I believe that as a society and culture, we in the United States have lost most of our collective capacity for healthy thinking and responsible decision making. Our social groups, organizations, and institutions are dominated by biases, false premises, false assumptions, sweeping generalizations, and subjective opinion masquerading as objective fact. And these are only the characteristics imbedded into modern social interaction which might be said to be accidental rather than deliberate. Then there are direct assaults on accuracy and reason in the form of deception, manipulation, coercion, and willful obfuscation that are much more intentional.
I believe that concern for critical thinking, effective reasoning and evidence-informed decision making has been replaced by a new culture of invincible ignorance. It is a culture in which everyone feels equally entitled to their personal opinion and in which it is culturally frowned upon to ask someone to support their opinion with some kind of tangible rationale. It is a culture in which perceived “authority” confers a sense of entitlement to make unsupported assertions and irrational decisions without being questioned. It is a culture in which personal “gut feelings” are treated as both empirically accurate and broadly generalizable when they are neither. It is a culture that believes that objectivity is something that can actually be achieved and largely ignores the impact of cognitive and emotional biases on our thinking experiences.
But most significantly of all, it is a culture that is so radically self-absorbed that individual egos assume that whatever they think or feel has legitimacy and should not be subject to critical scrutiny by others. If there is anything reasonable or accurate about my beliefs on this, then it has substantial implications for institutions such as psychiatry, shared social ideas such as “mental health” and “mental illness,” and for organizations and groups either working for or intersecting with the institution of mental health. So allow me to make a case for why I believe we live in a culture of invincible ignorance.
This created tension in the room. The colleague I was questioning happened to have a title larger than mine and more letters after her name. After the meeting, another coworker (who I will call Ted) approached me very distressed and even angry that I had dared to “challenge” another colleague on her opinion. Ted believed that my act of asking for evidence in support of a claim was actually an act of rudeness and disrespect. I was surprised to say the least. I told Ted that it did not seem to matter to me whether a person was a janitor or the President of the United States, I still ought to be able to ask them to support statements they make if they expect me to take the statements seriously. He looked at me in complete shock, as though I had just said something absurd.
This has been a very common experience for me across for-profit businesses, non-profit agencies, political groups, religious groups, and community groups. It leads me to believe that there is a broadly experienced cultural “norm” of deference to perceived authority. More than this, it seems that there is a culture in which the basic question, “Why?” is viewed as a confrontational question. “Why” seems to be associated with disagreement rather than understanding. “Why” is seen as a threatening question rather than a neutral question. Ted is not the only person I’ve encountered in a “subordinate” position who believed that it was rude and inappropriate to ask a “superior” the question, why? Why do you claim what you claim? Why do you believe what you believe? What is it based on? Is it a personal feeling or is there some kind of tangible evidence?
I believe that a broadly held attitude of deference to perceived authority is the first step in the creation of a culture of invincible ignorance.
Too often our educational system is focused on imparting “facts” without concern for the cultivation of critical thinking skills. I believe our educational system is also frequently preoccupied with reinforcing cultural norms and promoting assimilation, with less support for questioning norms and challenging assumptions. Certainly this is not a universal experience, as I myself had some very important experiences in school in which I was actively encouraged to think skeptically and critically about information. But I fear that it is far too uncommon an experience.
Then we enter the workforce, into organizations and institutions that are heavily hierarchical. Once again persons in positions of perceived authority have the opportunity to reinforce the idea that its not the place of the subordinate to ask questions. In some situations, this idea is very explicit. But in other situations, it is far more subtle. A person may not be fired from a position, but instead find that they are slowly marginalized and sidelined all because they too frequently ask the question “why?”
I believe that there is a common inclination among persons in positions of authority to reinforce the idea that critical inquiry is not appropriate. This is another step in the creation of a culture of invincible ignorance.
One reason the quest for certainty is so pervasive is because those who decide what the rules of certainty are, hold the power. So for example, Psychiatry has a vested interest in describing things as “certain” and “science” and “proven” because it insulates and reinforces their own professional position and societal status. Uncertainty threatens that power. On the other hand, individuals may desire people in positions of power to tell them that things are certain, in order to avoid the existential anxiety that comes with confronting an uncertain world. Many of us have had the experience of desperately wanting an “authority” to fit all of our suffering into a neat little diagnostic package. Because then at least, the world would make more sense.
