Just
a reminder that the purpose of this discussion aims at stimulating
thought and self awareness as tools
to help those in recovery
from trauma learn how to make safer
choices. To make the discussion more jocular, we've defined
Cognitive Biases as “CranioRectal
Inversions” (CRI).
I think
of this as knowing just enough about something to be dangerous.
Basically, people – roughly two thirds of people – who lack
training in a certain topic grossly overestimate their skill and
aptitude by wrongly assuming that they hold mastery of it. They
project confidence about it because they're totally ignorant of the
fact that they're misguided.
Take note of the diagram
that I've borrowed from Skepticblog
which shows the convergence of estimation of scores and actual test
scores as knowledge improves. Unless and until they actually gain
some legitimate training in the area, people who fall into the
Dunning Krueger trap also fail to accurately estimate the skill of
others. There are tons of people like this in pseudoscience fields –
the blind leading the blind.
On the
other hand, the people who actually possess reasonable mastery of a
topic or skill tend to underestimate their aptitude. They also tend
to take for granted that a particular field of study that comes
easier to them comes just as easy to others. So they also tend to
underestimate the skill and knowledge needed because they use
themselves as a starting point of comparison. I have read that only
children tend to be prone this aspect of the Dunning-Kreuger
Effect. Apparently siblings provide a great service by stretching
one's ability to more easily comprehend different perspectives.
Dunning
Kruger's Flipside
I tend
to fall into the flip side of this tendency (sometimes called the
Imposter Syndrome) because of how I was parented. Any kind
of 'pride' including healthy self-satisfaction was punished as the
sin of conceit. I worked hard and still sometimes have to bolster
myself to overcome this underestimation of self. It's a terrible
thing to do to a child, something I discussed at some length in how
parents unknowingly prime
a child to be easy prey for spiritual abuse.
I
remember sitting with a group of nurses at lunch more than a quarter
of a century ago, and one lashed out at me, claiming that I feigned
ineptitude as a means of getting attention. She came from a “good
enough” family and had no clue what I felt. My default assumption
was always that I was the most inept person in the crowd. I was
never permitted to truly lay hold of my abilities or to have the
attitude that I was competent. I could trust competency that I
demonstrated, but I never really trusted that it was 'me.' If I
turned out to be successful at something, it was just habit or
something that everyone else could do.
I sat
there, feeling utterly shocked, partly because I'd never heard the
angry coworker say anything complementary about me. (Well, it wasn't
directly complementary, but there was a modicum of respect buried
under her frustration.) If I was successful at something, it had to
be fluke, or I owed that success to someone else. Though it was
confusing and painful, it became a watershed moment for me where I
was able to recognize this tendency in myself through the eyes (or
rather the accusatory feedback) of someone else.
It
called clearly for me to change and grow, and none of that has been
an easy process. I'm still working this out. I didn't have the
healthy encouragement that I needed when I was young, and I find that
it is quite a difficult thing to learn as an adult. 'Normal' people
from 'good enough' homes take so much of what seems like
self-awareness and self-knowledge for granted. I not only have to
figure out who I am, where I am, and how I fit with others, but I
also have to overcome the old baggage of the negative, disturbing
messages of the past – my default path of least resistance.
Like
other biases, I seem to attach a moral meaning to it all and risk
thinking more highly of myself than I should. Keep in mind that for
me, because of all of this baggage, certain admonishments in
Scripture were quite skewed. The English Standard Version of the
Apostle Paul's letter to the Church in Philippi translates a
statement as “Do nothing from selfish
ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant
than yourselves.”
Doesn't that somehow
automatically make others more significant than me – especially in
terms of needs? This does attach a definitive moral weight to
ascribing more significance to self than is warranted, but I still
struggle to figure out the difference between healthy ambition that
flows from a strong sense of self-worth and selfish, sinful ambition
which demands the laud of others. I was raised without any awareness
or permission to have healthy self-worth. How can I begin to interpret this moral imperative in a healthy way without a healthy footing as a starting place?
In
the Leader
Leaders
in high demand groups sometimes know very much about theology, but
sometimes, they don't. Many incompetent religious leaders survive on
their charm and charisma, by playing politics, parroting others,
and/or by feigning empathy (which they lack). Their forte shines in
their people skills, not in their ability to exemplify the values of
their faith. Then there are the leaders who are true believers who
are really good guys until it comes to certain matters. Then they
pull the authority card, and the good guy melts away. The Sacred
Science which governs group dynamics ensures the illusion that the
leader is a master of knowledge. Many groups also enforce the idea
that if skilled in one area, the leader must have special insight and
superior skills in all areas. Those who fail to observe this
tradition suffer a variety of direct and indirect types of punishment
by the leaders and by other members.
