The perils of certainty

Johnnie Moore

Johnnie Moore

I’m Johnnie Moore, and I help people work better together

Jonah Lehrer’s How We Decide explores committee decision-making as a metaphor for what goes on inisde our minds when we make individual decisions. He gives the example of a New Hampshire newspaper editorial board choosing its preferred candidate in the last Democratic primary. Differing individual preferences end up presented in the newspaper as a unified decision. But the simple presentation belies the underlying dissonance. Our minds work in a similar way: presented with a choice, different bits of the brain fire off differing signals, and somehow out of the conflict a choice is made. Experiments suggest strongly that we then rationalise the choice and deny the internal dissonance, in order to get the comfort of certainty.

It’s not easy to make up your mind when your mind consists of so many competing parts. This is why being sure about something can be such a relief. The default state of the brain is indecisive disagreement… certainty imposes consensus on the inner cacophony.. Being certain means you’re not worried about being wrong.

Lehrer examines how partisan political supporters unconsciously reinterpret factual information to confirm their prevailing world view, which is why they very rarely change allegiance. He also cites Philip Tetlock’s research on the general fallibility of experts. Mark Earls described that here. And Bob Sutton had a good post recently suggesting that, if anything, confidence in self-evaluation tends to correlate with being wrong.

Many people want their meetings to work like this: listen to many opinions and then reach a confident, united decision. I think the danger of such ideals is that they may increase the likelihood of being wrong.

My own hunch is that good teams can function with greater tolerance for dissonance and don’t force “positivity” and decisiveness. I also find that when meetings take place within rigid hierarchies, the shadowy need to give the boss something certain (the “measurable, implementable, deliverable“) can completely sabotage that kind of high quality functioning.

Share Post

More Posts

Bunny Bunny

A funny game illustrates what we may be missing in many of our meetings

Leading from the clown

I shot this in a single eight-minute take, which is in the spirit of an experience of Ralf Wetzel’s workshop, Leading from the Clown. Clown training is probably the deepest and most challenging work I’ve done. Enjoy.

Noticing

The power of small gestures and noticing

More Updates

Emotional debt

Releasing the hidden costs of pent up frustrations

Aliveness

Finding the aliveness below the surface of stuck

Johnnie Moore

links for 2010-08-08

Cognitive Edge – Silos and Sinecures Does the current academic setup prevent innovation? " the system seems designed to prevent original thought and risk taking. It seems like a majority

Johnnie Moore

Tangential creativity

Quite a few people have pointed to John Naughton’s article: Lasers would never have shone if Mandelson had been in charge. Naughton challenges the government’s plans to restrict science funding

Johnnie Moore

Benchmarking and abstraction

Seth’s having a pop at benchmarking and I agree with him. It’s all too easy to look at numbers and not allow ourselves to explore the richness and subtlety of human experience.

Johnnie Moore

It ain’t that simple

Chris Rodgers pours cold water on the idea of evidence-based practice when managing people. Organizations are complex social processes not rational scientific endeavours. As such, they are not amenable to