I believe it takes a tremendous act of courage to embrace a world full of uncertainty. Accepting the reality of pervasive uncertainty demands a serious and unending commitment to critical reflection, belief revision, cognitive and emotional flexibility and skepticism toward sweeping claims. This can be a very demanding emotional commitment to make.
I believe that fewer and fewer people in our society are willing to make this kind of commitment. As a result, more groups, organizations and social institutions default to inaccurate and overly simplistic answers that bear little resemblance to actual reality. This is a further step in the creation of a culture of invincible ignorance.
I have not come across too many people who have had formal training in the principles and tools of critical thinking. Perhaps this is part of the reason there is often such great irritation or anxiety when someone asks a “why” question. A practiced critical thinker is trained to be alert for declarative statements, and to automatically evaluate those declarative statements. One way to evaluate declarative statements it to ask for the argument and evidence that supports the claim. Another way to evaluate declarative statements by attempting to identify any situation in which the claim could be demonstrated to be false. A practiced critical thinker is rarely arguing against one claim and in favor of an opposite claim. More commonly, a critical thinker is challenging the inherent assumptions of certainty or absoluteness implied by a claim. There is a significant element of critical thinking that is deconstructive, constantly scrutinizing grand narratives.
Critical thinking as an active skillset enables an individual to recognize cognitive biases. I do not believe that human beings are capable of being truly “objective” about anything. To be truly objective would mean being (a) fully emotionless (b) perfectly knowledgeable (c) existing outside of time and place (c ) existing beyond the influence of culture. In contrast, what I think we can hope to achieve is a level of critical thinking competency such that we are skillful in recognizing our biases and better able to consciously minimize their impact. I believe that our culture is dominated by largely unexamined bias. Some of these biases include:
I believe that the lack of appreciation for critical thinking as a discipline requiring effort and engagement has led to a culture in which irrationality pervades groups, organizations and institutions. In the rare instances in which actual “why” questions are discussed, those discussions are too often poisoned by fallacious reasoning and unexamined thinking bias. The culture of invincible ignorance is now complete.
But that’s the good news. We all can be. I do not believe that thinking “well” is some sort of natural trait that only a privileged few are born with. Rather, I believe that careful critical thinking, question asking, skepticism and intellectual curiosity, are all traits that can be cultivated in anyone. It is a lifelong journey of engagement and practice that is complicated by the fact that we exist within a culture that does not value this endeavor. I believe the first step we can take toward the dismantling of the culture of invincible ignorance is to reclaim our right to ask the question “why” of anyone, anywhere, anytime. Reclaiming this right may cost us within our social groups or professional organizations. But I believe that challenging the culture of invincible ignorance is worth the price.
I believe that concern for critical thinking, effective reasoning and evidence-informed decision making has been replaced by a new culture of invincible ignorance. It is a culture in which everyone feels equally entitled to their personal opinion and in which it is culturally frowned upon to ask someone to support their opinion with some kind of tangible rationale. It is a culture in which perceived “authority” confers a sense of entitlement to make unsupported assertions and irrational decisions without being questioned. It is a culture in which personal “gut feelings” are treated as both empirically accurate and broadly generalizable when they are neither. It is a culture that believes that objectivity is something that can actually be achieved and largely ignores the impact of cognitive and emotional biases on our thinking experiences.
But most significantly of all, it is a culture that is so radically self-absorbed that individual egos assume that whatever they think or feel has legitimacy and should not be subject to critical scrutiny by others. If there is anything reasonable or accurate about my beliefs on this, then it has substantial implications for institutions such as psychiatry, shared social ideas such as “mental health” and “mental illness,” and for organizations and groups either working for or intersecting with the institution of mental health. So allow me to make a case for why I believe we live in a culture of invincible ignorance.
