â€œOne danger is that if I think I understand because the people around me think they understand, and the people around me all think they understand because the people around them all think they understand, then it turns out we can all have this strong sense of understanding even though no one really has any idea what theyâ€™re talking about.â€
Sean Illing asks: So do you have any thoughts in terms of practical solutions to this? How can we cultivate more self-awareness and less biased reasoning? How can we seek out wiser communities of knowledge?
â€œPeople who are more reflective are less susceptible to the illusion. There are some simple questions you can use to measure reflectivity. They tend to have this form: How many animals of each kind did Moses load onto the ark? Most people say two, but more reflective people say zero. (It was Noah, not Moses who built the ark.)
The trick is to not only come to a conclusion, but to verify that conclusion. There are many communities that encourage verification (e.g., scientific, forensic, medical, judicial communities). You just need one person to say, â€œare you sure?â€ and for everyone else to care about the justification. Thereâ€™s no reason that every community could not adopt these kinds of norms. The problem of course is that thereâ€™s a strong compulsion to make people feel good by telling them what they want to hear, and for everyone to agree. Thatâ€™s largely what gives us a sense of identity. Thereâ€™s a strong tension here.
My colleagues and I are studying whether one way to open up discourse is to try to change the nature of conversation from a focus on what people value to one about actual consequences. When you talk about actual consequences, youâ€™re forced into the weeds of whatâ€™s actually happening, which is a diversion from our normal focus on our feelings and whatâ€™s going on in our heads.â€
Ian and I discuss this further in shot 5 of episode 88 of HubShots.