On Being Wrong

Geoff will start discussion on this at the October 2018 meeting.

We all love to be right (I told you so). But next meeting we are going to appreciate being wrong. We will reconsider folly, error, delusion, hallucination, and fallacy in a different light, and in doing so improve our relationships and self-resilience.

The book I will use as the core reading for our next meeting is by Kathryn Schulz: "Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error"

I intend to summarise the book at the start of our meeting so don't feel obliged to read it all beforehand.

There is a TED talk video by Kathryn Schulz about the book

https://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong?language=en

I will try to summarise the book at the start of the session.

Questions

1. Do you agree you are biased against recognising you are wrong? Do you go further and cling to insisting you are right even when overwhelming evidence shows you are wrong?

2. What did Augustine mean by “I err therefore I am”? Compare this to “I think therefore I am” or “I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am” (Descartes).

3. Schulz said capable people get used to positive feedback on their decisions. This can create arrogance so capable people are less likely to accept they are wrong and so go on to make things worse by pushing harder on their incorrect view. However Malcolm Gladwell in “Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking” says many experts use pattern recognition to make decisions rather than thinking sequentially so get good at making good decisions without checking all the facts or logical steps. He says trained experts make better decisions with little info, which he calls “thin slicing”. However in “Money ball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game” Michael Lewis showed making decisions based on data is superior to coaches’ hunches for choosing players. Is Schulz, Gladwell or Lewis right?

4. The Dunning-Kruger effect https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overview-of-the-dunning-kruger-effect-4160740 says the correlation between confidence and competence is not positive. Less competent people have less ability to judge their own competence. More competent people overrate others competence relative to their own. Both cause a negative correlation. “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” – Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871). “The fundamental cause of trouble in the world is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” — Bertrand Russell, Mortals and Others 1: American Essays 1931-35 The correlation is higher for women. So if I am a capable woman, should I ignore the thesis of Schulz’s book?

5. If capable people take Schulz’s advice and work hard to recognise better when they are wrong, how can they avoid the opposite error of being too humble and assume they are wrong when they are actually right? Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics recommended the virtue of Magnanimity. This is the virtue relating to pride; the midpoint between not giving yourself enough credit and having delusions of grandeur. It is a given that you also have to act on this sense of self-worth and strive for greatness. If the “On Being Wrong” book is about avoiding delusions of being right, does Aristotle’s midpoint goal help us find a better balance and avoid being too humble and thus miss out on greatness?

6. Even if we think we are right because we are female and better informed or educated, how do we convince the other person with a different view without coming across as a know-it-all?

7. If my teenage son makes what I see as a mistake I try to help by explaining to him how to do it better next time. This makes him defensive and reject what I said. I then feel frustrated and that I have potentially lowered his self esteem by him not feeling like I respect his views. Can I use Schulz’s book to improve this process by first admitting to my many mistakes when I was his age?

8. I have conflict with my many siblings on how to manage my elderly parents. Can I overcome the impasse by saying my view was wrong, and then hope they are more willing to make concessions given I have sacrificed my ego? What if I still strongly believe I was right? Is this insincere? Is it being Machiavellian? Or is it just reflecting my improved emotional intelligence by not caring about my ego as much?

9. By recognising we are often wrong when we think we are right, can we reduce errors despite the fact there are so many causes for errors that are hard to change? One reason is we all make assumptions to decide quickly. We rely on our feelings or intuition instead of first validating them with facts. Other reasons are optical illusions, neurological deficits, memory failures and irrational beliefs. Why We Make Mistakes (2005) Hallinan says the brain strips out things it deems unimportant so we feel like we see everything but we only see what the brain perceives as important. In “Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)” Tavris and Aronson says when faced with cognitive dissonance (mental anguish from trying to reconcile two conflicting ideas – our own competence and honour versus circumstantial facts to the contrary) we bend reality to fit our beliefs, which leads to errors.

10. Should the takeaway be that we take a positive view of being wrong and celebrate our errors as Schulz recommends? If so, if a doctor amputates the wrong leg should they still celebrate their error? Or do we only celebrate minor errors? When is an error bad enough that we don’t celebrate it?

11. Einstein said that insanity is making the same mistake over and over and expecting a different result. If we accept the thesis of Schulz’s book, can we change by practicing getting used to recognising and saying we were wrong so we do it better? How can I prevent my folly of going on thinking I am right when I am wrong? The sceptics said it is better to not assume anything is right to avoid this situation. Klosterman (2017) advises us to “think about the present as if it were the distant past.” because it shows what is right changes with time. He also said we should build hypotheses recognising their likely wrongness. Do we always try to first find a perspective where we are wrong? Drucker says we should regularly review where we are not appreciated and where we are appreciated and do more of the latter. Do we stand in front of a mirror and say I was wrong? Religions historically recommended prayer, confession, contemplation, meditation, writing, martial arts, and yoga. The stoics argue negative visualisation (recognising the worst that can happen and accepting it) make us immune to our internal biases. What works?

12. Admitting we were wrong as Schulz recommends, presumes we can tell we were wrong. But how do we know when we are wrong or right if there is imperfect information and both mine and others’ judgements may be biased as she claims. To me there is a circular argument in her logic that prevents us acting on her recommendations. The biases and imperfect information both prevent us realising we are wrong and admitting it.

13. Are there good reasons to avoid recognising when we are wrong even if there are benefits that Schulz argued? If we recognise the error of our ways, do we move more toward the problem of greater mental health issues? Psychologists argue that positivity is a protective trait that reduces the likelihood of mental illness. Al Bandura said self-efficacy is the reason some people with same skills and knowledge achieve more goals. Self confidence is a good predictor of success because you expect to succeed, you are able to take risks, you are more persistent and you control emotions better when the going gets tough.

14. The economist Gary Becker recognised people invest in their human capital (such as education and health), when there is a positive return on investment. This implies we will invest in our self awareness about being wrong when the returns are positive. When are the returns positive? The previous question considers the costs to investing in our self development preventing over-insisting we are right. Schulz and personal development psychologists say we benefit from self development. Individuals seek individuation, the drive to achieve the wholeness and balance of the Self (Carl Gustav Jung). We have aspirations, called "the Dream" (Daniel Levinson) to be a better person. These aspirations look forward and do not limit themselves to unconscious drives or to childhood experiences and should be consistent with our "lifestyle", defined as an individual's characteristic approach to life, in facing problems and of self image (Adler). When are our aspirations and self image to be a better person more important than the mental health costs?

15. A moral transformation occurs when a long resisted truth breaks through against psychological resistance. But this may lead to more illusion that this is the final true self. Is the conclusion that we think of ourselves as having plural selves which continually evolve?