A culture of deference to perceived authority
I was sitting in a meeting one day when a colleague made a declarative statement that I was unsure was accurate. I asked my colleague what she was basing her statement on, and when she gave a very general answer, I asked for more specifics. I did not say I disagreed. I simply asked for information to determine what rationale or evidence supported the statement being made.This created tension in the room. The colleague I was questioning happened to have a title larger than mine and more letters after her name. After the meeting, another coworker (who I will call Ted) approached me very distressed and even angry that I had dared to “challenge” another colleague on her opinion. Ted believed that my act of asking for evidence in support of a claim was actually an act of rudeness and disrespect. I was surprised to say the least. I told Ted that it did not seem to matter to me whether a person was a janitor or the President of the United States, I still ought to be able to ask them to support statements they make if they expect me to take the statements seriously. He looked at me in complete shock, as though I had just said something absurd.
This has been a very common experience for me across for-profit businesses, non-profit agencies, political groups, religious groups, and community groups. It leads me to believe that there is a broadly experienced cultural “norm” of deference to perceived authority. More than this, it seems that there is a culture in which the basic question, “Why?” is viewed as a confrontational question. “Why” seems to be associated with disagreement rather than understanding. “Why” is seen as a threatening question rather than a neutral question. Ted is not the only person I’ve encountered in a “subordinate” position who believed that it was rude and inappropriate to ask a “superior” the question, why? Why do you claim what you claim? Why do you believe what you believe? What is it based on? Is it a personal feeling or is there some kind of tangible evidence?
I believe that a broadly held attitude of deference to perceived authority is the first step in the creation of a culture of invincible ignorance.
A culture of defensiveness toward questioning
The flip-side of a culture in which subordinates believe that they ought to defer without question to superiors is a culture in which persons in positions of status or authority actively discourage open questioning. I tend to believe that we are born with an innate curiosity and desire to question. That is certainly my experience with many if not most young children. I suspect that much of this impulse is conditioned out of people as they grow into our modern culture. As children, how many of us had the frequent experience of asking parents “why” and receiving the response, “because I said so.”Too often our educational system is focused on imparting “facts” without concern for the cultivation of critical thinking skills. I believe our educational system is also frequently preoccupied with reinforcing cultural norms and promoting assimilation, with less support for questioning norms and challenging assumptions. Certainly this is not a universal experience, as I myself had some very important experiences in school in which I was actively encouraged to think skeptically and critically about information. But I fear that it is far too uncommon an experience.
Then we enter the workforce, into organizations and institutions that are heavily hierarchical. Once again persons in positions of perceived authority have the opportunity to reinforce the idea that its not the place of the subordinate to ask questions. In some situations, this idea is very explicit. But in other situations, it is far more subtle. A person may not be fired from a position, but instead find that they are slowly marginalized and sidelined all because they too frequently ask the question “why?”
I believe that there is a common inclination among persons in positions of authority to reinforce the idea that critical inquiry is not appropriate. This is another step in the creation of a culture of invincible ignorance.
A culture that denies uncertainty
I have the impression that human beings, broadly speaking, are pretty uncomfortable with uncertainty. It seems to me that we spend a great deal of time in our lives attempting to break information and experiences down into manageable pieces, categorize them, and explain them in simple ways that we hope will always (or nearly always) work. They rarely do, at least not consistently. Our inability to have a neat and manageable lived experience with clear rules that always work seems to be a source of a lot of anxiety for many people. This desire for simple certainty is at the heart of most of our culture’s reductionistic trends. For example, we want people’s lived experiences to be simple and tidy, so we railroad them into a “model” of disease despite staggering amounts of evidence that suggests reality is far more complicated and uncertain.One reason the quest for certainty is so pervasive is because those who decide what the rules of certainty are, hold the power. So for example, Psychiatry has a vested interest in describing things as “certain” and “science” and “proven” because it insulates and reinforces their own professional position and societal status. Uncertainty threatens that power. On the other hand, individuals may desire people in positions of power to tell them that things are certain, in order to avoid the existential anxiety that comes with confronting an uncertain world. Many of us have had the experience of desperately wanting an “authority” to fit all of our suffering into a neat little diagnostic package. Because then at least, the world would make more sense.
I believe it takes a tremendous act of courage to embrace a world full of uncertainty. Accepting the reality of pervasive uncertainty demands a serious and unending commitment to critical reflection, belief revision, cognitive and emotional flexibility and skepticism toward sweeping claims. This can be a very demanding emotional commitment to make.
