E is for E.S.P.

[the_siobhan]

I used to date somebody who was really big on the concept of taking a stand. He believed very strongly that most people are apathetic or cowardly when it came to confronting anything wrong or unjust, that the world would be a better place if more people were willing to call out bad behaviour when they saw it.

I had the experience of growing up in the era when cops wouldn't press charges in cases of "domestics" and when teachers and doctors refused to get involved even when I flat-out told them what was going on in my house. So this kind of commitment to getting involved pushes a great big button for me. But after a while I started to come to the conclusion that in his eagerness to take some kind of decisive action, he didn't appear to be all that interested in making sure he knew what the best action was to take. He just wanted to be doing something, and once he had made his mind up any new information was deemed to be making excuses. I was frequently confused by his conviction that he could pick out the guilty parties in a dispute where (in my mind) he really didn't seem to be in a position to know what had really happened. When he started making pronouncements about events that I had witnessed and he hadn't I finally decided he was full of shit, and that was the end of my emotional investment in his desire to take a stand on the side of righteousness.

I bring him up because he was an extreme example, and because, well, extreme or not he's an example of something that I see all the time. People seem to want a conclusion, any conclusion. When the OJ trial was going on people would occasionally ask me whether or not I thought he was guilty. I would respond that I didn't know, I hadn't been following the case. "But what do you think?" they would persist. They seemed baffled at the idea that I could honestly have no opinion. I, for my part, was baffled that seemed to want me to have an opinion based on... air or something.

I am probably especially conscious of this kind of thing. One of the ways in which I carry around my damage is that I am extremely over-sensitive to feeling like I have been convicted without benefit of trial. I can't count the number of relationships (friendships and otherwise) that have ended because somebody decided they already knew What I Did - and for bonus points Why I Did It - without deigning to ask me about it first. As soon as I feel like I'm being called upon to justify somebody else's versions of my actions, I pretty much immediately lose all interest in having the discussion at all and that's not really conducive to working things out.

So when I see people taking sides on a issue - any issue - the first thing I want to know is what they are basing their conclusions on. And a lot of the times the answer is information sources that I honestly don't know how to evaluate. What it looks like from my perspective is that people are putting a lot of faith in third- or forth-hand reports - whereas I tend to assume that even people who were there don't necessarily have the whole story. Or that people are making the emotional decision to believe person X over person Y because they simply like person X better - whereas I tend to assume that even the best of people screw up and make mistakes and misunderstand things and make errors in judgment.

It's possible that I am hyper-critical of information. I do happen to believe that most people usually try to tell the truth. I just don't believe that people unfailingly know what the truth is. If you've ever read Stranger in a Strange Land there's a passage where somebody asks a character in the story what colour a house is. She responds, "It's painted white on this side." That's me.

And this disconnect happens often enough that I've actually started to wonder if there is some additional information going around that I just don't have the skills to access. I mean, the whole time I was growing up I kept running afoul of all the unwritten rules that nobody ever explained but that everybody else seemed to understand through some kind of osmosis. It took me many years of watching people to figure out just how much information is transmitted non-verbally. Maybe this is another one of those cases where I'm missing something that is so obvious to other people that they can't even articulate where they got it - it just becomes yet another thing that "everybody knows".

Or maybe people just have ESP.

Comments

[mscissorhands.livejournal.com]

I think this is perfect! I think this best describes how I feel most days!

[shillolo.livejournal.com]

You have no idea how much this post means to me.

[coyotegoth.livejournal.com]

I absolutely agree on this; many people I know, when there's any sort of interpersonal dispute, often seem to prioritize making the situation better for all concerned below saying something along the lines of: "Okay- whose fault is this? Someone here has to be wrong, wrong, WRONG!" It's discouraging.

[lilactime.livejournal.com]

I was forced to read Stranger in a Strange land in high school by a teacher who was obsessed with science fiction, and made us do all our book reports on stuff in that genre. It instilled a deep hatred of all sci-fi and fantasy in me. However - the one line I remember, out of all the crap about aliens I was forced to read, was that line about the colour of the house.

Which is apropos of nothing, especially what you're talking about here, but it let me marginally join a discussion that is only very marginally about a science fiction book, but it does get my sci-fi quota for this decade filled. Woo.

[beaq.livejournal.com]

Mhm.

Also, mhm:

they already knew What I Did - and for bonus points Why I Did It

[hirez.livejournal.com]

Nah, people just make stuff up about the way the world works that makes them happy, then brickhammer every happening into that internal model of 'the way things are'.

Probably. I dunno. I'm as bad as the rest of them.

[panic-girl.livejournal.com]

As soon as I feel like I'm being called upon to justify somebody else's versions of my actions, I pretty much immediately lose all interest in having the discussion at all and that's not really conducive to working things out.
At this point, I don't have the energy to "work things out" with someone who wants to believe the alternate version. You wanna believe the lies? Great. You'll either come to know me well enough to know what the real deal is, or you won't care enough, and I don't need ya anyway.

