Thinking is a serious problem: we like what we like

In my posts last year I mentioned three critical aspects that affect our thinking: our unconscious, our emotions, and the process known as selective perception. In the latter, we accept only information with which we already agree with or that we like. Any contrary information not only cannot get in, it has to be destroyed, often (metaphorically speaking) along with the person bringing the message.

When most of us read about issues that concern us we usually imagine that we are thinking when we make decisions about what we will respond to and what we will agree or disagree with. Regrettably, this view is largely false. In fact, what’s really going on is that we align incoming information with our preconceived notions and the emotions that support those, leading to  selective perception.

Consider a very contentious issue: the minimum wage. There are two groups of economists on opposite sides of this issue, one that says raising the minimum wage is helpful to the less economically fortunate, and the other saying that in fact such an increase harms the job possibilities of those very people, and both have Nobel-prize winners in support. Who is right?

There is no way to definitively answer the question because neither side can conclusively prove its position. Worse yet, even after raising or not raising the rate neither side can prove its position. The biggest problem with all such complex issues is that the models used by the economists are built on assumptions that are not always testable or verifiable, meaning that the economists themselves are working off of information that is not conclusive. They have chosen the data that fits with their view of the minimum wage issue and have essentially neglected that which does not confirm their view. They are not necessarily acting falsely, but because there is so much ambiguity in the data, which can often be interpreted in a variety of ways, they have to make choices. But at least partially unconsciously they accept and interpret the data in ways that bolster their position and undermine that of the opponents. As I have said in prior posts, it is the lack of understanding that unconscious processes are driving much of what we “think” that causes so much misunderstanding and hostile difference.

Most of us have no way of understanding the very complex models that underlie each side’s position on the minimum wage, but that does not stop us from having an often very-firmly held position on the issue, underlain by a huge emotional commitment. So what thinking is going on? Virtually none if we are talking about critical thinking. Essentially what happens is that we read the statements of the economists whose view we like, and we say that is the correct view. We haven’t the slightest idea of the how the models were developed or whether assumptions that underlie them are accurate. Thus, our ability to assess correctness borders on zero. We like what we like and that is the answer. Clearly, to think critically, to think objectively, we need far more information and expertise that would allow us to make a carefully reasoned judgment. Lacking that, which in the case of minimum wage includes most of us, we accept what we are told if we agree with it and assume unconsciously that that has something to do with correctness. Often, we then trash the person who disagrees with us. No thought and no thinking. The only possible, rational position is: I don’t know, which may be accompanied by, but I do like this one. At least this would be intellectually honest.

What I have said about the minimum wage is the same for nearly everything about which we have exaggerated and often vicious arguments. Those arguments are over nothing because we understand little about the issue’s complexity, meaning a terrible lack of clarity and an abundance of emotional messiness. Such arguments’ viciousness are in direct proportion to the emotional commitment the person has to a position. That emotion keeps us from any chance at a fair and objective discussion. But there is one thing that is very clear. My goal is, “I win, you lose.” Somehow I have to crush you, using emotion, misrepresentations, outright lies, diversions, anything. If your ideas have merit, my whole structure of “thinking” (read emoting) could be in error. That cannot and will not happen.

Thinking is a Serious Problem: The Brain

In my last post I talked about the role of emotions in "thinking." In particular I addressed selective perception, how we mainly unconsciously see or accept only information that supports our values, views, etc. Advances in brain science have added hugely to our understanding of what happens in the brain when people reject contradictory information. One recent study (as reported in IONS :http://www.noetic.org/blog/rejecting-uncommon-beliefs-how-worldview-shapes-ou/) "...(has) discovered that a resistance to new information may actually be hardwired into our brains. When confronted with dissonant data that contradicts what we expect to see, even trained scientists appear to reject information that goes against their assumptions about how the world works." So much for the vaunted objectivity of scientists.

In addition, we have discovered that incoming sensory information takes two paths: first and more rapidly to the amygdala, and second, more slowly, to the frontal cortex where higher levels of thinking occur. The amygdala is the processing center for emotions, and is the storehouse of mainly negative memories, of dangerous things. The speed of transmission to the amygdala reflects the evolutionary need to act immediately when confronted with danger. Meeting a tiger in the bush demands immediate action, which is generated faster by the amygdala than by the cortex. Too much thinking in such situations means a failure to breed.

