Our Perceptual Biases
Decatur Metro | October 28, 2008Whether we’re arguing the impacts of downtown development or trying to make sense of the new world financial crisis, the following list of perceptual human biases, written about in Taleb’s Black Swan and summarized here by David Brooks, always seem to shine through…
[Nassim Nicholas] Taleb believes that our brains evolved to suit a world much simpler than the one we now face. His writing is idiosyncratic, but he does touch on many of the perceptual biases that distort our thinking: our tendency to see data that confirm our prejudices more vividly than data that contradict them; our tendency to overvalue recent events when anticipating future possibilities; our tendency to spin concurring facts into a single causal narrative; our tendency to applaud our own supposed skill in circumstances when we’ve actually benefited from dumb luck.
Maybe that’s a big part of the reason why the random party-goer who speaks only in absolutes is always the most suspect in my book. Unfortunately for you, that kind of self-doubt doesn’t usually make for the most entertaining blog. 
Latest from Decaturish
Thanks for this thought-provoking post. (I had never heard of Taleb or “The Black Swan.”) Somehow I feel better knowing that someone like David Brooks has actually pondered “perceptual human biases” as it relates to the financial crisis. Perhaps the next president would be wise to appoint a behaviorial economist to his Cabinet!
But does not the very act of discounting that person who is speaking in absolutes exemplify this perceptual bias? We seem to developing an a real problem with that in America, right now — you have to be “seen” as taking the middle path on everything or you’re obviously biased and your opinion must be immediately suspect.
This is a dangerous path we are on — for even some of the most biased individuals have valuable thoughts and what we have the responsibility, as an engaged, informed society, to make an effort to listen better and more… especially to those we find the most challenging.
We all need to work to learn how to better parse the torrent of data coming in to us from all directions. It’s only gonna get worse, not better, in our media-saturated “ultra-choicerized” world.
I didn’t say that I discount them…I said they become “suspect”. And perhaps my categorization of “speaking in absolutes” wasn’t quite detailed enough. Really I was referencing those that speak in absolutes AND show little desire to even considering the opinions of another.
So actually I think we’re on the same page. I don’t have a problem with folks having a different opinion than my own…but if that person never shows any consideration for my argument or where I’m coming from, then I start to think that they are doing a lot of this “filtering” that Taleb suggests. As a result, their arguments become a bit “suspect”.
I don’t think finding those speaking in absolutes at the far ends of the spectrum suspect is the same as discounting them. Instead, they simply require greater consideration because their workable ideas are often buried in near impenetrable ideology.
The middle rules politically because it acknowledges that trade-offs exists, that sometimes some of our goals can be in conflict with others, and that good ideas can be found at both ends of the spectrum.
Interesting responses.
When I read that someone’s opinion is immediately suspect because you perceive them to have an extreme bias, then I do feel that, to some degree, you are unreasonably discounting their opinion. Maybe not in totality, but the fact is that you’re allowing their bias to skew your perception. Because there is an implicit notion that you will view a dissenting opinion with more suspicion than a congruent one (duh!), your skew will always be away from them and toward your own beliefs…. It then naturally follows that the more strongly someone believes something that you disagree with, the more they will simply reinforce your beliefs in your own mind.
If you boil down what I was trying say this morning, it is this: the validity of someone’s opinion really doesn’t have much to do with how “sure” they are about it. Much more relevant and useful for reaching an common understanding is /how/ they came to that opinion.
What the quoted author said is quite true in every respect. The typical response is to seek reinforcement for our beliefs from our friends, or subject matter experts, or church groups, or political talk shows, or finding a news channel that doesn’t challenge our own perceptions. We do this because doing the right thing is hard. Seeking the correct answer in the face of adversity — especially when it comes from within — is hard.
Why must it be someone I disagree with? It has nothing to do with their final destination, but how they got there.
“Speaking in absolutes” to me has less to do with strong opinions than a refusal to challenge your own opinions before coming to conclusion.
Nick, you raise some good points.
If we concur with Nicholas’ statements, and I believe we do, then it follows that when you agree with someone you’re just not very likely to view their opinion as suspect!
So, really, you’re only likely gonna regard someone else’s opinion as suspect when you disagree with them.
As for “speaking in absolutes” being rooted in someone’s refusal to challenge their own opinions before coming to a conclusion, I am not sure we can draw that conclusion. How do you know that they haven’t already done that soul searching, had those discussions, etc.? And that path is exactly what has led them to their opinion?
Again, I come back to the basis that the validity of someone’s opinion has nothing to do with how strongly they feel it or how extreme it may seem relative to our own. We should not let ourselves fall into the trap of confusing our perception of someone’s objectivity or their apparent fairness or willingness to listen to our ideas with whether they are more right or wrong about a particular issue.
Based on your statement about it all having to do with how someone arrives at their conclusion, I really think we’re thinking along the same lines.
Witness this clip from NBC’s The West Wing (before they dispatched with Aaron Sorkin and the whole thing totally sucked — oh wait … is that a /strong opinion/ I exude? *grin*) Here, CJ and Josh learn about alternative map projections. They go in with one perspective and come out with perhaps a more enlightened view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8zBC2dvERM
Later!
Yeah Baron, I think we are thinking along the same lines. But you make some good points. I’m pretty sure the confusion could have been cleared up if I had been a little more specific in my original post.
Great West Wing clip! One of my favorites too!