I recently read The Things People Say, a column by staff writer Elizabeth Kolbert for The New Yorker in which she reviews Cass R. Sunstein’s book “On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done.” In the article, Kolbert talks about how, and why, in the face of the quadrillions of bytes of information on the internet, “information has never mattered less.” At the heart of her argument is the idea that once people form a belief about something, they do not look for or consider information that calls that belief into question; they do not listen to the other side. Rather, they seek information that confirms and validates their beliefs, leading to a greater sense of “rightness” and increased polarization.
Chris Argyris, well known author and management theorists, offers an explanation for this process in his “ladder of inference”. According to Argyris, we do not “objectively” gather data. Rather, once we form beliefs, those beliefs determine what data we pay attention to and collect. We become selective perceivers who collect data that is consistent with and reinforces our currently held beliefs. Contrary to the proposition “I’ll believe it when I see it”, according to the ladder of inference “I see it because I believe it.”
Prior to the advent of the internet, if magazines, newspapers, and broadcast news did not reflect a particular view, there was little opportunity for someone to find kindred spirits. The internet changed that. Now it is possible to find others who shared your beliefs, no matter how “far out” or extreme they might appear to be.
The impact of the internet information explosion was not to open people to wider and more diverse views, thereby bringing about more tolerance or a greater exchange of ideas. In fact, it had the opposite effect in that it made it possible for people to find more support for their existing beliefs, no matter how well or poorly founded, while ignoring contrary facts or information. The result, according to Kolbert, is greater polarization and intolerance. We can see this today in the current national “debate” regarding health care reform where those on the “right” and the “left” talk past each other, ignoring, dismissing, or criticizing what each has to say regardless of its merits. And in organizations we can see it where those in one group (e.g., “management”, “finance”) dismiss what those in another group (e.g., “employees”, “marketing”) have to say.
As read her article, I began to notice that I was subject to the very tendencies Kolbert was talking about. I realized I look for things that support my existing points of view, while skimming over or dismissing contrary points of view. And I was oblivious to doing it!
In response to this insight, I have taken on a new practice of listening to the other side. In particular, I have started with the current political discourse in the country by listening to the views of people from the “other side”. Rather than just dismiss them, I listen to understand the world in which what they are saying makes complete and perfect sense, not only to them, but to others. After starting this practice (its only a few days old), I have noticed that I don’t get as exercised when “they” (the other side) speak. And, I have begun to notice that those on “my side” engage in practices similar to those they criticize.
I wonder what would happen in organizations if people really started listening to the “other side”?