I do happen to believe that most people usually try to tell the truth
I'm not so sure on that anymore, given my track record with fetid psychopaths. Of course, I attract such people because I am too trusting, too willing to believe. Or maybe that's past tense. At this point, I trust very few people. Fewer all the time.

These posts are getting a bit meta (not just yours, posts on the topic, I mean). I'm seeing a lot of them lately. I'm bothered, in a way I can't quite articulate yet.

[dark-phoenix54.livejournal.com]

That line of Heinlein's really struck me, too. It showed me a whole other, better, way of looking at things. And since then, it's irritated the shit out of me when people do what you're talking about. Thank you for this post; it says something that needs saying in a lot of situations.

[redbird]

It may be less E.S.P. (or nonverbal communication/information, such as interpreting things from tone of voice, posture, or how someone smells) than that you have a greater tolerance for uncertainty than average. That discomfort with uncertainty leads people to adopt (not necessarily consciously) algorithms that will get them an answer quickly. Algorithms that can be as bad as "believe the first person you talk to" (or, equally fallible, "believe the most recent thing you've heard or seen") or "always trust doctors, even on matters completely unrelated to their medical training."

I don't know whether I'm as skeptical as you are, but I'm certainly capable of saying "I don't know" on some topics, the Simpson trial being a good example.

[firecat]

When you get your "cautious about jumping to conclusions" planet set up, I'd like to live on it.

[grimjim.livejournal.com]

You may be too rational for your own good? Hope you don't mind the terminology spam, but I've found psychology really useful in my overanalysis of things. All these labels aren't really precise, but they point to underlying dynamics.

From my perspective, there's a few cognitive biases errors in play there. First, premature closure:
http://www.isabelhealthcare.com/home/misdiagnosis_faq/media?ida=isabelstory

A 2005 study published in Archives of Internal Medicine found that cognitive error, often referred to as premature closure, is the single most common cause of diagnosis errors. Premature closure occurs when a clinician arrives at an initial diagnosis that seems to fit the facts then does not consider other reasonable possibilities.

Once a conclusion is made, no more effort is spent re-examining the alleged evidence that led to the conclusion. Intolerance of ambiguity can lead to a tendency toward premature closure. Further tendencies toward dogmatism don't help either, since some types dislike backtracking, deriding it as "flip-flopping" and so forth. Sometimes it's rational to reserve final judgment instead of running with a snap judgment. However, rationality isn't always optimal in a historical evolutionary context when one might be in a fight-or-flight situation, and reserving judgment could mean being a predator's meal.

Two, people can sometimes trust what they hear from their social network despite contradictory evidence:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21311730/wid/11915773

The new study, published this week online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reveals individuals sometimes place so much stock in gossip that they accept it as true even if their own observations and experiences suggest otherwise.

It could be in-group bias in play there. It's interesting that it's been found to be sometimes sufficiently strong that a disconnect from reality occurs. Cue Philip K. Dick.

Finally, intentions only go so far in my book. People may even genuinely think they're telling the truth, but sometimes they're undone by motivated reasoning:
http://www.ciadvertising.org/SA/fall_05/adv392/kasey/site1/motivated_reasoning2.htm

Research on motivation has consistently shown that people are motivated to come to a desired conclusion (see Kunda 1990 for review). Building support through a broad sample of research, Kunda's (1990) theory of motivated reasoning posits that "people rely on cognitive processes and representations to arrive at their desired conclusions, but motivation plays a role in determining which of these will be used on a given occasion"...

Kunda devotes much of the theory of motivated reasoning to motives arrived at through directional bias to reach a desired conclusion. Motivation affects reasoning "through reliance on a biased set of cognitive processes: strategies for accessing, constructing and evaluating beliefs"... This occurs when people are motivated to reach a certain, desired conclusion, and they conduct a biased memory search to find justification for their decision.

That's also reflected in confirmation bias, where people tend to look for things which they already agree with, and avoid looking for things that might contradict their position.

More likely people think they have ESP, when they don't. Heh.

[unagothae.livejournal.com]

Ah, the great herd mentality. If you have an opinion, you are part of the herd. If you don't, you are "other".

I see the news the way I see Soap Operas. It's all stories, based loosely on reality, for entertainment. I am considered ignorant because I avoid it all. I consider most people ignorant because they do not understand the mechanics and social dynamics of storytelling.

The only difference between me and most people is that I know when I have chosen to be entertained. Most people suffer the delusion that their entertainment is reality because it reflects elements of reality.

Most of the time those conversations are impersonal ways of looking for connections with other human beings. They want to know if you think like them and share their reality. Even if you disagree, you are part of the shared reality because you understand the cultural reference. Refusing to have an opinion and not even getting the reference put you outside the shared reality and makes you harder to connect with in an impersonal fashion.