I believe that fewer and fewer people in our society are willing to make this kind of commitment. As a result, more groups, organizations and social institutions default to inaccurate and overly simplistic answers that bear little resemblance to actual reality. This is a further step in the creation of a culture of invincible ignorance.
A culture of disinterest toward critical thinking
Critical thinking is a phrase that occasionally comes up in social groups or organizations. However, I believe it is poorly understood. Simply put, I believe that critical thinking should be defined as the disciplined practice of evaluating the accuracy of one’s own reasoning and the reasoning of others. There seems to be a belief that critical thinking skill is something every human being innately possesses. But I believe critical thinking is more of a formal discipline. Just like we are not born with an innate ability to do calculus, we are also not born with an innate understanding of the forms and rules that govern critical reasoning and logical analysis. It’s true that a person may eventually show a real natural aptitude for calculus, but they must first be introduced the rules, the symbols, and the structures that make doing calculus possible. I believe the same is true of critical thinking skills.I have not come across too many people who have had formal training in the principles and tools of critical thinking. Perhaps this is part of the reason there is often such great irritation or anxiety when someone asks a “why” question. A practiced critical thinker is trained to be alert for declarative statements, and to automatically evaluate those declarative statements. One way to evaluate declarative statements it to ask for the argument and evidence that supports the claim. Another way to evaluate declarative statements by attempting to identify any situation in which the claim could be demonstrated to be false. A practiced critical thinker is rarely arguing against one claim and in favor of an opposite claim. More commonly, a critical thinker is challenging the inherent assumptions of certainty or absoluteness implied by a claim. There is a significant element of critical thinking that is deconstructive, constantly scrutinizing grand narratives.
Critical thinking as an active skillset enables an individual to recognize cognitive biases. I do not believe that human beings are capable of being truly “objective” about anything. To be truly objective would mean being (a) fully emotionless (b) perfectly knowledgeable (c) existing outside of time and place (c ) existing beyond the influence of culture. In contrast, what I think we can hope to achieve is a level of critical thinking competency such that we are skillful in recognizing our biases and better able to consciously minimize their impact. I believe that our culture is dominated by largely unexamined bias. Some of these biases include:
- The tendency look for evidence that supports a belief we already hold and avoid evidence that contradicts that belief
- The tendency to think sequentially, and assume that something that happened prior to an event must have caused the event.
- The tendency to care more about recent information than older information, even if older information is far more relevant
- The tendency to accept claims as “true” if they are presented in an appealing way or by an appealing person.
- The tendency to interpret data as quantitative (objective) when it is in fact qualitative (subjective).
I believe that the lack of appreciation for critical thinking as a discipline requiring effort and engagement has led to a culture in which irrationality pervades groups, organizations and institutions. In the rare instances in which actual “why” questions are discussed, those discussions are too often poisoned by fallacious reasoning and unexamined thinking bias. The culture of invincible ignorance is now complete.
Implications and Solutions
My hope is that those reading this can see the connection to the issues that concern us most, namely the illicit authority of institutional psychiatry, the myth of mental illness as a literal thing, the dogma surrounding psychiatric medication and the intractability of organizations and institutions despite overwhelming evidence challenging their dogmas. It is also my hope that people will not mistake my frank talk about the lack of critical thinking discipline within our culture with some sort of personal intellectual snobbery. I will readily confess that I struggle to manage my own cognitive biases and thinking errors on a daily basis, and I don’t always succeed. I too can find myself caught up in emotion or ego more often that I would like to admit. I would like to be a better critical thinker than I am.But that’s the good news. We all can be. I do not believe that thinking “well” is some sort of natural trait that only a privileged few are born with. Rather, I believe that careful critical thinking, question asking, skepticism and intellectual curiosity, are all traits that can be cultivated in anyone. It is a lifelong journey of engagement and practice that is complicated by the fact that we exist within a culture that does not value this endeavor. I believe the first step we can take toward the dismantling of the culture of invincible ignorance is to reclaim our right to ask the question “why” of anyone, anywhere, anytime. Reclaiming this right may cost us within our social groups or professional organizations. But I believe that challenging the culture of invincible ignorance is worth the price.
Post a Comment