Work done by Professor Jonathan Haidt and mentioned in his book, "The Happiness Hypothesis," indicates the following: "There is a two-way street between emotions and conscious thoughts: thoughts can cause emotions...but emotions can also cause thoughts, primarily by raising mental filters that bias subsequent information processing (my underline). Further: "A flash of anger toward someone raises a filter through which you see everything the offending person says or does as a further insult or transgression." Just think about the number of relationships you are aware of (perhaps your own) characterized by such interactions. As a consultant and conflict advisor, I may without exaggeration say they are nearly countless.


Among the legions of the great un-thought, there is likely to be jubilation: "Hey, it's built into my brain. How can I possibly act compassionately, objectively, or in any way appropriately? Anyhow, I am right, so they deserve whatever they get." The brain structures and processes clearly influence how we act toward others, but we are hardly prisoners of our brains. More on this in a future post.

You may wonder what all this has to do with thinking. Everything. We no longer face tigers in the jungle, but we have today's analog: the guy (or group) whose views we do not like or even hate. Just as the amygdala dictates near instantaneous action in dire circumstances, it now does so for situations that are not dire, but which we see as threatening: "If this guy is right, even partially, my world is ruined" is what the unconscious says, calling for immediate action. Recall from my last post that people have huge emotional attachments to positions, views, etc. A perceived threat to them evokes a reaction similar to what happens when confronted with a tiger.

In such a state, no one is thinking. Reacting and emoting for sure, but thinking, no. Keep in mind, the role of the amygdala is to protect from threats. Its reactions are automatic and instantaneous; there is no thought! Add Haidt's observations about the flash of anger and you see the problem. After the immediate reaction generating attack or some defense of position, the other person is not only wrong, but his mere existence, not to mention his views, is an insult.

People engaged in conflict after the amygdala arousal may seem to be thinking in that they use facts, pseudo-facts, lies, and misrepresentations, often very cleverly presented. But what is really happening is that they and their position have essentially become one, and thus they will now defend that position to the death. No contrary information will get in under any circumstances, not today, perhaps not ever. But the individuals are certain they are not only thinking, but doing so fairly and objectively. Once again, they do not know that they do not know, and will perpetuate this disaster forever.

Thinking is a serious problem

Why is thinking a serious problem, you might ask. Simple, there is very little of it going on, either in public life (politics, newspapers, commentators, etc.) or in private life. There are many reasons for so little thinking, and I will explore those in other posts. Today: emotion.

Emotional responses characterize what passes for thinking far more often than not. Emotions are not the problem; they are natural. The problem is unexamined and undisciplined emotions that call for a very simple, and devastating, outcome: I win, you lose.

What passes for thinking is merely the emotional ramblings of people whose views of the world are set in stone. For such people, information that challenges their view or disturbs them in any way, that pushes them out of their treasured states of equilibrium, is anathema. The only response to such information is to attack, demean, lie, obfuscate, misrepresent, name-call and display anger. These people have internal referencing systems. That is, their views and values are contained in a "box" impermeable to challenging information; in other words, closed. Only information that supports what's in the box gets in: hence self-referencing.

Most people imagine (I will not dignify such as thinking) themselves to be quite objective, when they would be incapable of an objective thought if it fell on them from a great height. Notice how people congregate with those with whom they share common values and positions. Why? Simply because they can maintain the fiction that they are actually thinking (goodness, look at how all these other very bright folks think just like I do!). Keep in mind that all such non-thinkers believe absolutely in the "logic" and accuracy of their own thoughts; there is no other possibility. The system is simple: if you disagree with me, you are by definition wrong on all counts. Further, if we happen to be talking about politics, you are not only wrong, but evil into the bargain. Since you are wrong and evil, I can do anything I want to you. Not only does the information you bring have to be "destroyed," but likely you will have to be as well.

Real thinking requires a person to put aside preferences, biases, and prejudices, and examine a situation on its own merits, no matter what the person's feelings are, and future posts will address this. People emotionally align themselves (usually unconsciously) with values and positions and judgments. Only after do they try to use supportive information to validate their views. Selective perception is the faculty we have for seeing or accepting only information that supports our views and positions, meaning that people select validating information only, and seldom consider invalidating information. You can see the conundrum: most people are unaware of their emotional attachment to an idea, position, value, procedure, etc., and thus cannot address their inability to think. They think they are thinking. Put another way: they do not know that they do not know.

But you might say that there are times when people can think clearly. I agree, but they have to be about things that are generally not contentious or ones in which they do not have an emotional stake. Since most of the latter are in the unconscious and not available to the person, they are unaware of any such stake. Beware suggesting that their behavior was, shall we say, problematic. Being in their heads and without access to their unconscious, they can find no logic or fairness in your view and are left considering it an attack. The result: disrespect, hostility, and even hate. Take a look around and you will see exactly what I mean.

More reasons for poor thinking anon.