"I Have No Biases"

This post is an excerpt from my upcoming book on Living Well

“I have no biases” is a statement we often make with complete confidence and certainty, and not a little moral superiority. I told myself this story for years. Many of my good friends do so to this day, not at all aware of how biased we are.

There is great emotional satisfaction in saying and feeling one is unbiased. Besides the sense of being morally upright, it strongly implies being non-judgmental and respectful of all, a nice boost to our fragile egos. True enough if one does in fact happen to be unbiased, but I have never known such a person. In fact, while I have done a lot of hard work on myself, I still maintain many biases, perhaps hundreds, as I think we all do.

The problem is not necessarily having biases, for obviously there are many of no consequence. I prefer the color blue to red, classical music of the Romantic Period to today’s pop, sunny days to cloudy ones, trousers with pleats to those without them, and impressionist to abstract art. That I hold these biases may be irritating to some, but they are clearly inconsequential.

Yet there are ones which are indeed consequential, or at least potentially so. For example, I am biased for Asians’ work ethic, and biased against people whose work ethic is questionable. For good drivers and against poor ones. For people who are resilient and against people who are complainers. For doers and against takers. For strivers and against slackers. For those with open minds and against those with closed minds. And the list goes on.

Some may be disturbed because these examples smack of partiality, favoritism and judgmentalism. The horror may be especially pronounced since I am asserting that it is not just me who has such biases, but that we all have them. Yet the issue is more subtle than a simple and very easy condemnation of what I am expressing. Pretending we have no judgmental biases means we are living in a world of our own creation that  does not exist. Comforting as that may be, the cost is hypocrisy.

One can profess heatedly that one has no such biases, and yet do considerable harm from the falseness of the story. I know a goodly number of people who assert that they do not have any “biases against” anyone or group, that they are tolerant. As it turns out, this view has a unique meaning. It says they are biased for, and treat very respectfully and favorably, folks with whom they agree or whom they like. But they often actively demean and denigrate the very people for whom they should have tolerance: those with whom they most strongly disagree (and are biased against), especially those of the other political party. The story that we are unbiased must be maintained because admitting we are not runs the huge risk of undermining the very carefully crafted positive image we have of our moral superiority. We will have to face our hypocrisy head-on, and that cannot happen.

My consequential biases do look awful. But their existence says nothing about how I actually behave toward people. Certainly if I am not careful I could easily allow my preferences for and against to influence my behavior---for example, playing favorites with those I am biased for and treating badly those I am biased against. But controlling our behavior under challenging conditions is exactly what much of Living Well is all about. As a college teacher, I have felt minor bias against certain students because of how they dressed or the tattoos they sported. Nonetheless, I did not allow that sense to push me into treating them in any way disrespectfully or unfairly.

People may think that we should not have certain biases, but that is yet another defiance of reality. Humans are not perfect. In the end it is not whether we have biases, but whether we act out biases against others in a way that negatively characterizes and demeans them. Or, if we act out biases for others that expresses inappropriate favoritism. Living Wells asks that we accept all human beings as deserving of respect, which is impossible if we condemn them or play favorites. Having biases for and against is normal, but we must be very careful what we do with them. If the well-being of others is part of our life, then respect must be evident for all. Treating others respectfully demands that we acknowledge our biases and act firmly to ensure those do not harm anyone, especially those we disagree with, or who we actively dislike.  

Denying the reality of biases means we fight against reality and our own psyches, using up large amounts of emotional energy trying to maintain a fiction (I am absolutely unbiased!). We spread our inner struggle and upset those around us, loudly proclaiming our righteousness in the midst of our hypocrisy.

When we believe absolutely what we think, particularly about ourselves, we have likely closed our minds to openness and critical thought. Others can see we are living a delusion, but we cannot. We believe we are open, objective, and tolerant when the truth is a very different story. Living Well is impossible under such conditions.

Can Critical Thinking Be Taught?

Let's see if we can put a bit more substance on the thus far rather anemic considerations of critical thinking. Can critical thinking be taught? Well, yes and no. Critical thinking is affected by a goodly number of factors---mostly unconscious---that everyone has to one degree or another, only one of which is the intangible intellectual ability. Consider the following:

•          Built-in brain filtering mechanisms (Confirmation bias)
•          Acquired filtering mechanisms (Republicans/Democrats are bad people; atheists/theists are crazy).
•           Personality factors (Tendency to see the glass half full or half empty; tendency to prefer detail to big picture or the reverse).
•           Emotional drivers (the NEED to be right, to win, to be perfect.)

