New research has found that humans have an excellent ability to ignore facts that don't fit with our own biases, not just on Facebook where the stakes are pretty low, but even when it can cost us money.
Stefano Palminteri of École Normale Supérieure led a team of researchers from ENS and University College London, which previously reported that humans are biased towards the path of least resistance, even though that can make us depressed later on.
In those situations, people don't seem to be able to perceive intangible future repercussions.
Palminteri's team sought to discover in an experimental environment whether our biases are so strong that we continue to hold onto them even when something tangible is on the line in that moment....
In 2015, Carnegie Mellon researchers published findings that almost everyone is blind to their own biases, and this is not easy to overcome.
"Complete objectivity is probably something we will never fully achieve," Palminteri said.
Science Alert
Turns Out Our Biases Really Are Stronger Than Our Ability to Perceive Facts
Turns Out Our Biases Really Are Stronger Than Our Ability to Perceive Facts
Michelle Starr
17 comments:
"Our Biases Really Are Stronger Than Our Ability to Perceive Facts"
Not if you are STEM trained....
Properly STEM trained...
Properly STEM trained...
Matt, that can be one of the most serious biases -being blind to everything but quantity. And that "everything" includes a lot of what is highly important in life.
I see this all time. I almost did my PhD dissertation on it. One of my profs had a project ready for dissertation on application of game theory to policy and ethics, aimed chiefly at the Whiz Kids and Pentagon based on policy matters like nuclear deterrence. Those people were crazy rational.
I don't see the connection between quantity only and STEM....
Math is only one letter in the acronym ... and some people add a 5th A for art...
STEAM: Science, Technology, Engineering, ART, and Math... art brings in the creative process (contra Darwin) which is important to understand too...
Not many people are properly trained in STEM (STEAM) so if you do a survey and most people are seen to just exhibit some sort of rote learned bias this should be expected...
The academe needs a reboot...
Quantification involves objects and events that can be observed and measured. It's "positive." Value is also quantified, e.g., in terms of market price.
There is no direct way of quantifying a great deal of that which qualitative.
Reductionism based on observation, measurement and quantification excludes those dimensions of life and experience from consideration, if it doesn't deny its existence altogether.
One can say that this is not the "proper" application of quantification and STEM, but that risks falling into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy without specifying criteria. And specification of quantification and measurement criteria alone involves begging the question.
There's a reason that technocrats aren't elected exclusively to policy formulation and decision-making position, and where technocrats are, the overall result is often less that desirable if not FUBAR.
I'll repeat my story about a friend that only consults to tech CEO's. When he is called in to analyze problems, he says it inevitably comes down his walking into the CEO's office and saying, "Ive determined what's wrong. The CEO, of course, says, "What?" He says, "Everyone thinks you are an asshole." Then he goes on to explain how humans being are not computers.
Well asserting that someone trained in math is trained in STEM would not be the correct criteria...
You have a lot of people with math degrees that don't really know what is going on ... not trained in functional analysis, time domain analysis, the creative process, etc....
"Then he goes on to explain how humans being are not computers."
Do they want mommy to kiss their boo-boo too????
Do they want mommy to kiss their boo-boo too????
I have another friend who has been a executive in several firms. including CEO. He is an engineer with an MBS from a tech school.
Now retired, he told me that he spent most of his time as an executive doing psychological counseling with employees.
Here is an interesting blog post by über-sociologist Randall Collins. The last part is about Steve Jobs management style, although the whole thing is interesting.
MICRO-BASES OF SOCIAL INEQUALITY: EMOTIONAL ENERGY, EMOTIONAL DOMINATION, AND CHARISMATIC SOLIDARITY
Probably didn't do a good job of it either as that was not what he was trained for...
Many people hate their bosses. That is demotivating and energy-draining. A good manager has to keep the entire team pumped up. My friend realized this and was very good at it. Motivation is an integral part of management. See the theories of Douglas MeGregor and Abraham Maslow in particular. This is taught in most academic management programs. But one has to acquire one's own style. Some people are better at this than others. It requires genuine empathy to be good at it in addition to "managing." If it comes across as managing it is not like to be as effective, or even effective at all if it comes across as insincere.
Sounds to me like jobs used a style like management by revision...
And the worker bees didnt like to have their work revised without first a big argument over it... most of STEAM people become overly defensive of their work...
Ever try to tell an artist his painting was wrong and he should change all the colors?
"A good manager has to keep the entire team pumped up."
But that doesnt guarantee a winner you still need the best people... look at professional sports... its not "rah rah!" the winning teams have the best trained/performing personnel...
Professional sports is a great example. The best players have to be selected and then they have to be kept pumped up. That a major function of managers and coaches in addition to technical matters. This includes both personal psychology of the individual players and "team spirit."
Business management is similar.
Post a Comment