Intelligence is traditionally viewed as the ability to think and learn. Yet in a turbulent world, there’s another set of cognitive skills that might matter more: the ability to rethink and unlearn.
~ Adam Grant
It is human nature to seek those who applaud our thoughts, views and behaviours.
While that may be comfortable, it does not promote growth and transformation. We risk becoming stuck in our ways and increasing divisiveness.
Exploring conflicting sides of an argument and having the humility to change beliefs when the facts change is healthy. We can reinvent ourselves and society.
I have been disappointed with the lack of transparency and the rhetoric (the art of persuasion, one-sided argument) in mainstream media as of late. It raises a red flag. The red flag is an indication that something needs to be questioned or otherwise validated.
Experts who appear to have evidence-based opposing views and honourable intent have at times been ignored, publicly shamed or ostracized.
Recognizing that researcher bias impacts research outcome and that we have a tendency to cherry-pick studies that confirm our views, I have spent a lot of time attempting to decipher fact from fiction on current world issues. The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know. It is humbling.
To put my views into context, I will share a little more about me
Growing up, I was recognized and rewarded for being well-behaved, compliant - not rebellious. I did what I could to impress and exceed expectations.
In my youth as a new Canadian, I found the courage to venture beyond my cultural constructs, including my religion and ethnicity. I explored other possibilities.
Initially, I embraced Western individualistic world views perceiving them to be more evolved, less tribal. Over time I grew to respect the more collectivist life lessons of my childhood.
Today I aspire to remain open-minded. I attempt to base my identity on my core values, not on my political leaning, gender, religion, dietary preference, career choice, ethnicity or nationality.
I appreciate evidence-based protocols. When it becomes apparent that scientific inquiry is still in progress, I value the right to choose by exploring different perspectives.
Having the courage to question the science
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Seldom is the science settled when it comes to health and well-being. There are too many confounding variables.
In an experiment, a control group is necessary. There will be those in the treatment group and those in the control group. The placebo and nocebo effect, the thought that the treatment will help or harm, should be considered.
I recognize that occasionally it may seem we do not have the luxury of time. In a crisis - a quest to save lives - leaders react quickly and are judged based on their ability to make things right. If they fail, it is human nature to cover up. We need to look back, reflect and compare the differences between treatment and control groups with an open mind.
Sometimes focusing on immediate gratification causes long-term harm. What may appear to be the ethical thing to do right now may become a burden long-term.
In a crisis, given a choice, people will do what is perceived to be the honourable thing because they fear the consequences of not doing so, trust it will prevent harm or is for the greater good.
Others will refrain from taking action because they need more information, or they feel invincible, or they question the integrity of intent, or they want to spare a limited supply of medical intervention for the most vulnerable. The treatment and control groups happen organically.
Rather than judge individuals for their decisions, we should become curious and respectfully inquisitive. After all, we see things through different filters. We should avoid creating fear because thoughts affect the outcome. We do not want to cause harm.
It takes courage to be an outlier, to think outside the box. It is easier to be mainstream.
Listening to respectfully expressed opposing views and having the willingness to change our minds, behaviours and identity based on new-found knowledge is admirable and should be encouraged.
We must not tolerate poor behaviour and misinformation. But attacking character based on a well-intentioned choice made or informed opinion expressed is myopic. Public shaming or ostracizing is cowardly.
To send cues of safety, reduce fear and get compliance on a policy designed to promote well-being and reduce harm, we need respectful, open debate, adjustment based on new facts and the courage to admit when we are wrong. Debate is healthy.
I am thinking out loud, planting seeds which you may choose to water or weed.
When I learn more, I will revisit this topic with greater clarity.
As Adam Grant states in his recent book Think Again: If knowledge is power, knowing what we don’t know is wisdom.
Comments