These aspects determine whether we can think objectively/critically or not. Nearly everyone I know, or have known, imagines that what they think about themselves (I am being objective, I am capable of critical thinking) is how they are. Could not be farther from the truth since they have failed to examine the above elements and deal with them. I am familiar with this as I lived it for many decades. Take the person who violates a principle of intellectual honesty and fails to acknowledge and question his/her own assumptions and biases. Did that happen because he is thinking rationally and openly? Hardly. It happens because he has an emotional agenda to be right, to win, to be admired, or whatever, and that agenda will prevail come what may. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table. Unfortunately, most deny they have such biases.

Consider Flatland, the book in which a group of people exists in a world having only two dimensions. They are literally unable to see a third dimension. Their language has no place for third dimension aspects, and thus they cannot imagine it, much less think or talk about it. It seems that language and thinking quality are related in a system's sense, with each influencing the other. Imagine a group like the Flatlanders whose language has only two colors: black and white. What nuanced critical thought can you expect of such folks when you ask them evaluate a Van Gogh palette? None. Thus, we can argue that part of critical thinking beyond the vital 4 aspects mentioned above is a largish (will go undefined) vocabulary about the issue in question. This can certainly be taught.

Most people I know have plenty of opinions backed up by nothing more than an emotional certainty they are right or at best by cute anecdotes. Their vocabulary (this can be read as facts as well) is minimal because they choose it to be so, not because they are inherently limited intellectually. Scientists have opinion and bias problems as well: when the walls surrounding the Sphinx were determined by Dr Robert Schoch, a renowned geologist, to have been eroded by water and not wind and sand, the Egyptologists went positively insane, including attacking Schoch with ad hominem “arguments.” Schoch’s information upset terribly their chronology of the pharaohs. Thus, even though they were not geologists, Schoch’s work was rejected, not for any rational reasons, but for pure emotional ones: we don’t like this, so it will have to go away. Years later, and without any apology to Schoch, they are gradually coming around.

Ask a person from the right to rigorously critique Glenn Beck or a person from the left to do the same with regard to Chris Matthews, and they will both look at you like you’re nuts. Their emotional vocabulary does not even permit this information to get in, much less be examined. Essentially, they are like the Flatlanders: what they cannot conceive of cannot be seen. They could no more constructively and energetically critique their boy than they could dis-embowel themselves.

I think that critical thinking can be taught, but that teaching has to happen at two different, albeit connected, levels. The first level deals with relatively simple elements such as how to examine a painting with an eye to distinguishing its positive and negative points based on certain standards of art criticism. Such standards themselves are subject to alteration (recall the rejection that the first Impressionists experienced) as new styles evolve. The same is true in asking a person to constructively critique the quality of an essay, according to generally accepted standards. To some degree, depending on the person's innate intellectual ability (sorry for leaving this undefined), we can teach this critical thinking.

The second level is not at all addressed in universities or elsewhere, although it is the issue upon which critical thinking stands or falls. This gets at the enormously powerful role of our unconscious and its often huge emotional needs---recall the Schoch example. The four critical, primarily unconscious aspects mentioned above will get no appreciation or recognition from the fearful for, as a great mentor once said, referring to me, “Certainty is the last refuge of the fearful.” And we are all afraid, even when we are not consciously aware of it. And, having been there I know what it feels like and what it looks like in others. When fear goes, when ego attachments to being right are gone, then and only then do we have a chance to think critically and objectively. Can this be taught? Absolutely. But only the most courageous have a prayer.

Thinking is a Serious Problem: Responsibilities and Consequences: The Lost Connection

Growing up in the 50’s meant something very different from growing up today. As children and teens we were provided with privileges (never, ever called rights---a topic for a future post) which adults generally agreed could aid in a young person’s growth into a responsible person. Being able to stay out a little later, use the family car, take a camping trip with friends were examples of what we got to do if our parents judged us worthy. Privileges meant explicit obligations. We could continue to do these things, or even add new ones, so long as we showed good judgment, behaved properly, and did not otherwise abuse the opportunity. If we violated any of these, the opportunity was withdrawn, at least for a while. There was a very clear connection between what we got to do as an opportunity and what we had to do in exchange---the obligation or responsibility.

Although not all adults’ views were identical, there was an unspoken consensus among parents, teachers, neighbors, religious leaders, and even newspapers about what was appropriate behavior for young people, and how to deal with behavior that did not meet that “standard.” Any adult, known to us or not, could reprimand us for misbehavior, and was expected to do so. Further, if my parents found out about a reprimand, I was in for another one at home. If I got into trouble at school, that entailed a loss of privileges at home in every case. No matter the source of the reprimand, except in very rare cases the word of the reprimanding adult was conclusive and final, especially if it came from a teacher or other socially important person. Consequences were enforced.

Arising directly out of the 60’s view that “if it feels good it is good,” we have discarded the consensus of responsible action, with a concomitant breakdown in behavior and civility in both young people and adults. A factor aiding this societal breakdown was an enormous expansion of “rights,” an essentially narcissistic view saying that whatever I want to do is a right, even if that is seen by others as inappropriate if not outright wrong. If I want to talk loudly in restaurant, that is my “right.” If I want to wear clothing that is offensive, that is my “right.”  If I want my kid to run amok at school, that is both my “right” and my kid’s as well.

Critically, and as I said in the last post, if your view is in opposition to mine, my “rights” prevail over yours under all conditions.  If you dislike or are offended by what I consider my “right,” too bad for you. The problem is yours. I am never to be held accountable for my behavior because it is a “right.”

The problems of rights without obligations have reached near catastrophic proportions in raising children. Starting from birth children have been accorded all sorts of “rights” by parents whose ability to set proper limits and hold their children accountable is bankrupt. The children, seeing a huge gap in the system of responsible behavior, have surged right through it, insisting with their parents’ often unwilling accommodation that they are in charge of the house, which they are, thus leading these mini-adults seeing the world as their entitlement---I get to do what I want, period.

 Even when rights expanded in legitimate ways, problems arose because of one huge failure---offering people new rights but forgetting that responsibilities must come with all rights. An interesting example of this started in high schools in the 70’s when young people were allowed to call teachers by their first names, have more freedom to select classes and wear unusual clothes, schedule classes at their whim, and leave campus more often. Nothing wrong with these, except for the fact that no responsibilities were attached, leading again to the idea that people could (should) have rights without any obligations.

Any right that is enshrined in our legal and governmental system comes with obligations to use the right properly. I can follow my religious dictates, but I cannot cause others troubles because they do not believe as I do. I may drive a car so long as I meet various driving and administrative (insurance, etc.) obligations. I may own and use a weapon so long as I follow important procedures for safety, etc. We all know that failure to exercise these rights properly generally means we will be held accountable. But the self-centered “rights” have no such connection, and American society has suffered badly because of it.

Overall, our society is characterized by a lack of personal restraint, of care for the wellbeing of others, and of adequate systems for holding people accountable for poor behavior. This has led to condition of little inter-personal respect, very high levels of incivility and crime, and increased levels of frustration and anger as legitimate social rights are trampled. Interestingly, the very people who will trounce you so that their “rights” prevail are often those who are adamant that our society needs more civility and respect. What they really mean is respect for and civility to them.

In his book, Rebuilding Russia: Reflections and Tentative Proposals, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn says,

“Human rights are a fine thing, but how can we make ourselves sure that our rights do not expand at the expense of the rights of others. A society with unlimited rights is incapable of standing to adversity. If we do not wish to be ruled by a coercive authority, then each of us must rein himself in…. A stable society is achieved not by balancing opposing forces but by conscious self-limitation: by the principle that we are always duty-bound to defer to the sense of moral justice.”

Thinking Is a Serious Problem: The Loss of Shock and Shame and Societal Disintegration

Cultures decline for a number of reasons, and among the more important of those are the loss of cohesiveness, of connection to others in the culture, and of shared values. The more separation and fragmentation that occurs, the more the culture starts to socially, politically and economically unravel. Eventually it disintegrates or, like Europe, gradually drizzles away its mojo. Fragmentation occurs in a culture, just as it does in a marriage, when people have the view that whatever they want is what they are entitled to, and will get come hell or high water, no matter the adverse impact on others---a setting in which impulse control is considered not just useless, but outright stupid.

Both reflecting and causing the US's decline is the loss of two great words and the behavior attendant to them: Shock and Shame. Many important words have been lost or intentionally denied existence (political correctness, itself a contributor to decline), but these two are particularly emblematic of our culture's decline because their loss has been accompanied by diminished shared values around healthy social behavior. Separateness and difference are facts of life, but societal fragmentation increases when they are emphasized and fostered to the exclusion of unifying elements. When I was young both shock and shame were social tonics that we all more of less shared, ensuring a more cohesive society and generally better and more respectful behavior.

"Do not be proud of the fact that your grandmother was shocked at something which you are accustomed to seeing or hearing without being shocked.... It may be that your grandmother was an extremely lively and vital animal, and that you are a paralytic."

G.K. Chesterton said (in As I Was Saying):

 We seem to have lost the ability to be shocked (offended by something), perhaps as the ancient Romans also were by the continual assault on their senses of the ever-increasing brutality of the games. In this era of everything goes if it feels good, we are reduced to insensate reactions. Shock is troubling for many because it implies standards, anathema to those who allege there is no truth, and nothing may be judged in any way, one opinion or view being just as good as another (some challenge in getting Hitlerian or Stalinist actions incorporated into this scheme).

The loss of standards of civil behavior is just one example or our decline led by the absence of shock, but the loss could easily apply to art, TV, literature, or different cultures. Misogynist and homo-phobic rap lyrics offend few. Women-demeaning violent video games (think early versions of Grand Theft Auto) got little attention. What passes for attire in young girls, at huge odds with the idea of women not being sex objects, receives virtually no comment. Politicians’ sexual misbehavior gets a passing glance. TV shows in which people reach sadly for their 15 minutes by debasing themselves are found humorous. Athletes’ drug use and denials have become ho-hum. Children having melt-downs is seen as part of how children grow up, a natural occurrence. Very poor educational outcomes upsets few. No shock, just standard societal operating procedure.

In addition to having lost the ability to be shocked, many are cowed by the current trends and agree (or pretend) that people can do anything so long as it feels good to them. When no standards exist other than your own needs and wants, it is clear that shock is an outdated issue.

The other great S word we have lost is shame, embodying emotional distress because of a failure  to live up to accepted standards. Growing up I encountered both shame and embarrassment, and these exerted a significant force that usually (but not always) kept people in a more socially acceptable behavior pattern. Certain things, as the Brits are wont to say, are simply not done. If any such thing were done, it was costly---pointed out and critiqued in no uncertain terms, often causing considerable personal discomfort, also known as embarrassment, anathema to the no-truth crowd. People did not hesitate to express shock at improper behavior, intended to produce a sense of shame. A very effective social remedy for unpleasant actions indeed. However, as this social remedy has disappeared, our society has not-so-gradually descended into a form of social anarchy driven by my (and your) needs. Regarding this latter there is one simple rule---where your needs conflict with mine, yours lose hands down.

In my dreams I hypothesize that the loss of these two great words, and the behavioral philosophy they underpin, arose with Love Story, a book of such gargantuan awfulness that words fail. Or, as a prescient friend once said of it, possibly the worst book in the history of the universe. Most of you will recall the emotionally troubled and sadly immortal line, "Love means never having to say you are sorry." And from this it is but one small step to the reptilian sensibility that you don't have to say you're sorry for anything. In fact, in the world of “whatever I want is good,” if someone else has a problem with my behavior, it’s tough luck for them. Simply---I get to do whatever I want and I am never, ever to be held accountable. You are not to be shocked nor am I to experience shame.

As shock and shame have lost social force, so has humility, a trait now practically de rigueur to disavow. Conformance to social standards can be extreme, as has been the case in some Asian countries. But once we have passed a certain point in undermining such conformance we will pay the price. In addition to the breakdown in cohesion and the increase in disrespectful behavior at all levels, we have seen the growth of humility’s opposite---narcissism, which revels under the no-shock, no-shame view. Being entirely “me” focused, it carries separatism and uncivil behavior to the nth degree.

Thinking Is A Serious Problem: Not Much Thinking Going On In Juries

Jury deliberation bears no resemblance to thinking. In fact, it actively discourages quality thinking. How can I possibly say that about a hallowed institution which has been around for over 1000 years? Easy, and I will use the example of my personal experience on a jury.

My one and only jury event (may I be forever spared from another!) happened many years ago in Marin County, California. After the prosecution and defense rested, the jury was charged with determining the guilt or non-guilt of a 55-year-old man who was arrested and charged with drunk driving. The facts were straight-forward and uncontested during the trial and in the jury room.

A highway patrol officer observed the man weaving dangerously for 3 miles on a major freeway, crossing lanes indiscriminately without regard to the safety of other drivers (Fact #1). The man was pulled over and given a breath test, which he failed (Fact #2). The officer then searched the man’s car and found an open, half-empty bottle of whisky under the driver’s seat (Fact #3--illegal in CA if an opened container of any sort of alcohol is anywhere inside the car). The man was arrested and taken to county jail where he was given a blood test, which confirmed that he was legally drunk (Fact #4).

Let the “fun” begin. To me the situation was open and closed: guilty as charged. I was the only person with this view when we started deliberating and the only one when we finished (a majority of jurors decided the outcome---a unanimous decision was not required). It is important that you know that the jurors were from Marin County, a wealthy suburb of San Francisco, were mostly professionals, and clearly smart and articulate.

I wish I could have filmed this. If justice were not so perverted, it would have been hilarious. The defense attorney had presented arguments that addressed the man’s life problems, such as his being recently divorced and disaffected from his son, and having trouble adjusting to retirement. These influenced my fellow jurors hugely, and they worked hard to explain each of the facts in a way that would get the man off. Naturally, such “explanations” (e.g., he did not put the open whiskey bottle in the car, someone else did) failed because the evidence was clear and simple, and compelling on the face. The group expressed considerable sympathy for all the man’s troubles, and a general non-too-small dislike of the sheriff and highway patrol, referred to by one non-black juror as “the man.” The group, with me voting guilty, judged him innocent.

So, what happened in that jury room? Very simply, sympathy triumphed over fact and thought. Feeling sorry for the man was not the problem. I felt sorry for him. But he broke more than one law and endangered others. It looked to me that the folks on the jury came with agendas: feeling sorry for someone can be more important than anything else, and “cops” are not very nice people. The “thought” used was simply the aggravated distortion of each of the facts to try and get the man off without having to admit that sympathy for the man and antipathy for the police were the real factors. This type of “thinking” is akin to the police catching a burglar on your lawn at 3am with your computer in his possession, and he argues he was returning it, and the police accept that.

When I quizzed the group members, they assured me that sympathy for the man and antipathy toward the officers were not the reasons they voted to acquit. They honestly thought they had explained away any guilt by their rendition of the facts, one that I saw as tortured in the extreme and a near unbelievable violation of common sense, all to produce the outcome they wanted.

Critics will no doubt say that my experience was unique. Unfortunately, it is not. Reason #1 is other examples. No doubt most readers will recall the McDonald's case in which the top of an elderly woman’s coffee, held between her legs, came off and scalded her. The jury was understandably sympathetic, but the jury failed to find her culpable in any way, awarding multi-millions. Even more interesting from the standpoint of non-thinking is the truly infamous O.J. Simpson trial. Exceptions? Let’s assume so. Just for the sake of argument, of course! Be that as it may, my next point is incontrovertible.

Reason #2 is that my observations of friends, relatives, clients and folks in general over nearly 40 years demonstrates that most people cannot think objectively if their and their children’s lives depended on it, and this is about everyday behavior, nothing so serious as a jury charge. The psychological research is now beyond compelling: most of what we think, feel, and do is driven by our unconscious. Being unaware of this means we get to live our false story of objectivity with impunity. Certainly juries can produce just outcomes, but when people have something at stake (most of the time), they will default to their need and justice be damned. Since the latter cannot be admitted, a pretence of thinking is provided by logical contortions and ex post facto justifications. If you wish more information on how juries are paneled and the often perverting roll of jury consultants, this will add a bit more disturbance to the pot. And this leads me to my grand conclusion: since thinking and fairness in their most sophisticated senses are rare to non-existent in jury deliberations, they should be abolished in favor of a judge or a panel of judges.

But judges are fallible, too, you might say. Indeed so. But there is one huge difference between judges and juries: the judge’s opinion must be argued logically and supported and, most importantly, is reviewable and reversible by a higher court. Jury deliberations are absolutely closed, and reviewable by no one, a prescription for a breakdown in thinking and for misbehavior if ever there was one.

Thinking is a Serious Problem: The Dangers of Two-Valued Reasoning

What are “conversations” like today when people differ in view? They are mostly unmitigated disasters, what I call crap-throwing contests. The goal of these interactions is “I win, you lose,” with each party throwing as much crap as possible at the other: anger, guilt, sarcasm, yelling, interrupting, pseudo facts, misrepresentations, outright lies, name-calling, and so on until one person collapses. These interactions are no more conversations than water is stone, and quality thinking is obviously the big loser.

