Obstacles of Cognition. (Part 2)

Last week, we discussed our senses, our brain, our memories, and our proclivity for pattern-seeking in terms of how they can all adversely impact our quest to find truth in the world around us. Well, we’re not quite done yet.

We’re going to continue this week with a few more internal barriers to truth that can affect us all — if we aren’t careful.

5. Selective Perception

The term “selective perception” refers to our ability to filter out information that is inconsistent with our pre-existing beliefs or existing patterns of thought. Often times, if we aren’t careful, we perceive things in a selective manner to avoid creating for ourselves additional anxiety, stress, emotional discomfort, or contradicting beliefs we already hold.

When selective perception is at work, we may find ourselves interpreting information in a way that’s compatible with our existing values and beliefs, even if the evidence points toward another, more simple conclusion.

Here’s an example:

Many people often claim that they, or somebody they know, has telepathic abilities. The most common “evidence” cited for this usually involves a situation in which someone is thinking or talking about a particular person who then happens to call on the telephone at that moment (or even less impressively, later in the day). Extraordinary, right? Not quite. First of all, we know from the Law of Truly Large Numbers that coincidences happen all of the time. However, someone who already believes in psychic or telepathic abilities, who also allows themselves to succumb to selective perception, will select only the instances that support their beliefs while discarding the rest. How many times did they think of that person and the phone didn’t ring? How many times did the phone ring and they weren’t thinking of anyone at all? Asking these types of questions quickly reveals the fragility of the evidence and, thus, the claim. However, I guess I would be quite impressed if — for no other reason than the monumental unlikelihood of the event — someone happened to think of the king of Saudi Arabia and he happened to call immediately afterwards.

This same kind of evidential generosity is often extended to those who claim to communicate with the dead. People who claim these supernatural powers are granted immunity from their failures, as well. They blame it on “bad energy” or “negativity” or, lo and behold, the “presence of a skeptic.” “You have to believe!” they say. These so-called “spiritual mediums” usually go through hundreds or thousands of failed guesses when attempting to “divine” information mentally. The few dozen “hits” they do get are always used as proof while the misses are quickly discarded and forgotten. (And when the footage of the interaction with the live audience gets to the editing room, even more — if not all — of the “misses” are cut. It probably wouldn’t make for very good television, otherwise.)

Remember: every major league baseball player ever would have a perfect batting average if you only counted the hits and discarded each miss.

6. Confirmation Bias

…Or, as I like to call it, “Seek and you shall find.”

Selective Perception and Confirmation Bias frequently go hand in hand. Confirmation Bias can be thought of as an even more extreme case of selective perception wherein the individual actively seeks out only those sources of information that confirm their beliefs. This is the very opposite of critical thinking and skepticism, yet those who proclaim the importance of skepticism from the internet mountaintops are not immune to the alluring effects of confirmation bias. Again, it’s something that seems to be a default state for all of us. People don’t like being wrong or having their worldview shaken, so they choose to seek out only that which is comfortable: the things they already believe. We can do better than this, though.

Being aware of the fact that we’re all susceptible to confirmation bias (and selective perception) is probably the best thing we can do to combat it. They are habits that can only be broken with time and repetition. Anyone can find an article saying dinosaur fossils are a hoax or that the moon landing was a sham. (A quick internet search can reveal a plethora of preposterous claims along with outrageous opinions and outlandish ideas. Most of these claims never seem to pass the tests of evidence, though.) If we seek out only information that confirms those ideas, of course we’ll find it! Instead, we should strive to acquire knowledge through rational, objective analysis and critical thought, not by filtering and cherrypicking our information based on what we already believe — or want to believe. Seek truth and evidence, not anecdotes. Seek facts and data, not affirmation. If we do these things objectively, the truth will inevitably follow.

7. Wishful Thinking

Next, we arrive at one of the biggest of all internal obstacles: Wishful thinking. Wishful thinking can take on many forms. In its essence, wishful thinking is similar to denial in that we see things not how they are, but how we would like them to be. If we engage in wishful thinking, we form our beliefs and make our decisions on the sole basis of what might be pleasing or comforting to us. Instead of appealing to evidence, rationality, and reality, it appeals to our fear and our emotional or mental comfort and stability.

When combined with selective perception and confirmation bias, wishful thinking often deals the deathblow to the head of rationality.

For example, for many, the spiritual mediums we discussed above provide comfort. We’ve already seen the role that selective perception and confirmation bias play in the formation of the belief in the supernatural. Despite the fact that these “mediums” are nothing more than charlatans, skilled manipulators, cold-readers, and predators of the grief-stricken, whose abilities have not once been proven under properly controlled conditions, many people take comfort in their words. Most of the time, their victims want to believe. Perhaps the medium has brought closure to a grieving person. Perhaps the medium provides “evidence” that allows the spectator to carry on believing in the existence of the supernatural. No matter the reasons, simply because a person wants something to be true doesn’t mean it is true.

Wishful thinking can even work the opposite direction. This is when it begins to look even more like denial. Wishful thinking can just as often lead people to believe that something isn’t true despite an overwhelming abundance of evidence to the contrary. For example, young-earth creationists still cling — and wishfully so — to the notion that the earth is only about 6,000 years old. The evidence is impossibly stacked against them, from radiometric dating methods using uranium, rubidium, potassium, thorium, and others, to the stratification of the rock layers and rates of sediment deposition on earth, geomagnetic reversals recorded in the spreading of the seafloor, and the fossil record itself. Not to mention, we have found living trees on earth that are almost as old as young-earth creationists believe it is. However, to acknowledge the validity of the science when it comes to the age of the earth would be to acknowledge their worldview is in err. Wishful thinking is the fail-safe. They don’t want it to be true, so it’s not.

Just as it’s important to analyze the validity of our evidence when sifting the reliable information from the “fake news” and “alternative facts,” it’s equally important that we also assess ourselves in the process:

• Are our senses providing us with the best information available?
• Could our minds be playing tricks on us?
• Do our memories serve us correctly, or is it possible they’ve been hastily and carelessly encoded?
• Are we seeing patterns in random data?
• Could it be possible that we are pre-screening the information we allow ourselves to be exposed to, in order to support our pre-existing beliefs?
• Are we seeking out only that which confirms what we already claim to “know,” or are we remaining objective in our search for the truth?
• Is fear forcing us into becoming wishful thinkers?
• Are our emotions overruling evidence, logic, and rationality?

In our endless quest to think critically, these are the questions we must ask ourselves. Unfortunately, these obstacles are problems we all face as humans. It is only through awareness of our own cognitive shortcomings that we can hurdle the obstacles that stand between us and an accurate, realistic worldview.

I can think of few better ways to wrap up a series on our obstacles to truth than a quote from theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and author Lawrence Krauss on what it means to have an open mind, free from the obstacles and biases discussed above:

“If we wish to draw philosophical conclusions about our own existence, our significance, and the significance of the universe itself, our conclusions should be based on empirical knowledge. A truly open mind means forcing our imaginations to conform to the evidence of reality, and not vice versa, whether or not we like the implications.” — Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing