Balancing our intellectual pH!

 "Listening to him for five minutes a day might help you to balance your intellectual pH", I blurted out during a conversation with a friend of mine. We were having a conversation on a topic on which my friend had a very strong point of view and I was trying to encourage him to listen to an expert who was known for having a different point of view. My friend was refusing to do so and that was when I blurted out the statement at the beginning of this post.

The above discussion with my friend was inconclusive, and it left me feeling a bit uneasy. These kind of unresolved incidents (the undigested thoughts and feelings arising from those incidents, to be precise) can create 'ghosts' in our field of thoughts that can 'haunt' us for a long time. The ideal way to exorcise these 'ghosts' is to listen to them, revisit those incidents and thoughts and deal with them adequately to ensure that those thoughts are properly digested/absorbed/integrated. In a way, it is very similar to the 'chewing the cud' behavior of some animals (called 'ruminants'). Blogging has given me the opportunity to exorcise quite a few of such ghosts (see 'Competencies and Carbohydrates' for an example) and hence I thought I will attempt the same in this case also!

After I had done some reflection on the interaction that I have had with my friend, I became increasingly aware of the paradoxical nature of this issue. A paradox is a situation with an inherent contradiction. A paradox occurs when there are multiple points of view on an issue, each of which are true and essential, but they appear to be in conflict with one another. Therefore, let's look at few of the perspectives on 'intellectual pH' and its implications for what we should read/view/listen to:

• Just like a chemical pH balance is important for healthy functioning of the body, an intellectual pH balance is important for he healthy functioning of the mind and for intellectual wellness (effective participation in scholastic and community activities). Intellectual curiosity/openness and lifelong learning are essential for intellectual wellness. After all, it is our intellect that makes us different from other animals.  

• There is nothing like  'one right pH balance'. Even in the human body, the optimal pH value differs for different parts of the body. Similarly, our intellectual equilibrium point should be different for different issues. Moreover, while the pH balance in the body is in terms of acid-base balance, the intellectual pH can have multiple dimensions (e.g. conservative-liberal, communist - capitalist etc.).  

• It is always better to listen to multiple perspectives. It enables us to broaden our intellectual horizons and to better informed decisions and more nuanced positions on issues.

• We have only limited time and energy. Hence, we should be selective in what we read/view/listen to. Moreover, we don't know if what we read/view/listen to is accurate/valid. 

• If we try to be selective, the selection is likely to be influenced by our current point of view/biases. So, we might just end up confirming/strengthening our current point of view. While there is indeed a lot of 'fake news' out there, we can reduce our chance of being misled by focusing on those sources that are widely regarded to be reliable and that follow a rigorous validation process.  

• One has to take a position and stick to it. 'If you don't stand for anything, you will fall for everything'!

• It is very much possible to have strong opinions and to hold them loosely at the same time. Remember, the nature of 'truth' in science is always 'provisional'. 

• Not everything is a matter of scientific truth and philosophy of science. Some things are a matter of personal values and beliefs. Also, just because something confirms to the most widely held opinion, it need not be true.  

• Intellectual balance is essential for making good judgements which is essential for being effective individuals and effective members of  the society. While we do have personal values and opinions, 'no man is an island'. 

• One can't look at the world (or listen to ideas/perspectives) in a truly objective manner. All observation is theory-laden, even though we might not be aware of the theories in our mind. Since each of us have our own unique ways of looking at the world, it will be impossible to be completely intellectual balanced.

• If we are deeply aware of our point of view we can watch out for the possible biases that can creep into our thinking because of that.

Where does this leave us? We cannot resolve a paradox in the way we solve a typical problem. We cannot choose one of the options over the others without oversimplifying the situation. What is possible is to struggle with the paradoxical situation for a sufficient period of time so that we can reach a higher level of awareness and deeper understanding of the context and the issue, that will enable us to come up with the most effective response at a given moment. I guess, that is direction we should go on this particular issue also.

Yes, being 'intellectually honest' (in terms of honesty in the acquisition, analysis and expression of facts/ideas and in terms of the willingness to accept the possible limitations of one's point of view) is very important to have a fair conversation (with others and with oneself). It is often possible that being open to other perspectives might enable one to better understand ones' perspective better (or make it more nuanced) even if one doesn't change it ("We shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and to know the place for the first time" - in the words of  T S Eliot). 

Humans are 'territorial' like many other animals and in our case the 'territory' includes our 'intellectual territory' and 'psychological territory' in addition to 'geographical territory'. Hence, we do have a tendency to get defensive when someone criticizes us or our points of view (as we tend to perceive it as a violation of our psychological/intellectual territory. One can (and should) definitely have personal beliefs and points of view. The requirement is just to ensure that one's personal beliefs don't interfere with one's pursuit of truth and with the quality of one's interactions with others! Yes, we look at the world (and ideas/opinions) through our own lenses. But, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to clean those lenses and to keep them as distortion-free as possible! 

Any comments/ideas?