Thinking clearly requires a lot of us. It demands first of all that we suspend all emotional reactions, which obstruct clarity and degrade respect, and face the issue on its merits. Having such reactions is normal; allowing them to intrude into the conversation is a recipe for a bad outcome. I have already addressed in earlier posts the real unpleasantness arising when people fail to suspend emotion.

Second, to think clearly we need an attitude toward conversations that stresses learning, truth, openness, and greater understanding. Most people I know say they have exactly this attitude, but they could not be more mistaken. In this post I will talk about the attitude they do have, one that characterizes their real behavior and which is demonstrably inimical to quality thinking and respectful conversations. This attitude is known as “two-valued reasoning,” and considering the damage it does, I view it as both a moral and a practical “affliction.”

Two-valued reasoning results from a view of the world defined by categorical opposites. Everything is seen from the standpoint of what I like or dislike, see as good or bad, approve or disapprove of, support or condemn. Folks with this standpoint invest huge amounts of emotional energy in the attitude, such that it becomes a fact of their existence (part of their ego) and is no longer merely an intellectual aspect of differing views on something.

People with the two-valued reasoning affliction generally express themselves with great certainty on anything in which they have an emotional investment, and their comments are often framed as “either/or” type propositions. As a consultant to organizations I would often hear comments like, we are either customer oriented or profit oriented, or we are either sensitive to employee well being or we are not. As a counselor to couples in conflict I often hear similar phrasing, as in you can have transparency or privacy in a relationship, or you can have individuality or community, but in neither of these cases can you have both.

People with the affliction not only have an emotional investment in their general view of the world as defined by categorical opposites, they also have an equally strong attachment to one side or the other of any “either/or” proposition. In organizations managers who argue that the firm is either customer oriented or profit oriented have a clear and obvious attachment to one side of this proposition, defended with great emotion (while anyone with a different view is often  attacked). And the same is true in all “conversations” in which the parties have differences, no matter what the subject matter. To describe such interactions as characterized by thinking is absurd.

If quality thinking involves the search for greater understanding of what are often very complex issues, then two-valued reasoning does precisely the opposite----it actively diminishes (strenuously denied by the arguers) the breadth, depth, and sophistication of the interaction.

As an example, at the time of the first Gulf War I encountered a large number of folks who either supported the war or thought it crazy and morally wrong to boot. Typically, this difference in view was articulated by folks on the political right as, “We are going to Iraq to promote democracy,” and by folks on the left as, “We are going to Iraq solely to get their oil.” Two-valued reasoning, and its attendant emotional disturbance, characterized both of these views in any conversation. Folks with the affliction tend to describe very complex situations (like the Gulf War) in such simplistic terms that they border on child-like. They use a pre-existing litany of statements that they accept at face value (if I like it, it must be right) and trot out any time they encounter someone whose views differ from theirs. It’s very difficult to give the name thinking to this.

An additional unpleasant outcome to interacting with those using two-valued reasoning is the impossibility of engaging with them in a productive and respectful way. Since their view is certain, backed up with big emotion, any alternative views cannot be allowed to exist. Whether those alternative views have any merit is of zero importance. What is of utmost importance is that those views be destroyed. So, if you differ from me you are by definition wrong, and often morally corrupt as well. The current political scene gives ample evidence of the prevalence of two-valued reasoning and the accompanying inability to deal openly and respectfully with those who differ.

The great tragedy of self deception: I have exposed the two-valued reasoning idea to some folks and they believe it has considerable value, and that it does describe what they and others they know have experienced. Sadly, these same individuals will not hesitate to immediately trash, with typical two-valued reasoning, those who differ from them. Bertrand Russell expressed this unfortunate state neatly:

            Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting

            Convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day.

Failure to subject our convictions to critical analysis ensures two-valued reasoning will prevail, and that we and our society will continue to see ever greater hostility and irrationality among people of different views.

Thinking is a Serious Problem: Values, Words, and Hypocrisy

Thinking well requires the careful use of words, including a clear understanding of the meaning and intent of a word, and a consistent use of that word. Words often have multiple meanings, which is entirely workable. But in certain cases such variability can cause thinking as well as action problems, most obviously when one person uses the same word differently depending on the situation.

