People who are analytical in nature (like me and most of my peers) tend to have a lot of faith in our ability to objectively look at data and make good decisions on that basis. Of course, we do this all the time in our professional lives. “In God, we trust, rest must bring data”, as the quote goes.
But that’s not something I’m interested in talking about. At least today.
What I’m wondering about, is that all the time we’re receiving data in our personal lives too. We run into small (or big) problems every day in our lives.
— At times, we feel someone is behaving unreasonably with us. We objectively try to analyse the situation and try to reason many times over — in our own minds and with the other person.
— We often ask ourselves what we want to do with our lives. We analyse the data of what makes us happy, who we are, who we aren’t, and what we want etc., and then take calls, which we feel will optimize our lives.
And so on.
But what if despite being great at quantitative abilities, our data analysis was inherently flawed? Analytical ability is supposed to remove our bias, but what if it was compounding our bias?
I was doing some research for writing another post, but in the process, I came across a study from 2013 which really intrigued me. And I really wanted to share it in simple words, with the help of some complex charts. :)
………
According to Yale law professor Dan Kahan, it's easier than we think for seemingly reasonable people to trick themselves into reaching unreasonable conclusions. Kahan and his team found that, when it comes to sensitive issues, people's ability to do math is impacted by their deep-rooted beliefs.
They took 1,000 Americans, surveyed their political views, and then gave them a standard test for assessing math skills. Then they presented them with a brainteaser.
In one version, the question involved a clinical trial of a skin cream that sometimes helped heal rashes and sometimes made them worse. Using a set of raw data, the participants had to do some calculations to decide whether or not the cream was effective.
If you are the mathematical types, this is the time when you can start solving the problem, before reading ahead. :)
Also, some folks got the same problem but with opposite data.
Then they analysed everyone’s performance.
As expected, one sees that people who were better at math (measured in x-axis, “numeracy score”), were better at arriving at the right answer. For both versions of the problem – one where the cream actually decreases the rashes and also the other scenario where cream increases the rashes.
So far so good.
Now comes the fun part. They replaced skin cream, with gun control. :) “Does Gun ban actually help in reducing crimes or not?”
Now this is a “loaded issue” – like almost all issues we face when we examine ourselves or examine our relations. We all have deep-rooted personal beliefs in such matters.
And like before, the same question also was offered with opposite data to some other respondents.
So as you can see, one set of data actually proves that we should impose gun control (“C- crime decreases”) and the other set proves that we shouldn’t impose gun control (“D-Crime Increases”).
And now, the researchers plotted the performance on the axis of maths skills. :)
As we see, there is no clear correlation between math skills and your ability to correctly interpret the data, in the case of Gun ban. :) The ability to find the correct answer in skin treatment clearly grew with growing math skills, but growing maths skills didn’t help you correctly interpret the gun control problem. :)
Now, they bring in even more fun. Now they add your political views into the mix as well. :) Now let us take a few moments to understand the below charts.
For skin treatment, whether you had left-leaning (blue lines) or right-leaning (red lines) views, as you got better at math - you got better at arriving at the right answer. (Denoted by the upwards-sloping curves.)
For the gun ban problem, things were very different.
For those (like me) who aren’t familiar with US politics, a little bit of context – left-of-centre folks (democrats) in the US ideologically believe that we should have stronger gun control laws. And right-of-center folks (republicans) typically believe that we shouldn’t have stronger gun control laws.
So for right-of-centre folks, who inherently feel that we shouldn’t have gun bans,
When the data suggested that gun-ban actually leads to crime increase, then they were able to interpret the data better as their math skill increased.
BUT, if data suggested that gun-ban is good and leads to crime decrease, having higher math skills didn’t help you analyse the problem better.
And the results were similar for the other left-leaning group too.
This is what Kahan calls as “Motivated numeracy”.
In quantum physics speak, perhaps it might be called that you can’t separate the observer and the observed. To tweak the Hindu belief a bit
“We don’t see the world (and data), as it is, we see the world (and data) as we are.” (यथा दृष्टि, तथा सृष्टि).
That being better at maths didn’t help us analyse a problem just wasn’t it. They reorganized the same data in another chart.
The black curve on the left represents people with lower math skills. What it says is that when data presented is threatening to your ideology, people with low math skills are 25% less likely to accept it than when it is consistent with your ideology.
The green curve, the people with higher math skills, they are 45% less likely to accept when it is contrary to their own beliefs. In other words, more analytical you get, lesser is your ability to accept any data counter to your beliefs. (Doesn’t that sound scary?)
Anything that is not consistent with our ideology, we without knowing, have become extremely good at rationalizing it away. (I am wondering that perphaps this is why people in villages are much more kinder just naturally. We urban folks, right from start of school, get so invested in the narrative of trying to get better than others. We rationalize a life of competition and comparison. Then of course, even though science proves that we are built to be kind and not competitive, even though it is the most natural impulse, but we have rationalized it away due to our scarcity and competitive conditioning.) So what we perceive as intelligence might be making us more rigid and narrow, than being more open-minded.
