A friend of mine made a horrible mistake this morning. He did something he rarely does. He made a political statement on Facebook.
It was a fairly benign comment about the unpopularity of congress in general, not about one party or another. Of course, you couldn’t tell that from the comment stream that followed. Both Democrats and Republicans quickly revealed themselves by addressing the post from their own extremely biased perspectives. My friend seemed a bit shocked that a non-partisan statement could bring about such partisan behavior. I wasn’t.
We seek to confirm our biases.
I’ll say here what I said there, “we’re all too busy feeding our confirmation biases to have a real discussion on issues. We feed the biases and argue from those positions as if the world were some finite state machine. It’s not. But we treat it like it is.” If I had given my statement more thought I might have worded it this way, “We feed the biases and argue from those positions, because we’re more comfortable acting like finite state machines.”
Let’s define some terms.
- Confirmation Bias: “is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.”
- Finite State Machine: ” is a mathematical model of computation used to design both computer programs and sequential logic circuits. It is conceived as an abstract machine that can be in one of a finite number of states.”
Confirmation bias feeds the simplest of finite state thinking. This goes in the black box. That goes in the white box. Yeah, I’m making a mental leap here, but if you spend any time online, you see this played out in every comment stream on any post about any sensitive topic or deeply entrenched beliefs. We, as a society, have a strong tendency to respond to and interpret even ambiguous data as supporting any existing position we hold. And we seem to just as easily reject even factual data that is contrary to our bias. Data comes in and we act in a predetermined way to respond to that data. In addition, [pq align=right]we go out of our way to seek data that confirms our already defined positions[/pq]. In the end, we all end up in the same place we started.
I’m not sure how we grow in this finite state. I’m not sure how complex problems requiring creative thought get solved in this state machine mode. Some problems don’t fit neatly into our predefined boxes. As my friend thought, we should be able to have open conversations around issues without them devolving into us vs them debates. But we can’t, and I don’t see an end to it.
The Infinite State
The opposite of a finite state machine would be an infinite state machine. Wikipedia, oddly enough, doesn’t have a definition for infinite state machine. Urban Dictionary defines an infinite state machine this way: “a computational engine designed to create random states of operation which allow it to “think creatively” enough to “crack” systems of a similar binary language system (cell phones computers satellites any thing that can be accessed remotely by the machine) so far this idea is purely science fiction according to my research.” The concept of an infinite state machine has been discussed on various forums and the general position held by commenters is that an infinite state machine is not realizable. It can’t exist.
Perhaps not in machine form. But [pq align=right]I refuse to believe that humans can’t attempt to exist in an infinite state kind of mentality.[/pq] A few weeks ago, I was directed by Gahlord Dewald to a great piece of writing on Rands In Repose. There Rands spoke in abstract about the infinite state as it related to work and satisfaction. But his comment about the possibility of infinite state is what stood out for me. He said, “When I’m either in the discomfort of a new job or mired in the boredom that permeates an old one, I remind myself of returning from vacation. I remember how much my brain likes it when I’ve shut down the state machine and see a familiar world as new. I remember there is always more to learn because the state is infinite.”
I’m thinking we could all use a break from our finite state thinking. We could all use a break from how we perceive sensitive issues and return to them, as if from a vacation, to see what we thought was familiar as new. We could return seeking to learn from those in a different state. We’re never going to grow unless we do.
– – –
Featured image: License Some rights reserved by OC Always
There is a line in an old Simon and Garfunkel song entitled “The Boxer,” that goes “And a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” A basic truth, set to music, profoundly true for all people all the time. Because that’s the way our brain’s survival mechanism is wired. In order to get past or overcome that we first have to accept that that listening mechanism is going to kick in – no matter what. What comes next is the most important part. We have a choice. We can either accept information in that biased, self-affirming way and be done with it. Or we can say, OK that was stage one. Stage two is to go back over what was said or written or shown that I don’t agree with and really examine it; try to see it from the other person’s point of view (it’s called empathetic listening, by the way – a trait that many people claim they have but few actually know how to do) without being judgmental.
I believe the problem lies in the fact that so very few people ever get to Stage 2 listening. And if you’re Fox News or CNN, you don’t even know that Stage 2 exists. Even among people whose IQ exceeds their age, not only listening, but what masquerades as research gets the same treatment at Stage 1 listening. Look for facts and information that supports our position and disregard everything else. It simply doesn’t exist. That, by the way is how we got into Iraq, but let’s not go there now.
So I say that the remedy lies in accepting Stage 1 and then quickly moving to Stage 2. We’re not going to change our basic brain structure, but with awareness and a desire to evolve to a higher level we can override it and achieve a higher level of applied wisdom.
Bill, the points you make about listening are excellent. I’ve written about the “listening for reinforcement” perils here in the past and obviously agree with your comments. Empathetic listening is a topic you should write about more often.
If only we could demand a person “shut down the state machine and see a familiar world as new”. What is it that modifies an outlook, an attitude, a behavior or a belief? I have given deep thought over the last six months what it takes to change a persons mind or thought process. What is it that would inspire them to live healthier, mentally, spiritually and physically? What would make them more opened minded? What is it that would inspire them to be more successful and accountable in their business, or serve more to their communities and what would it take to find common ground in politics? It is the million-dollar question. The closest answer I can summarize is one person must live the example so that another and another can follow.
There are a few people who have been blessed to see the world “as new” or given a true fresh outlook. This sometimes happens after a life-changing event usually at a personal cost. And for those blessed few, some of the issues, especially politics do not matter as much anymore.