How good people do bad things

If you and another person find yourselves with a difference of opinion and both of you seem to be good people, here is the quick way to look for common ground, if not the truth: ask the other person and yourself the one key question:

Why do you want to believe that?

Note that the question is not "Why do you believe" but "Why do you want to believe". Everyone has reasons for their beliefs, but we are digging deeper. What is the substrate? What is the source of the desire for belief?

Some people will see no difference in the two questions, but this is due to inadequate insight.

Unless it is something you have personally witnessed or experienced, you are relying on others for information. Even those things we personally witness or experience are subject to filtering and bias. So, dig deep.

Here are some of the errors that arise.

A. Measurement/observation error

• You see only what you want to see or expect to see. You sample may be biased. Your tools for measurement may be flawed. Your questions may distort the outcome (for example, the reason why IQ tests are said to have racial bias and why some political polls produce strange results).

B. Attribution error

• You reach a conclusion of cause and effect which is biased. You toss out other possibilities or exclude them without proper analysis. You may not even consider or be aware of other possible conclusions. You may then defend your conclusions, not because they are the only possible answer, but because they are your answer, or the answer you have been led to believe (see prior post about trust).

Why worry so much about all of this?

Unintended Consequences, Unexpected Results

This is where all hypotheses meet reality. A hypothesis that is correct will have no unintended consequences, no unexpected downside. If an unintended consequence develops or can be foreseen, you are defending an error. If so, then you really need to ask yourself "Why did I defend something that is clearly wrong?" Blowing off unintended consequences as inconsequential begs the question and shows that you are still in the grip of a belief rather than reality. If you say "all men are liars" and you meet one honest man, or if you believe that food stamps help the poor and you find one poor person selling food stamps for drugs, you cannot simply say "well, here is one exception, but my theory still stands" Your theory was reduced to an erroneous hypothesis and yet you still defend it. "Why do you still believe?" is the question to be answered.

As you can see, this is a circular loop. If you don't ask yourself why you believe at the beginning, then at the end, when the chickens come home to roost, you will need to ask yourself the same question anyways. The only other alternative is to continue in a belief system that is flawed.

The problem with those who do not advocate change is that they are stuck with the flaws of the present, which are known. The problem with those who advocate change is that, unless they are closer to the truth, they will produce new flaws, which may be even worse than the ones they were trying to fix. Small changes, done in test situations, are almost always the best ways to go.