Is Your Objectivity Jacked? Everyday bias in bad decisions

If you’re like most people, you like to think of yourself as someone who thinks clearly and objectively.  Me too, until an recent event served as a lightening rod for appreciating our inability to think without bias.

Recently, a former colleague and friend of my husband posted a FaceBook link to a newsletter that caused an uproar in our house. The newsletter cited the 1964 Civil Rights Act as and example of federal government intrusion into restaurants and movie houses – even creating an inability for people to decide who could be their neighbor.

With no doubt in his mind, my husband questioned his friend and was shocked when his colleague replied that he couldn’t see anything wrong with the article.

Here’s where it gets interesting…and creates huge potential for divided camps:

while he saw nothing wrong, I was profoundly upset by it! In 1939 the five-year old girl who would become my mother learned that she not allowed to swim in the community pool. Being told, “No Spics Allowed” haunted her and created devastating ripple effects.  So it makes sense that  I was offended but what I  couldn’t fathom was that my husband’s colleague (the bright, kind, southern Christian man who posted it) reported reading the article three times and couldn’t see anything wrong with it. I shared how my bias caused such a negative reaction to the article but wondered, what’s his story…how can I understand his perspective just as I wish he understood  mine?

Out of respect for me, this lovely man told my husband that he took the offending post down but: I don’t think that’s the answer…nor do I want to debate whether the article or our friend was a victim of bigoted bias or not – let’s simply use this real-life  situation as a springboard for understanding.

The answer is to intercept our brains’ auto-pilot for bias.

Here’s How Objectivity Gets Jacked:

Hi-jacking: (reacting before thinking brain)

The amygdala or unevolved brain processes our perception and feelings as good or bad within milliseconds. This can cause a regrettable knee-jerk response cover in the previous post,  “When Smart People Make JackAss Moves”. During an amygdala hi-jacking the emotions are so strong that our unevolved brain (the amygdala) takes over before the evolved executive brain (the prefrontal cortex) can process the information to regulate our response.

Example: My initial reaction to reading the offending post was shock and anger.  I don’t think that I could have maintained a poker-face had we been face-to-face so the virtual exchange may have spared me from an amygdala hi-jacking and jackass move.

Even if we are able to hit the un-evolved brain “pause” button to allow our executive brain to analyze, our thinking may be jacked a second time!

Low-jacking: (interpretive bias brain)

After the amygdala does the initial good/bad processing,  the executive brain (pre-frontal cortex) uses intelligence, data and previous experiences to assess whether the initial feelings and perception were accurate.  Our executive brain’s thinking can be “low-jacked” (to access by an alternate means) by our sub-conscious tendency to latch-on to information that validates our initial perception and to filter out what doesn’t support it.

Examples:

• good or bad first impressions or prejudices (pre-judging) and how we may be more or less willing to give others a pass
• placebo effect and how we often get what we expect
• how remarkably bright people are unable to see the diverse perspectives of social, political, or religious issues
• how physicians’ training/time limitations add interpretive bias to a patient types and cause mis-diagnoses
• why a juror’s personal experience (aka bias) can impede their ability to impartially judge factual evidence.

The truth of our reality is that we don’t see things as they are – we see things as we are.

Sadly, our knee-jerk reactions and our filtered reasoning means that we access knowledge more selectively than objectively which often results in thinking that is, umm.. jacked.

The important discussion becomes, how does it hurt all of us and what can we do about it?

- When have you been on the receiving end of a jacked idea or decision?

- What can we do to prevent or minimize our the brain low-jackings that create interpretive bias?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Gladstone: A Taxonomy of Bias: The Cognitive Miser (lesswrong.com)

Fitting-in vs Being Authentic (part 2)

Freud dismissed the very idea of “normality” as “an ideal fiction” – and of course it is!

When we consider the vast diversity of human beings,  we see a kaleidoscope of complexity rather than conformity from the time of birth.  Ask parents of more than two children how different each was and you will most often hear that they arrived with differing temperaments, personalities, tastes and talents.

