In the media, in politics, and also in my circle, I see people quickly jumping to conclusions based on limited, missing, and/or inaccurate information, bias, framing, and "statistics from the ground up." A recent example is the childcare benefits scandal, where people were labeled fraudsters based on a few general characteristics like name and origin. Or certain vaccines were labeled dangerous or harmless. Positions on these kinds of, often social and/or complex, issues harden quite quickly. Both in the private sphere and in our society, often resulting in polarization.
Looking beyond your nose
I'd rather not comment on the facts and (un)truths in these discussions. What I want to point out are the mechanisms in our thinking and actions that lead to "simplistic" conclusions. My inspiration for this article is that I hear people make statements based on their own experience or information, often without a clear context. How does this happen? After all, humans are reasonably intelligent beings. Why do some people fail to see beyond their own noses? I'm not referring to fake news. Being misled by malicious actors can happen to anyone. I'm more referring to the unconscious selection of information that reinforces one's own viewpoints/thoughts.
I've noticed that when you have two consecutive events, event A and B, people tend to assume that B is the result of A. In simple cases, that's often correct. I drop a hammer on my foot and have a sore toe right after. But in complex cases, that's usually too simplistic. The debate about vaccine safety is a good example. One person claims that an acquaintance died shortly after being vaccinated, so the vaccine is dangerous. Another claims that he didn't experience any problems after vaccination, so the vaccine is safe. Both seem incorrect to me. On the one hand, you can't simply say that the cause of death was the vaccine. There are many possible causes. On the other hand, you can't draw conclusions about the safety of, in this case, a vaccine based on such a limited sample.
Hardened discussions
This kind of prejudice is also called bias. The literature speaks of a large number of different kinds of biases. A quick internet search quickly yields overviews of almost 200 different types of biases. In my opinion, cognitive biases are the main cause of hardened discussions. Cognitive biases are thought patterns in our brains that allow us to quickly arrive at certain insights. A quality that our prehistoric ancestors likely put to good use. In the context of today's society, you could view these biases as a flaw in our brains.
Pitfalls in our thinking patterns
I'd like to share three biases that I believe are significant pitfalls in our thinking patterns. These examples of how people handle information are often not malicious, but a natural way of thinking. Unfortunately, we often mislead ourselves and others by doing so.
- Confirmation bias: As a result, we are inclined to seek, interpret, and remember information that supports our personal ideas and feelings. We are very selective in our search for information and in choosing which information is correct and which is incorrect. As a side effect, you see that search engines on the internet apply search algorithms, meaning you only see information that aligns with your personal ideas.
- Selective omission: This causes us to (often unconsciously) omit things from our story, or you translate what you read incorrectly. Be aware that when you tell something or when an opinion is given, the story may be incomplete. As a result, new opinions and conclusions are based on incomplete information.
- Overconfidence: With limited knowledge on a topic, we quickly assume we're experts in that area. This leads us to give advice and/or jump to conclusions too quickly.
Root Cause analysis versus bias
When I look at my own field, I also see that some people are quick to jump to conclusions based on limited information. This is partly due to the mechanisms mentioned above. Complex issues, however, require a thorough approach. A textbook example of this is the Root Cause Analyses (RCAs) we perform at Delta Pi. In these analyses, we attempt to determine the cause of a particular event, free from any bias, in a structured and substantiated manner. And believe me, technicians like me often have a strong bias or conviction that we are right. The fact that we perform analyses like RCAs indicates that we are aware of our own limitations and are consciously aware of them. A step in the right direction.
Tips
I'd like to share some tips on how to take natural biases into account:
- When drawing conclusions, review the entire information and ask yourself if you understand it all. One source is no source.
- Someone's strong opinion doesn't make an event a fact. B isn't always the result of A.
- A personal experience (your own or someone else's) is not always a sufficient sample.
- Avoid receiving biased information from search engines like Google. Do your research.
- Be critical and open to being wrong.
Melchert Rijks, Consultant
