Embrace Your Biases: There’s Nothing Else You Can Do

We humans tend to think we’re pretty god damn special. We can walk, we can talk, we can explode ourselves into space. The rest of the animal kingdom is WEAK compared to us. We’re smart, we tell ourselves. And as far as we can tell, yeah—the rest of the animal kingdom is pretty dim. So what makes us so great? What is it that sets us apart? Ready for the answer? Well I’m not yet ready to tell you yet.

Philosophers and now psychologists have been arguing about this for centuries, asking silly unimportant questions like, “When will an infant know its mother?” or “Do chimpanzees know they exist?” or “Can a dolphin recognize itself in a mirror?” in order to try and find truth. Now these may be interesting questions whose answers could provide insight into human cognition, but the most important fact is that we humans have something other animals don’t. What is it? Alright, you’ve earned it: it’s the awareness that other individuals have consciousness. We know that others act on their own individual motivations that we aren’t necessarily aware of. And not only that! We’re aware of our own minds! We take these incredibly unique abilities for granted. We don’t think twice about it.

They can, however, get us into trouble.

Each year the scientific humor magazine Annals of Improbable Research presents a parody of the Nobel Prize ceremony by giving out their version, the Ig Nobel Prizes, to ten strange or silly achievements in scientific research. Previous winners include Dominique M.R. Georget, R. Parker, and Andrew C. Smith of Norwich, England, for their serious study of soggy breakfast cereal, and Ellen Kleist of Nuuk, Greenland and Harald Moi of Oslo, Norway, for their important research on the “Transmission of Gonorrhea Through an Inflatable Doll.”

A few years ago two Cornell University scientists, David Dunning and Justin Kruger, put forth a study that won them the highly sought-after prize. But I think the research was far from ignoble—in fact it was quite interesting and so deserving of love that I’m here to give it some (but not the gonorrhea from inflatable doll kind, I’ll have you know). The two discovered the scientific basis for a cognitive bias and coined their appropriately self-serving discovery the Dunning-Kruger effect.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is the tendency for unskilled individuals to suffer from illusory superiority, viewing their skills as much higher than average when they are in fact poor performers. The Dunning-Kruger effect also suggests that truly skillful and competent individuals may underrate their ability. The illusory superiority displayed by the unskilled has been attributed to a lack of metacognitive insight that leads to an inability to recognize their mistakes.

We’ve all met someone who believes they are smarter, funnier, more talented, etc. than they really are. We’ve all got a friend who wants to be a comedian but has a terrible sense of humor. A friend who thinks they can sing but whose voice sounds like a sick sea lion. A friend who fancies himself a good writer but has way, way too many commas in his copy.

Well, crap. How then can we look objectively at our own skill sets? How can I be sure that I actually am good at magic, writing, or cuddling? Perhaps, we are then forced to wonder, is our confidence is just a symptom of illusory superiority? Not only that, but another cognitive bias gets in the way—our Confirmation Bias, which makes it easier to remember things that confirm our beliefs and ignore conflicting information. And what about the Backfire Effect, our tendency to react to negative evidence by strengthening our beliefs? And we can’t forget the Bias Blind-Spot effect, where individuals think they are less biased than their peers. Want a kick to the head? There are over 200 documented decision-making, belief, behavioral, social, and memory biases.

And it’s been shown that awareness of biases does little to counteract them, often making things worse because we fall foolishly into thinking that we can.

So what is a human to do?

This is all very worrying. Although we have both a) the metacognitive ability to be aware of our thoughts and b) the awareness that others have minds, it turns out we’re severely shortsighted in our perspective of reality. We view life through the warped lens of the present, distorting our memories of the past and limiting our ability to imagine our futures. This leads to an extremely disconcerting notion—how can we really be sure of anything? We are so incredibly biased in so many ways that it may be worth considering the option of submitting to the fact that we just can’t objectively view ourselves. Strangely, ironically, we can’t truly know ourselves.

Damn.

But it’s for the best.

It is fairly universally accepted that the human struggle includes the avoidance of pain and the search for pleasure. We base our day-to-day actions around pursuing fulfillment indirectly by chasing those things we believe will make us happy. Whether we’ve convinced ourselves that money, power, prestige, fame, or material goods will do it, we run. We hoof. We grind. And if we saw ourselves as we actually were, we’d probably throw ourselves off a bridge. We probably can’t handle the truth. And because our brains are smarter than we are, we stay oblivious to it.

Just as a relationship won’t survive without an optimal level of disillusionment, our overconfident and inflated sense of our own importance and genius is the only thing that allows us to succeed.

We’re all racist and self-serving megalomaniacs, even if our brains won’t let us believe it.

Or maybe it’s just me.

Kevin

powered by TinyLetter

  • Cody Miller

    I like your article Kevin, but I don’t entirely agree. I think there are people that are selfless, that don’t seek money, power, fame, etc… Take Ghandi for example he did the things he did because they were right and not because he himself wanted power or fame. His human struggle didn’t include the avoidance of pain and the search for pleasure and in his case I believe he probably could objectively view himself as a man who stood for a cause. I do think that many people can fall into what you explained above, however I feel that you can in fact objectively view yourself in you take a step back and look at whats truly important in life instead of the more trivial things of money, power, fame, etc… And in this case we would see ourselves for something worthy of not being ‘thrown off a bridge’.

