Same data, different conclusions

One of my intellectual scotomos is that I’ve always felt that if another person had access to the same information that I do, they would arrive at the same conclusions that I have. That’s patently untrue, yet I cling to the belief (on some levels anyway). The corollary of course is that, if the other person hasn’t arrived at the same conclusions as me, they clearly didn’t have access to the same set of facts that I do. So maybe I need to explain to them what they’ve missed. Or something.

As one might anticipate, that process doesn’t always turn out well. Or even most of the time.

Still, I think there’s something to be evaluated here. Why is it that two honest, intelligent and thoughtful people can look at the same information and come to very different conclusions? Of course I’m not talking about the “If it was good enough for my dad, it’s good enough for me” argument (I won’t dignify it by calling it a line of reasoning); I’m referring to people who have thought it through, tried to evaluate the facts rather than act strictly on emotion or their history of unchallenged attitudes, and still arrive at a very different conclusion than I do.

I read a book a while ago by George Lakoff, a cognitive and linguistic scientist from Berkely (naturally) titled “Moral Politics.” He looks at that question from the perspective of politics. He examines the underlying assumptions/perspectives of people to see what might be going on. It’s a fascinating model (I happen to be convinced that he’s correct, but someone else reading his book may think otherwise, of course!)

Anyhow, the model he proposes (with all the usual caveats that it’s just a proposed model, I am almost certainly oversimplifying as he spent a great deal of time developing his reasoning, it’s not either/or but a continuum, etc. etc. etc.), is that there are essentially two ways of thinking of the role of the government in our lives: that of a nurturing mother or a stern but loving father, and that people define moral behavior based on those underlying perspectives. Applying that (for example) to welfare recipients, it would be immoral to withhold help from people who need it (the nurturing mother perspective); on the other hand, it would be immoral to give something to someone who didn’t earn it, as that would be supporting laziness and sloth (the stern but loving father model). Same situation, but the underlying perspective of government’s role dictates which action is “moral.” It’s fascinating that the exact same action (providing assistance) is either moral or immoral, depending upon your underlying view. And of course, most people are unaware of their biases; they probably assume that everyone looks at the world the way they do.

Whether Lakoff is correct in his model or not is for other people to establish, but I like it, at least as far as politics (which is all he’s really talking about anyway). It answers a lot of questions. I’m guessing that if one were to think enough about it there would be revealed lots of other models that would apply in other branches of human behavior.

I had dinner not long ago with an acquaintance who has pretty much the polar opposite of my views on several things. He believes very strongly that every American not only has the right to carry a gun, but that they should, because walking around armed would help to prevent bad guys doing bad things. I have written in previous posts why I think that’s not only not a good idea, but in fact is a major factor contributing to the violence in our country. Additionally, he also believes with absolute conviction that Obama is a Muslim, not born in the US (and thus should never have been allowed to become president), it’s a complete mystery why anyone would EVER vote for someone as dishonest as Hillary Clinton, and that Donald Trump is “the most exciting thing to happen in US politics in my memory” (and that is a quote.) So there’s a pretty big gap between his views of the world (at least some of them) and mine.

This guy is very intelligent, (a physician, in fact), congenial and fun to be around. I called him an acquaintance rather than a friend simply because I haven’t known him long enough yet to call him a friend, not because I don’t enjoy his company.

Nothing in our conversation made me want to rethink my attitudes and opinions, but it made me think more about what assumptions, preconceived notions or scotomas shape our beliefs; hence this post.

It seems that intellect really has little to do with one’s attitudes; the paradigm through which one views the world probably plays a much greater role. Creating an echo chamber to live in, cherry picking data and not looking for blind spots all contribute to this.

It’s little wonder to me, as I think about it, that we have such opposing views; it’s actually more of a surprise that anyone agrees with anyone else on anything!