David Brooks of New York Times has revisited the question from Edge.org of what scientific concepts should everyone’s cognitive toolbox hold?
Some great ideas in there like Jonathan Haidt suggesting humans are consummate survivors because of our overachievement in the virtue of altruism, or physicists pointing to the possibility of accounting for observed phenomena with two different simultaneously true explanations.
All of which prompted me to offer my new thinking tool.
Suppose you started choosing your assumptions?
Assumptions are powerful, automatic, invisible and (now that you know that) capable of being brought under voluntary control.
Powerful:
If the Earth is flat ‘cos everyone knows it’s so, your actions will be governed by that assumption – so you won’t go looking for a western route to the Indies. The same holds with many of our contemporary assumptions (maybe you don’t hold all of these) – for example, that markets price stocks perfectly, that mental disorders can be classified using the same system that applies to physical disorders and that everyone in the world wants the same kind of democracy we have (or think we have). These sorts of assumptions have had profound effects on our economy, our approach to healthcare and our political decisions. Much of their power derives from their ability to stop us seeing certain aspects of a situation.
Automatic:
When was the last time that you doubted that the sun would rise tomorrow? Of course, you probably never question that. Yet if you think about it, the only basis for assuming that the sun will rise tomorrow is that it has a history of doing so. But that is a “Black Swan” error – until black swans were encountered the definition of a “swan” included it being white. As long as reality conforms with the assumption, the assumption is assumed to be true.
Invisible:
(At least until questioned.) ”The Earth is flat.” In medieval Europe you only had to look to the horizon to establish the “truth” of that proposition. It was “obvious” and therefore unquestioned. For the most part you wouldn’t have felt the need to state what everyone knew.
So now, look around at what “everyone knows” to be true today and ask yourself, “Will it always be so?”
Can be created as an act of will:
This is where it gets really radical.
I don’t know if the determinist view or the free will view is correct. But suppose I suspend the need to have a ‘correct’ answer. Then I have two available hypothetical courses of action: proceed on the basis of determinism or proceed on the basis of free will (yeah, I get the inherent paradox). Which assumption delivers greater freedom, fulfilment and happiness?
Don’t take my word for it – in the real world, experience (data) trumps theory. Try changing your assumptions and see what actions become available to you that previously weren’t. Let me know what you found.
I’ll have more to say about this in a later post about the act of choosing.
Footnote: If you’re going to the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science World Convention IX in Parma this July, consider this a preview of my presentation there.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
There isn’t much clarity in this discussion of the important and necessary distinction between data/ experience/information and knowledge, nor on the overlapping concepts of assumption, belief, and conditioning. It isn’t assumptions, beliefs, conditioning or anything similar that is the problem that is challenged, it is the mind’s/ brain’s absolute processing need to relegate much of the 11,000,000,000 per sec bytes of speed and efficiency to the unconscious and only the comparative 40 bytes to the conscious. Why do you think that allocation has evolutionarily been our blessing. The awareness and control that comes from a well trained introspective and interoceptive personality probably increases perceived quality but changes outcomes very little if at all.
Hi Nelson,
That’s a fair comment – this was very off-the-cuff – it actually started as a brief comment on somebody else’s site.
Just checking, do you have a reference to those figures – I’m not aware of any way of measuring brain processing speed in bytes, or are you using a metaphor?
Likewise I’d be interested in any reference you can point me to about the “introspective personality” statement. I’m not doubting you, but would like to see what science has to say. It sounds a bit like the “set point” theory of happiness which has been validated by research.
Wonderful suggestions — although I was cautious for a couple paragraphs given its date. Seems to me much personal discomfort and wasted energy stem from “needing” to know and taking everything personally. Better to remain open and curious, eh?
Thanks John.
I hadn’t paid attention to the date – another invisible assumption on my part.
As you might guess, I’m a big fan of curiosity (and for more on that issue, see Todd Kashdan’s wonderful book, Curious?). Of course, as an act “being curious” = “assume I don’t know”.
The action-oriented aspect of what I’m proposing here goes one step further: “Assume I don’t have to know.”
Really interesting Julian, thank you. So, I understand your compelling argument for understanding our assumptions. I found it less easy to understand (at least purely from this post) what you were saying about suspending assumptions as an act of will. Could you give an example of how suspending an assumption creates greater flexibility, freedom and fulfilment?
Very much look forward to your post on the act of choosing. Or is that the ACT of choosing?
thanks, Rob
Thanks Rob. Yes, what I’ve presented here is very much a skeleton of the idea. My current plan is to turn this into a book (I’ve seen that done on the basis of much thinner ideas than this one!)
The book (ulp! Did I say that?) will have more examples, but here’s a common one I deal with in therapy. A person who has a history of “failed” relationships approaches the whole business of finding a partner and making relationships work on the assumption that, “Nobody could really love me” – or something similar. Okay, I don’t know whether that’s “true” (corresponds with reality – assuming there is such a thing) or not. So let’s set aside that question and I then offer you two choices:
Either, proceed on the basis that it’s true you’re unloveable, OR proceed on the basis that you are or could be. (Note: it doesn’t have to be true for you to proceed as if it is true, since we’ve reserved judgement on the matter.) Now, which of those two assumptions leaves you with more freedom to act and to choose?
The flexibility and fulfilment are consequences of experiencing and exercising that freedom. If you don’t experience that freedom, then we have some more work to do discovering or making up a more liberating assumption to work from.
Is this clearer?