The problem doesn’t end here at a personal level. With growing knowledge, people keep diverging more and more on issues, depending on whether it aligns with our core beliefs or not. This is a chart from another study that the group did with 2670 respondents.
And the same with global warming.
And they didn’t stop here. Now “numeracy score” was based on one standard math test I guess. They analysed the same thing on various other similar variables, like Cognitive Reflection test.
And this doesn’t stop here. What was intriguing for me- there is actually a test to check how Actively Open-Minded you are (AOT).
Even the certified “open-minded thinkers” exhibit the same pattern. So if we think we are open-minded (and we even have a certificate of A+ in open-mindedness) – truth is it is very very hard to be open-minded, when it comes to core issues. Issues that make us vulnerable, that trigger us. It is really hard to observe this moment from a beginner’s mind. Shunryu Suzuki, the great zen master, never read Dan Kahan’s report, but he knew it quite well when he said
“In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few.”
I was speaking to a friend couple days ago. She studied in one of the best b-schools of the country and then had a high-paying job. She said that there was a rare professor in college, whom she felt inspired by and connected with. She once emailed him, asking for his time. As she reached his office, she immediately broke down. She said “I feel that universe is always proactively conspiring against me”. She told me that till a few years post college,this overwhelming feeling always lived with her.
Now if you take few steps back, she had so many things going right for her. To study from India’s best college, to have such a high-paying job, etc. But yet, it is very hard to interpret data correctly. At the peak of her stress, she discovered meditation, she practiced, she read many books. And is in the journey of changing her own mind. “Surrender” now seemed her favourite word. And at the end of the call, she tell me – “It was such a hoax. I can now see that the universe was always very friendly, all along. I am so grateful.”
On that note of surrender, here are some electric words from Michael Quattrone –
“Surrender your data, and I will give you wisdom. Empty your bank accounts, and let me show you value. Shut your eyes to entertainment, and open them to beauty. Unplug your high-speed connection and I will connect you to the eternal moment.
Come outside. There is a community waiting to stand in a circle with you and raise its voice. Come outside, and we will walk together to a place we have never been, but can remember. In such a place, the oldest things will be made new by the ripeness of your attention, and all the ancient stories we no longer know will be spoken in tongues of fire and emblazoned on your senses.”
So I guess, “to walk together to a place we have never been, but can remember” we perhaps can do a few things (inspired by the famous Johari window) —
Daily remind ourselves that our job is to prioritise changing ourselves. Because by definition, we are cutting out so much data from our observation where our behaviour is not right. If we are not doing that, we are simply missing out daily opportunities to grow and groom ourselves into amazing human beings. :) What we know about ourselves isn’t really growing if we don’t do that.
Seek out trusted and kind friends who can help us look at our blind spots.
And when it comes to others, don’t try to logic and show them the “hidden”. It is said that “we become judges for others and advocates for ourself”. Rumi said it very wisely, that nobody invited you to meet them in the field of right and wrong. In his words, we need to meet people “in the grass where the soul can lie down.” In a safe space, in a trusted circle, in a space of love. Or as Jayesh bhai says, “don’t teach, but touch.” Teaching will naturally happen. Or someone else said, “first connect, then correct.”
And finally, bask in the collective unknown and the unknowable. That delivers you at the gates of humility, awe and kind surrender. :) Truth is, none of us really know who we are, what we really want, what we are doing, how are we supposed to live, to engage with others. So honor that not knowing, to hold room for greater discoveries. An unimagined light may be around the corner for all of us. What we truly seek and don’t even know, might be seeking us. Like Adyashanti says “Faith is withholding of conclusion, to allow ‘what-is’ to arise”.
Let’s have faith that the universe is kind and wise, and let us live patiently and kindly, with an open-heart and open-mind and open-will, one day at a time. :)
P.S. Here is the ted-talk by Dan Kahan which inspired most of this post. And another related talk that builds on that.
This is so beautiful, Rohit!!!
Love this ,
....Let’s have faith that the universe is kind and wise, and let us live patiently and kindly, with an open-heart and open-mind and open-will, one day at a time. :)... ❤️❤️❤️
Thank you for sharing :)
Very very true- "Truth is, none of us really know who we are, what we are doing, how are we supposed to live, to engage with others. "
During my college days, I had once written this in an assignment- I don't think there's any particular meaning/purpose to life. Because if there is, they forgot to hand me the memo.
Reading this, I also got reminded of my dear old professor PRK Rao's favourite poem, written by Robert Graves-
"He is quick, thinking in clear images;
I am slow, thinking in broken images.
He becomes dull, trusting to his clear images;
I become sharp, mistrusting my broken images.
Trusting his images, he assumes their relevance;
Mistrusting my images, I question their relevance.
Assuming their relevance, he assumes the fact;
Questioning their relevance, I question the fact.
When the fact fails him, he questions his senses;
When the fact fails me, I approve my senses.
He continues quick and dull in his clear images;
I continue slow and sharp in my broken images.
He in a new confusion of his understanding;
I in a new understanding of my confusion."