Normal is predicated by our environment:  families,  schools,  social and spiritual, each creates overt and subvert pressure to conform. The published and unwritten rules are reinforced with the selection of those who are popular from those who generate gossip or are ostracized.  Even children who don’t fit in the family norm are dubbed the “black sheep”.  A recent example of not fitting “the norm” came from a former employee who called me requesting a reference.  She said that after a year in a new job, she was not a good fit in a corporate culture that was suffocating her so she was actively interviewing for a new job. Our conversation reminded me of a time (1990) when as the only female corporate sales director,  I wore short hair, boxy suits, and put on a no-nonsense facade in order to be taken seriously – I was convincing, but I couldn’t maintain it;  it withered my soul.  So I started to ask myself these questions:

• How important is it for me to to fit in?  To myself, my family, my job, my community?
• What aspects of my true self do I need to suppress or hide in order to fit in?
• To what degree can I really be myself at work, with friends, or even at home?
• Do I sometimes feel like an imposter or actor?
• Am I  exhausted at day’s end from “acting” my role or wearing my “game-face” all day?
• Am I affected by the need to “stuff” a part of who I am for such a big part of my day and life?
• Do I value social approval over self-actualization?
• Do I prevent others from knowing me and benefiting from all that I have to offer?
• If I don’t allow others to really see me, how will I ever find my “right people” – those that get me?

I was so grateful for the many comments to this week’s launch post on this topic.  In the comments to part 1 of the series, John Reddish provided an excellent frame of reference for why many of us are grappling with authenticity and transparency and struck a chord: “The fact is that more and more, we realize that the old model, requiring self-containment and following traditional paths, just doesn’t work. Blame Joseph Campbell, blame a permissive society, blame the “me” generation, blame the New Age, but more and more of us are seeking to “follow our bliss” and because the old model isn’t working, more and more traditionalists are paying attention, even making allowances.

Over the years, I’ve become less willing to sublimate the silly and spiritual aspects of my true Self and to trust that others will still be able to see my polished professional facets, too.  How about you?

Please join in the discussion with a comment or read on to part 3.

Have you ever found yourself miscast in a job, relationship, or culture?

Have you ever made job or life changes by asking some of the above questions to yourself?

Are you becoming (or have you become) more daring or vulnerable about sharing your authentic self?

Fitting-in vs Being Authentic (part I)

Truth be told, I have never found a comfortable fit in any one peer group.

I first noticed it in high school – a time when we need to “belong” to a group or clique but the problem was that as a high honor, Jesus-loving, pot-smoking (hey it was the 70′s),  student council do-gooder and cheerleader, I didn’t fit-in with the brainiacs, the stoners, the Jesus freaks, the joiners, or the jocks.  Even though I related to an aspect of each group, there were other aspects of the groups that didn’t fit me and many of my own aspects that didn’t fit them.  Grappling with the teen angst, I remembered wondering why I couldn’t just be “normal”  and subscribe to one of those groups.

While journaling about my conundrum one evening, I dragged out the dictionary and looked up the definition of normal.  I was surprised that the terms (not deviating, conforming, standard, regular) used to describe what I thought I desperately wanted to be, were what I simply couldn’t aspire to being.   Then I realized that the desire to be “normal” must be an oxymoron for a lot of other people, too.  The problem with “being normal” is that many of us don’t want to be just  “average” but we don’t want to be seen as a “weirdo” either – we want acceptance, we want to fit-in but we also need to be allowed to be ourselves.

I’ve pondered the topic ever since the teen journaling years so this post is likely to be a series on the topic because while I thought I had found a comfortable place, the use of social media has forced the issue anew.   So here I am grappling with finding the right balance of fitting-in vs. daring to show my authentic and transparent self with the similar angst about the risks of ridicule and rejection.  My first paragraph was a huge leap  so if you’re reading this, I took a deep breath and hit the publish button.  If you can relate, please join me in exploring what normal, fitting-in, authentic and transparent mean to you.

Please join in the discussion with a comment and/or read on to part 2.

What does the right mix look like?

What are the risks?

How much of ourselves  should be revealed in order to be to be transparent and authentic?

How much is too much?