Like the
cult leader's Illusion
of Asymmetric Insight into the lives of others becomes an
institutionalized part of an unhealthy religious system, the
Dunning-Krueger Effect can come into play. I'm continually amazed at
how automatically this seems to happen in a high demand group with a
charismatic leader. Even if that leader is incompetent, no one may
speak of the Emperor's New Clothes. Instead of saying
nothing, the system demands that members encourage whatever the
leader does – whether it's good or not. Perhaps I think this way
because of my own experiences, but I wonder if high demand
relationships require that the subordinate parties adopt their
version of the Imposter Syndrome? Perhaps it become akin to the
patterns
that Patrick
Carnes notes in dysfunctional relationships?
As
the Leader's Weapon
A few
times in my life, I have had the intensely painful experience of
confrontations with a few people who have been my authorities of one
variety or another. They all tend towards self-serving biases that
cast them as somewhat superior or very superior to others, all in
their own, unique ways. Two of those people were more blue collar
vocational folks, one I think of as a quasi-professional (college
education in theology), and one was an academic type professional
with an advanced degree. There was a definitive power motive in
play, and the goal was the annihilation of my confidence. They meant
to shame me into shutting up and jumping back into line as a
subordinate without an opinion of worth. Two of them were leaders in
my spiritually abusive church.
Three of
these people really caught me off guard because I thought of all but
the academic as as very empathic, but I suppose that everyone has
their limits. Relationships among imperfect people become
complicated. People will sometimes also resort to out-of-character
behavior when they feel threatened, and I didn't think that they were
capable of or ever interested in ever hurting anyone that deeply.
Basically, when faced with something about me that they didn't want
to accept or couldn't respect, they chose to protect their bias at my
expense. I was accused of suffering from the Dunning-Krueger Effect,
or what I think of as “too big for my britches.”
Having
worked through the uphill battle of a lifetime to embrace who I am
(sometimes quite capbable) and take pleasure in accomplishment (which
differs from sinful pride), I don't have adequate words to express
how much pain it creates for me when I'm accused of being haughty or
puffed up about something specific. On two occasions, I answered
questions that the people I spoke with didn't know that I knew and
felt shame that I'd happily offered an answer to the question. (I
well could have pointed to sources in reference books that would have
backed me up and could contact professionals that could verify my
interpretation.) The other two occasions involved my offer to do
work that I'd done quite successfully in the past. How hard it is
for me to listen to someone tell me that I can't possibly have done a
particular thing or couldn't possibly have been trained in a
particular area when I know that I have. And I don't understand the
posturing and the angry or glib response of those who discount me.
I think
with three of the people that come to my mind now, I believe that if
they really understood how painful their response was for me, given
my history, they would not have said what they said to me. And the
other person? It troubles me deeply because I don't believe that
they even care, one way or the other. Used as a weapon against me
that renders me powerless and makes any attempt to plead my own case
look like subterfuge, the accusation of being the opposite of who I
know that I am hurts terribly. The statements weren't made to help
me see through my own bias. They were made to hurt me and bolster
someone else at my own expense. I became insignificant, helpless,
and forever fundamentally flawed.
Two of my religious leaders have done this to me quite poignantly. It happened quite a bit on a low level, too, just among other members of my church. We all had to praise the new clothes of the emperor. We paid the price if we failed in that duty. For someone who grew up with a collapsed sense of self, it seems to me that encountering a leader who tends towards this kind of bias results in terrible pain. It goes back to the moral issue for me -- that I have disregarded others and used them in the process of trying to pretend that I'm more than I am. To me, that's one of the very worst things that a person could do to another precious soul, especially if they are already so wounded. I've been there and know how painful it is. How ironic that a person in pain can turn their own bias around to make it their weapon. For me, it isn't just a bias or a blind spot or a human failing. It's an act of harm. That is something that I never want to ever do to another. (And that is a world away from healthy conflict, even if the negotiations are heated and uncomfortable. One can disagree without deep insults about a person's being.)
Two of my religious leaders have done this to me quite poignantly. It happened quite a bit on a low level, too, just among other members of my church. We all had to praise the new clothes of the emperor. We paid the price if we failed in that duty. For someone who grew up with a collapsed sense of self, it seems to me that encountering a leader who tends towards this kind of bias results in terrible pain. It goes back to the moral issue for me -- that I have disregarded others and used them in the process of trying to pretend that I'm more than I am. To me, that's one of the very worst things that a person could do to another precious soul, especially if they are already so wounded. I've been there and know how painful it is. How ironic that a person in pain can turn their own bias around to make it their weapon. For me, it isn't just a bias or a blind spot or a human failing. It's an act of harm. That is something that I never want to ever do to another. (And that is a world away from healthy conflict, even if the negotiations are heated and uncomfortable. One can disagree without deep insults about a person's being.)
And if anyone is interested, my relationships with all of the people I allude to above did not last. They couldn't. I became healthy enough to end them.
For
Further Reading until the next post:
- One of the $3 Kindle books about Cognitive Bias at Amazon.com
- Shermer's The Believing Brain
- Carroll's Skeptic's Dictionary
- Gilovich, Griffin & Kahneman's Heuristics and Biases
- Robert Cialdini's Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion
- Judith Herman's Trauma
and Recovery