Among the most important words we have are those representing our personal values. Our values are principles we hold very dear and which are not compromised at all or very rarely. Typical values we might hold are integrity, fairness, openness, personal responsibility, truth, tolerance, respect, loyalty, family, honor, care for others, objectivity, or hard work. The list is nearly endless.

Over the last 40 years or so I have observed a change in how people talk about their values and how, if at all, they implement them. As I grew up people generally stood by their values, meaning they acted those values out to the best of their ability.

After the 60’s and the cultural tumult that accompanied it, things began to change in unhealthy ways. It wasn’t that folks had no values, but that their implementation was suspect. We can argue forever about the benefit or fitness of one value over another. We can even argue about the methods of implementing a particular value. But one thing that is very bad for a society happens when people espouse good values and then fail to implement them, or implement them differently depending on how they feel at the time.

Whether one really holds a value highly cannot be determined by how vocal a person is at proclaiming the value. It can determined only by seeing the person apply the value when it is not only inconvenient to do so, but very difficult if not nearly impossible. Applying the value when it is easy is not the best test. Today the action commitment to one’s values seems lacking in the extreme and I will give two personal examples of this.

I was talking with a colleague at the local community college where I teach part-time. In the conversation I asked him about values important to him, and he said a prime one is respect for others. The conversation moved on and we ended up talking about college unions. At one point in response to something I said he made a dismissive comment accompanied by a bit of sarcasm. I mentioned that I thought respect was a prime value for him, and in my view sarcasm was not respectful. He assured me that respect was a hugely important value to him, but I irritated him with my view and that explains (read: justified) his behavior.

In another circumstance I was talking with a person at a party whose political views differed from mine considerably. Before we knew this, he told me that he saw himself as very tolerant. When it became clear that we differed politically, his whole demeanor changed. He did not attack me personally, but lit into my party, its views, candidates and office holders, castigating them for what he termed idiot thinking and a mean-spirited attitude. I mentioned to him that he did not seem particularly tolerant of my thinking, and he agreed totally and said, “Because your thinking is wrong.”

Certainly these anecdotes do not define all folks with espoused high values. But I have seen far more than just these two, as have friends of mine. Watch TV or movies and you will see that generally values, when espoused at all, are mainly for show, not for action. But the worst offenders of the “I-get-to-do-and-say-what-I-want-no-matter-what-my-values-are” crowd are politicians. Take the simple word “disclosure,” at the moment a “big” deal in the media. Each side defines the word differently and quite favorably for themselves. They then define it very unfavorably for opponents, not at all attentive in their righteousness to the hypocrisy.

In both my examples a person with a self-proclaimed important value failed to implement it, and was not at all bothered by the hypocrisy. Espoused values such as respect and tolerance are important and socially valuable, but only if they are implemented. These individuals can tell themselves (and me) that they have fine values, feel good about that, and then ignore situations in which those values should be implemented. I suggest that what is going on is a classic case of self-deception, and all-too-common psychological event these days.

What is important to such individuals is that they have an important value, and that everyone knows it, hence the sense of righteousness. When it becomes uncomfortable to implement such a value, it will be ignored, and then justified with ex-post-facto reasoning (Your thinking is wrong). This is one of the huge dangers of situational ethics: the game is played so that I get to do what I want to do, even if that includes ignoring one of my own prime values. In fact, if I am in the presence of others who “think” as I do, they will not only accept the deviation from the value, but positively applaud it as the right thing to do, adding more ex-post-facto justifications to my already rich repertoire.

Social divisiveness, of which we surely have enough, is increased when folks espouse and then fail to implement values when the going gets tough. The important trust structures that enable the members of a society to co-exist are destroyed by people hailing their own values and then ignoring those values when they have become inconvenient. The meaning and use of a person’s value word is now subject, not to some reasonable standard of consistency, but to a whim, particular agenda, or emotional need, clearly evidenced in my two examples.

Not only does social coherence suffer, but thinking does as well. When a person fails to uphold his/her own espoused value, and then argues that such behavior is just fine, it is impossible to have a legitimate and open conversation with that individual. That person is not thinking but, as I have mentioned in prior posts, emoting. Essentially, it means he/she will change the meaning of an important word to get the outcome desired (usually a diminished opponent). A truly thoughtful person with even a modicum of intellectual honesty would be embarrassed by such hypocrisy.

I don’t want to sound too Orwellian here, but it is difficult not to see the damage such hypocrisy does to our society. As such “tricks” make their way into the political arena, that danger increases exponentially, and is visible today.