Whatever you do, don't remind them that the characters in their stories are human beings. It embarrasses them when they realize that the people they are so quick to condemn aren't so very different from them. Reminds them of all of the stupid shit they do. That just makes you a know it all and a killjoy.

[mr-sharkey.livejournal.com]

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Somebody Irish

Sometimes you decide just standing there isn't enough. When you decide, or why you decide, is no one's business but your own.


M.

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

This is really interesting, and linking in with some thinking I'm doing at the moment. Because I am/was a scientist, and I'm very much in with the "this side of that house is white" mentality, but one of the things that's putting me off about science is the lack of people skills and nuance around me. So I'm wondering if people who are less able to read bodylanguage etc are more likely to not make other assumptions. Because it does occur to me that when I jump to unwarranted conclusions, they are often snap judgements based on something about their behaviour or tone of voice or something (and sometimes those snap judgements are right on the mone.)

Anyway, before I encountered SiaSL, I learnt a joke about an astronomer, a physicist, and a mathematician, who are on a train heading up to a conference in the highlands of Scotland. They've never been to Scotland before. They look out the window and see a sheep. The astronomer says "Ah, Scottish sheep are black". The physicist says "That's an overgeneralisation, typical of your field. All we know is that this Scottish sheep is black". The mathematician says "I'm amazed at the assumptions you can get away with your fields. All we know is that this side of this sheep is black."

[geekers.livejournal.com]

(Pardon the dim sum-sized comment via crackberry...)

I can't count the number of relationships (friendships and otherwise) that have ended because somebody decided they already knew What I Did - and for bonus points Why I Did It - without deigning to ask me about it first.

... and even more bonus points if any of these things are based on anonymous and/or unrevealed sources (people, studies, etc.), which might not truly exist (+) -or- sources (people) that are ones friends/aquaintences' words being said against ones' back, which once again may or may not be true (++).

Btw, "The lurkers support me in email." ;)

Note: this comment was written sans coffee, worded strangely, and might not make sense. If you agree, respond and I'll reword post coffee. ;)

[http://users.livejournal.com/cincinnatus_c_/]

"It's painted white on this side."

This reminded me of a chapter in Italo Calvino's Mr. Palomar that I like to think of now and then. I just went and read it, and I was pleasantly surprised at just how close a line of it comes to that line. But the chapter is a debate between both sides. I wish I could reproduce all of it, it makes me so happy to read it. I'll see if I can get about half of it in. Mr. Palomar is at a Toltec pyramid in Mexico, and his Mexican friend is telling him stories about the layers of allegorical meaning in the bas-relief sculptures. Meanwhile a group of schoolchildren is going around, and every now and then Mr. Palomar hears their teacher listing off some features of and facts about the carvings, and concluding each time, "We don't know what it means." And now let's see how much I can fit in here:

Though Mr. Palomar continues to follow the explanation of his friend acting as guide, he always ends up crossing the path of the schoolboys and overhearing the teacher's words. He is fascinated by his friend's wealth of mythological references: the play of interpretation and allegorical reading has always seemed to him a supreme exercise of mind. But he feels attracted also by the opposite attitude of the schoolteacher: what had at first seemed only a brisk lack of interest is being revealed to him as a scholarly and pedagogical position, a methodological choice by this serious and conscientious young man, a rule from which he will not swerve. A stone, a figure, a sign, a word reaching us isolated from its context is only that stone, figure, sign, or word: we can try to define them, to describe them as they are, and no more than that; whether, beside the face they show us, they also have a hidden face, is not for us to know. The refusal to comprehend more than what the stones show us is perhaps the only way to evince respect for their secret; trying to guess is a presumption, a betrayal of that true, lost meaning

Behind the pyramid is a passage or communication trench between two walls, one of packed earth, the other of carved stone: the Wall of the Serpents. It is perhaps the most beautiful piece in Tula; in the relief-frieze there is a sequence of serpents, each holding a human skull in its open jaws, as if it were about to devour it.

The boys go by. The teacher says: "This is the Wall of the Serpents. Each serpent has a skull in its mouth. We don't know what they mean."

Mr. Palomar's friend cannot contain himself: "Yes, we do! It's the continuity of life and death; the serpents are life, the skulls are death. Life is life because it bears death with it, and death is death because there is no life without death...."

The boys listen, mouths agape, black eyes dazed. Mr. Palomar thinks that every translation requires another translation, and so on. He asks himself: "What did death, life, continuity, passage mean for the ancient Toltecs? And what can they mean today for these boys? And for me?" Yet he knows he could never suppress in himself the need to translate, to move from one language to another, from concrete figures to abstract words, to weave and reweave a network of analogies. Not to interpret is impossible, as refraining from thinking is impossible.

Once the school group has disappeared around a corner, the stubborn voice of the little teacher resumes: "No es veridad, it is not true, what that senor said. We don't know what they mean."