressive posture, a scowl on her face, and a harsh tone in her voice. Most of us would conclude that the man should take her words literally; she’s angry and the man should back off.

On the other hand, let’s say she delivers the same line with a smile on her face, a flirtatious giggle in her voice, and a soft, inviting posture. She uses the same words but delivers them in a very different way. Most people would conclude that she doesn’t mean for her words to be taken literally. What she does mean may not be crystal clear but it’s probably not the literal words she speaks. (By the way, I adapted this example from an excellent article in New Scientist).

This is what Albert Mehrabian, the father of the so-called 7%-38%-55% rule, was studying. Mehrabian was trying to identify how face-to-face communication actually transpires, especially when the words are ambiguous. He identified three basic components: 1) the words themselves; 2) tone of voice; and 3) body language, including facial expressions. These are often summarized as the three V’s – verbal, vocal, visual.

In ambiguous situations, especially when discussing feelings, how do you sort out what the other person means? Mehrabian calculated that the words themselves account for 7% of the meaning (from the perspective of the receiver). Tone-of-voice accounts for 38% of the meaning, and body language accounts for 55%. To determine whether you’re really a brute or not, you should probably pay less attention to what the woman says and more attention to how she says it. (For more on the multiple meanings of simple words, click here).

Mehrabian’s findings may be accurate in the very specific case of conveying feelings in face-to-face communication. Unfortunately, far too many “experts” have over-extrapolated the data and applied it to all communications. When you give a speech, for instance, they may claim that 93% of what the audience receives comes from tone-of-voice and body language.

If that were really true, then why speak at all? If 93% of meaning comes from non-verbal channels, a good mime should be able to deliver a speech just as well as you can. Indeed, if 93% of communication is non-verbal, then why do we bother to learn foreign languages?

Fortunately or unfortunately, even Marcel Marceau (pictured) can’t effectively deliver an information-laden speech without words. Words are important – use them wisely and use them sparingly. Body language is also important. The best advice on body language is simple: you should appear comfortable and confident to your audience. If you don’t, your audience will wonder what you’re hiding. If you do appear comfortable and confident, your audience will attend to your words – for much more than 7% of the meaning.

Smart People Doing Stupid Things

Just being smart is not enough

Just being smart is not enough

Are smart people smart in all regards? Is somebody who is book smart also street smart? I think we’d all agree that the answer to these questions is “no”. We have a stereotype of “pointy headed intellectuals who can’t park a bicycle straight”. In fact, here’s a recent story of a very smart college professor who did something very stupid and landed in a jail in Argentina. And yes, it involves a bikini model.

One problem with our measures of intelligence — IQ mainly — is that they may be culturally biased. A deeper problem is that they really only measure System 2 — the slow thinking portion of our brain. (For an introduction to Systems 1 and 2, click here). System 2 is deliberate, slow, and requires a lot of energy. We have to invoke it and focus it to make it work effectively. System 1, on the other hand, is fast, efficient, automatic, and always on. If you’ve ever experienced highway hypnosis, your System 1 was driving the car while your System 2 was thinking of more important things.

System 1 makes the vast majority of our decisions for us. It recognizes patterns and makes decisions. If a pattern is confusing or unrecognizable, System 1 may call on System 2 to review the evidence and render a more considered decision. Or it may just jump to a conclusion on its own. You never know. You can’t get through the day without System 1 — you would exhaust yourself if you made every decision using System 2.

So System 1 makes most of our decisions but IQ tests only evaluate System 2. There’s something amiss here. We measure how smart someone is — in a bookish or academic sense — but we don’t measure how rational they are.

Can we measure how rational a person is? Kevin Stanovich thinks so. Stanovich coined the term “dysrationalia” which is defined as “the inability to think and act rationally despite adequate intelligence.”  There’s some debate as to whether this is a thinking disorder or a learning disability (after all, you can get good grades and still be irrational). But something seems to be going on and Stanovich tries to put his finger on it in his book, What Intelligence Tests Miss. Stanovich essentially argues that IQ tests (and college entrance exams) don’t measure judgment or effective decision making.

We may think of good judgment as an element of intelligence but Stanovich argues that it’s different and needs to be measured differently. He proposes a Rationality Quotient or RQ test. As Sally Adee points out in New Scientist, such a test would aim “to assess our ability to transcend cognitive bias.”  In other words, it’s our ability to override the heuristics and biases of System 1. Adee continues that rationality comes from metacognition, “…the ability to assess the validity of you own knowledge. People with high RQ have acquired strategies that boost this self-awareness.” As an aside, this is exactly what I  teach in my critical thinking classes.

The RQ is not finished yet and it probably won’t be for a while. It will take some amount of time to gain agreement on what such a test should include and then validate it in many different situations. Indeed, it may even be difficult to decide what “rational” really means. What’s rational to one person may seem insane to another. In fact, that’s a good question: what’s your definition of rationality?

 

 

My Social Media

YouTube Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

Newsletter Signup
Archives