THINKER'S ALMANAC - December 2

What prior experience did Mario Savio have that made him adamant about the importance of fighting for the right to free speech on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley, in 1964?

Subject:  Free Speech - Campus Sit-ins

Event:  Mario Savio’s Sit-in Address, 1964

The most beautiful thing in the world is freedom of speech. -Diogenes

In 1964, protests broke out on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley, when campus officials began placing restrictions on students’ political activities and free speech on campus.  The leader of the student Free Speech Movement was Mario Savio, who organized a staged sit-in on campus on this day in 1964.

                                                                Image by Dean Moriarty from Pixabay 

The prior summer, Savio had been a part of the Mississippi Summer Project, an effort to register black voters after the signing of the Civil Rights Act on July 2, 1964.  That summer, three activists were murdered in Philadelphia, Mississippi.

Savio explained how his Civil Rights work related to free speech at Berkeley:  ''I spent the summer in Mississippi. I witnessed tyranny. I saw groups of men in the minority working their wills over the majority. Then I came back here and found the university preventing us from collecting money for use there and even stopping us from getting people to go to Mississippi to help.''

As a crowd of protestors gathered in front of Berkeley’s main administration building, Savio addressed the crowd, urging them to take part in the sit-in inside of the administration building:

There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!

Nearly 800 protestors were arrested that day, but by December 8, 1964, the university’s Board of Regents hired a new chancellor, who granted the demands of the Free Speech Movement.

More than one hundred years earlier, in 1859, the English philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote about the importance of free speech.  In Chapter two of his book On Liberty, Mill argues the essential nature of allowing the voicing of all opinions, especially those in the minority:

If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

Mill further argues that only through a diversity of opinions can we generate the kind of necessary debate that will prevent dogmatism:

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. (2)

In his book The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth, Jonathan Rauch credits Mill, explaining that his insights are as relevant today as they have ever been and that we only can get closer to the truth by comparing diverse points of view:

Without pluralism and viewpoint diversity, transcending our biases is impossible, even in principle.  Perfect objectivity will always elude us, but we can come much closer if we follow the empirical rule by checking our views against others’ different views, which of course is possible only where these disagree. (3)

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What was John Stuart Mill’s argument for why free speech is so important?

Challenge - Speak Up: What is the best thing that anyone has ever said about free speech?  Do some research to find some quotations on the topic.  Write down the one you like the best, and explain why you find it insightful.

Sources:

1-Pace, Eric. “Mario Savio, Protest Leader Who Set a Style, Dies at 53.” The New York Times 8 Nov. 1996.

2. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Project Gutenberg, 10 January 2011.

3. Rauch, Jonathan. The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2021: 193.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - December 1

How can an attic and a ladder help us to better understand our thinking processes?

Subject:  Thinking and Memory - The Brain Attic and Ladder of Inference

Event:  Sir Arthur Conan Doyle introduces Sherlock Holmes, 1887

On this day in 1887, the detective Sherlock Holmes first appeared in Arthur Conan Doyle’s story “A Study in Scarlet.”  The story was published in a paperback magazine called Beeton’s Christmas Annual (1).

Early in the story, Holmes is becoming acquainted with his new roommate, Dr. Watson, who also is the narrator of the story.  As the two talk, Holmes presents a metaphor that explains his philosophy towards knowledge:  the brain attic:

I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones. (2)

To sum up Holmes' philosophy, we might say simply, “Garbage in, garbage out.”  Clearly, his brain attic metaphor challenges us to be conscious and mindful about how and with what we stock our memory.

One essential piece of hardware we might use for this task is called the Ladder of Inference.  Many people need a ladder to reach their attics, but this is not a ladder you will find at the hardware store.  Like the brain attic, it’s a metaphor.

The Ladder of Inference was created by organization psychologist Chris Argyris.  By breaking our light-speed thinking process down into six phases, we can analyze how we infer meaning, draw conclusions, establish beliefs, and take action.  By making our thinking process less hurried and random, we’re much more likely to keep our brain attic uncluttered.

                                                                Image by tommy pixel from Pixabay 

Before we look at the six rungs of the ladder of inference, let’s look at a short story that we can use to illustrate how we might use the ladder.

Sale Lost, Lesson Gained

One early morning, a used car salesman named Jerry arrived for duty.  Standing outside, he surveyed his inventory, hoping the day would produce some sales.  Suddenly, a yellow Vega driven by an elderly woman turned into the car lot and pulled up alongside Jerry.  The woman rolled down her window and asked:

“Do you discount here?”