    • Kevin Ferguson

      I agree, Cody. I do believe that it is possible for one to live outside the striving for power, money, etc. and live selflessly. However, it’s not quite realistic for most people. The biases that I discuss above are ones that have been found to exist in a laboratory setting. That doesn’t mean, obviously, that they are always there, but for most people (especially ones who live western, developed lives), these biases exist.

      As for Ghandi, are you suggesting that he did not find pleasure in helping others and seek it, or pain in seeing the pain in other and seek to erase it? I think it is possible to live a selfless life from a certain standpoint, but I think we’d be hard pressed to find a case of a non sociopathic person who didn’t want to find pleasure (in a good or bad way) or seek to avoid pain.

      Perhaps I wasn’t clear in the article. The things that would make us upset about ourselves (I exaggerated in saying they would lead us to suicide), are the simple shortsightedness and lack of perspective on our true selves, capabilities, and intents that come from being fallible people. Our greatest strength is also our greatest weakness—our humanity.

      That’s not to say that there aren’t fantastic and wonderful and amazing ways to go about living. I hope that I’m working towards pursuing one.

      Thanks for commenting, I really appreciate it!

      • Cody Miller

        Check this out, this is a guy who describes my point he is kind of weird, but he is selfless.

        I do agree with you though that most westerners are very into material things and seem to put their self before anyone else.

  • Sean

    Nice read Kev, although I was a bit confused by the last couple lines. I don’t think we have to be racist or self-serving necessarily. In fact, some scientists would argue that altruism is a naturally selected-for trait among humans because those who worked together and shared survived. Also the view that the animal kingdom is weak or dim (which I don’t believe is a view you actually hold), would certainly not be common among those who study biology or those who have not been culturally indoctrinated to think that way. There is a good documentary called Pagans, part of which explains how much man respected the strength and beauty of the animal kingdom until the Romans/Christians preached the superiority of mankind (being chosen by God and what not). Anyways, always a pleasure.

    • Kevin Ferguson

      Sean! How ya doin.

      I suppose I need to clarify.

      When I say racist, I mean we can’t avoid unconscious preferences and they will affect our behavior, even if only for a split-second. For example, white people tend to unconsciously and automatically find an easier time comparing African-American faces with negative words than Caucasian faces. You can read about it (and tons of other political, social, and cultural bias research) in the longstanding and hugely impacting Harvard Implicit Test here: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/background/index.jsp. You can be sure when I say racist I don’t mean consciously and hatefully. I don’t mean we’re bad people, I mean there’s nothing we can do about the tendency, even if we try to counteract. As humans, we are affected by priming and familiarity.

      Similar to the assumption Cody made that self-serving behavior is exclusive of seemingly ‘selfless’ actions, you seem to have misunderstood my meaning. I don’t disagree that human altruism has been selected for and can be found, in fact, I’ve argued for fighting our evolved selfishness in a previous article (http://www.mindofkevin.com/youre-doing-it-wrong/selfish/), though I do stand by what I said in that article—selfishness has been selected for at the gene level. If you want a fuller understanding, send me an email and I’ll explain it, or pick up Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene. Suffice it to reiterate that although we can be altruistic, we are often doing so for self-serving purposes, whether it’s Gandhi doing good because it brings him joy or us helping out our friends when they’re in trouble—we humans have the unique concept of the future that allows us to act according to things that may happen then. I will act altruistically, but I do so with the (not necessarily conscious) expectation that someone will return the favor when I’m in need.

      In saying weak and dim I’m being a bit facetious—I am not one to belittle the incredible achievements of the animal kingdom sans-humans. I think animals are incredible. The complexity of the work of such animals as bees and ants is fucking staggering. I’m merely putting into perspective an often voiced opinion in order to make the point that we too have our shortcomings. I haven’t seen the doc you’re talking about, but as nature is by definition, it would seem, awe-inspiring, I’m happy we’ve achieved the advances that allow the average western audience to watch Planet Earth on Discovery.

      Thanks again for reading and commenting!

      Kevin

  • http://georgeamills.com George Mills

    Do you think that we, as a species, are in danger of over-thinking every aspect of our existence? (I draw your attention to this nugget of information you gave me, “There are over 200 documented decision-making, belief, behavioral, social, and memory biases.”)

    To me, Psychology is often flawed in that it, deliberately or not, attempts to quantitatively measure things that do not naturally lend themselves to be measured in this way. How does one differentiate between the 200 documented biases? With objective measures of brain activity, or subjective observations of human behaviour?

    p.s Please bare in mind before writing a reply of crippling intelligence that I have NO idea what I’m talking about, and the above article carries as much psychological information as I have ever been aware of in my life.

    Loving the posts though, and still not over that font. Like Hendrixx pixelated.

    • Kevin Ferguson

      You raise an extremely valid point. How can we quantitatively measure human cognitive states? Emotions, feelings? If we want to measure happiness qualitatively, we have to look at neurons. But the only way we can tell what happens when neurons fire is to ask the subject… It’s a circular situation in which we can’t escape subjectivity.

      But I don’t agree that this means we shouldn’t, or can’t, use psychology and neuroscience to learn about ourselves. It’s true that psychology will make many, many silly mistakes, give false reports, and there will be misunderstandings, but that’s the same for every science. Because the study of psychology is such a new science there will absolutely be error. But only in trying will we be able to progress, and validity can still be found within scientific research with subjective reports (you just need a lot of them). So all is not lost.

      Thanks for responding thoughtfully!

  • Pingback: Blame and Understanding | Mind of KevinMind of Kevin

More in You're Doing it Wrong (14 of 36 articles)