Jerry responded, “Yes, ma’am,” as he tried to conceal his excitement.

The woman frowned and said, “Pappy always said there’s no bargain in discounted goods.”  The woman then rolled up her window and proceeded to drive out of the car lot.

As he watched the yellow Vega in the distance, Jerry thought about the brief encounter.  Looking for a silver lining, he thought: “Well, I lost my first customer of the day, but at least I gained a point of view.” 

We begin our thinking process on the bottom, first rung of the ladder by FILTERING DATA based on the information we take in from our senses. Sherlock Holmes was a master at observation.  He knew that only by deliberately and consciously practicing seeing, can we learn to truly observe.  No one sees, hears, tastes, smells, or feels everything; we are all limited by our different perceptions of reality.  Therefore, instead of seeing all of reality and all facts, we select a part of reality -- the part that seems important to us based on the context of the situation.  For example, in our story, many cars were driving by the used car lot, but our narrator focused primarily on the yellow Vega that pulled into the lot.  

Next, we step up to the second rung by INFERRING MEANING based on what data we have selected.  This step requires interpretation and educated guesses, and it can be heavily influenced by emotion, associations, and cultural/personal experience.  For example, in our story, the narrator inferred that the driver of the Pinto was looking for a “discount” even though she never explicitly said that she was.

The third rung is where we MAKE ASSUMPTIONS.  Often these assumptions are unconscious rather than conscious assumptions.  This is also the rung where we begin to build a narrative that will explain what we see and hear.  Unfortunately, we seldom question that narrative or generate alternative possible explanations.  For example, in our story, the narrator assumed that his interpretation of the word “discount” was the same interpretation as the driver of the Pinto. 

The fourth rung is where we DRAW CONCLUSIONS.  While these conclusions are influenced by our assumptions, they are also influenced by our prior beliefs, which include a whole range of cognitive biases, such as availability bias, confirmation bias, and cognitive dissonance.  For example, in our story, the narrator falsely concluded that the driver of the Vega wanted him to answer “Yes” to the question about discounting. Instead of drawing a rational conclusion based on questioning his prior inferences and assumptions, he jumped to a hasty conclusion.

The fifth rung is where we FORM BELIEFS. Based on the context of the situation, we affirm or adjust our beliefs.  For example, in our story, the narrator’s conclusion about the elderly woman became a belief that she was looking for a discount.  His belief seemingly blinded him to seeing an alternative possibility.

The sixth rung is where we TAKE ACTION,  applying our conclusion and beliefs to a seemingly conscious decision.  For example, in our story, the narrator took action, answering the woman’s question with the response that his false assumptions, hasty conclusions, and incorrect beliefs had led him to (3).

Of course, it is too simplistic to characterize the complexity of our thinking process as a simple step-by-step process from the bottom to the top of the ladder.  Instead, each rung is influenced by the others.  Our assumptions, values, and beliefs influence our perception of the world; therefore, they influence how we select and interpret data, and often our beliefs and past actions influence our perceptions.  In our story, for example, the driver of the Vega acquired her negative view of discounting from her “Pappy.”  Guided by this belief, she is likely to reject discounting as a positive.  The narrator, however, seems to make an adjustment to his beliefs at the end of the story.  He says he “gained a point of view,” which leads us to think that the next time he encounters a question from a customer, he will be less likely to jump to a hasty conclusion.  He might even generate alternative interpretations and question his own assumptions before drawing a conclusion.  He might also have learned a lesson about the influence of emotion (“containing my excitement) on clouding clear thinking.

 

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What are the six rungs of the ladder of inference, and how does each rung contribute to our thinking process?

Challenge - Diagram Ladder of Inference:  Draw a graphic representation of the ladder of inference, labeling its six rungs.  Think of a situation, a story, or an experience you had that involved decision-making.  Break down the process of that decision-making using each of the six rungs of the ladder of inference.

ALSO ON THIS DATE:

December 1, 1955: On this day Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a Mongomery, Alabama, bus. Speaking in 2013, former president Barack Obama said the following about Parks:  “She reminds us that this is how change happens -- not mainly through the exploits of the famous and the powerful, but through the countless acts of often anonymous courage and kindness and fellow feeling and responsibility that continually, stubbornly, expand our conception of justice -- our conception of what is possible” (4).

Sources: 

1- Ray Setterfield. “How the First Sherlock Holmes Story was Sold for a Song.” On This Day December 1

2. Doyle, A. Conan. “A Study in Scarlet.” Project Gutenberg  E-book 12 July 2008.

3.  Schools That Learn. “Ladder of Inference.”

4. The White House, President Barack Obama.  “Remarks by the President at Dedication of Statue Honoring Rosa Parks -- US Capitol.”  February 27, 2013.

THINKER'S ALMANAC: November 23

How can an Ivy League football game played in 1951 help us to see the world more clearly?

Subject: Motivated Perception and Reasoning - Ivy League Football

Event:  Dartmouth and Princeton Football Game, 1951

We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are. -Anaïs Nin

On this day in 1951, two Ivy League teams, Princeton and Dartmouth, played a football game in Princeton, New Jersey.  The game was roughly played; Princeton’s star tailback left the game in the second quarter with a broken nose, and at the end of the third quarter, a Dartmouth player broke his leg.  Princeton prevailed.

If not for two psychologists, one from Princeton -- Hadley Cantril, and another from Dartmouth -- Albert Hastorf, the game might have been just another forgotten football game.  What made it memorable, however, was a follow-up study published by the two psychologists. 

 Image by Keith Johnston from Pixabay

About one week after the game, Hastorf and Cantril asked students from both schools to give their assessment of the game.  Their responses depended on their school:  Princeton students overwhelmingly blamed Dartmouth for the rough play while Dartmouth students blamed Princeton.

Hastorf and Cantril then had all students watch a film of the game and keep track of infractions by players on both teams as if they were a referee.  The results showed both groups of students were unable to see the game dispassionately or objectively; the Princeton students still blamed Dartmouth and the Dartmouth students still blamed Princeton.  Although both groups of students watched the same film, both groups seemed to be watching an entirely different game.  

Hastof and Cantril published their case study entitled “They Saw a Game” in 1954.  It established the concept of motivated perception; in short, we don’t always see reality; instead, we see what we want to see.  This concept is similar to motivated reasoning, where instead of coming to conclusions based on evidence, we interpret the evidence in a way that it fits our preconceived beliefs.  In other words, we don’t always believe the truth; instead, we believe what we want to believe (1).

In her 2021 book The Scout Mindset, Julia Galef warns against the dangers of self deception and of motivated reasoning. Like the college students in 1951, we sometimes employ emotionally-biased reasoning to produce the verdict we want to be true in favor of the actual truth. We cherry-pick evidence that supports our side, and we rationalize to make a case sound better than it actually is.  Galef calls motivated reasoning the soldier mindset and argues that it is an unconscious cognitive bias that needs to be exposed and rooted out.  Galef also prescribes a more sound, reasonable approach called the scout mindset.  Instead of seeing what we want to see or being defensive, we need to seek first to understand.  We should be skeptical of our own conclusions and value the pursuit of truth over our fears of being right or wrong.  The pursuit of the scout mindset means testing your own claims and understanding that changing your mind is not a sign of weakness (2).

One powerful way to understand motivated reasoning is to see it through the eyes of a sports fan.  Imagine you are watching a basketball game, a game where your favorite team is competing for a championship against a longtime rival.  Imagine your reaction when your team is charged with a foul that results in points being taken off the scoreboard.  What would be your honest reaction?  Would your emotions motivate you to find immediate fault with the referee's call and begin to construct rationalizations for why the call was wrong?  Or would you calmly accept the call and defer to the referee’s indifferent judgment?  Most honest fans -- short for “fanatics” -- will admit that their emotional 

investment in their team prejudices them and blinds them to objective judgment.  In addition, they are rarely even consciously aware of their own bias. To further understand the impact of motivated reasoning, compare the reaction you have when your team is called for a foul versus when your team’s opponent is called for a foul?  In the latter case, do you spend any time or emotional energy scrutinizing the fairness or justice of such a decision?

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason: How did the Dartmouth fans see the game differently from the Princeton fans, and how does this help explain motivated perception?

Challenge -  Scouts and Soldiers:  Write a public service announcement that explains the thinking behind the scout mindset versus the soldier mindset.  Try to persuade your audience that the scout mindset is preferable and a possible solution to the political polarization that is plaguing our country.

Sources:

1-Resnick, Brian. “How desire can warp our view of the world.” Vox.com 8 Aug. 2019.

2-Galef, Julia.  The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t.  New York:  Portfolio/Penguin, 2021.