Research and a three-year-old

The incident that triggered the thought process behind this post happened when my son was about 3 years old. This was the time when he was trying to figure out 'cause and effect' relationships. So he used to say things like "If I shout in the class, my teacher will scold me", "I ran very fast in the park. That is why I fell down" etc. Those days we used to have an evening ritual. I would put my son on my shoulders and go for a walk. This 'sitting on the shoulders' arrangement made conversations easy even when there was a lot of noise all around. So this led to a lot of interesting discussions. There is nothing quite like a conversation with a curious, confident and talkative three-year-old to force one to be aware of and to question one's assumptions!

These walks would take us near a manned railway crossing/gate. Since he likes to see trains, we would stand there for a long time. After a few days he told me about a 'discovery' he has made "The gate has closed. That is why the train is coming"! Now, we all know that the 'causation' (if any) is the other way around. But purely based on his observations this was not so. He sees one thing happening (gate closes). After that something else always happens (train comes). Based on his 'life experience so far' (or his understanding of the 'system'/'universe') it was reasonable for him to think that if something happens and something else always happens after that the first thing might be causing the second thing (this principle had worked for him in the two examples mentioned above - running in the park and shouting in the class).

So, how would I convince him that his conclusion was wrong? The only way that I could think of was to tell him about the larger system (the railway system in this case - that makes the trains run and the gates close). This solution 'worked' only because there was someone around who knew about the larger system. He could not have come to the 'correct conclusion' purely based on his observations and his life experience thus far (i.e. based on his understanding of the 'system' at that point) .

Now, if we look at the research in behavioral science (or may be research in general), often we don't have the luxury of fully knowing the larger system in which the phenomena that we are observing are happening. Also there might not be anyone who has an adequate understanding of the system to 'enlighten' us. Actually, such understanding might not even exist! (as all the 'possible' events/system behaviors might not have been observed or even taken place so far - e.g. unusual/rare events/system behaviors like those that could result from malfunctioning of railway signals, human error, train breakdowns, accidents etc. or events like 'two trains passing through the railway gate at the same time on parallel tracks' that could arise from from a peculiar/uncommon combination of factors - if we stick with our original example). Often, there is no way we can study the 'entire system' (actually it would be very difficult even to determine the exact boundaries of the relevant 'system' in a particular study). We might not be in a position to look at all the data. So have to decide what data we would study and what data we would leave out. This could bring in biases (e.g. selection bias, survivorship bias etc.) and limitations. Thus, there is a significant risk that we might make the wrong inference (since we are limited by our observations and our current level of understanding of the system).

In addition to this, there are the standard problems with spurious correlations, mistaking correlation for causation, determining the direction of causation ('A causes B' or 'B causes A' or 'C causes both A and B' etc.) and assumptions regarding the homogeneity/uniformity of the system (assuming that findings that are valid in one part of the system are equally valid in other parts of the system). Of course, there are ways of expanding both our 'current level of understanding' and our data set/observations (e.g. study of the existing 'research' in the domain- if relevant and available). But, if we examine most of the 'research' that happens within organizations (for diagnosis and decision making - to solve the immediate problems in particular organization contexts), the pressures of time and resources might dilute the efforts to expand the 'understanding and data set'. Again, it is possible that the 'system' might have changed (in subtle but significant ways - without us noticing it) from what it was at the time we studied it/derived inferences on system behavior. Considering the nature and pace of change in many of the human systems that we are taking about, this could pose a big challenge for making available 'valid actionable inferences' to guide our decision making. Keeping all this in mind, can we expect to do always better than what my three-year-old had managed to do?

Note: I am not saying that useful behavioral research can't be conducted in organizations. My point is just that it requires a convergence of 'realistic expectations', 'will' and 'resources' - which, unfortunately, is not very common in most 'real world' organization contexts. If the 'research problem' can be defined narrowly, I would not even rule out the possibility of 'experiments' (though 'experiments' might not be a 'politically correct' term in organization contexts ; 'pilot studies' might be more appropriate). If such experiments can be conducted in the filed of medicine (where - literally - 'life and death' issues are involved), why can't we try them in business organizations (with proper precautions)? Of course, the problems like the ones that I have mentioned above (e.g. too many variables, difficulty in conducting 'controlled experiments', insufficient understanding of the system, biases in selection of data, assumptions about homogeneity and stability of the population/system etc.) still apply. But we might still get some useful information and/or insights.

Any comments/thoughts/ideas?

See somewhat related posts here, here and here.

everlasting or timeless ?

While I have always wanted to 'go to heaven when I die', I was often a bit concerned about one aspect of the common descriptions on the life in heaven'. The main issue was that the descriptions often painted a static picture of everlasting bliss. My fear was that I might get bored after some time, even in a state of bliss.

Recently I came across an insight that would make this problem irrelevant. The problem was with my understanding of 'eternal bliss'. I was confusing between 'everlastingness' and 'timelessness'. The heavenly bliss is timeless and not everlasting. Time exists only in the physical world and hence time does not exist in heaven and hence there is no question of 'getting bored after some time'.

Now I realize that I could have derived this 'insight' from a story about St. Augustine that I had heard a long time ago. The book of Genesis begins with the verse "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth". One person came to St. Augustine and asked him "what was God doing before he created the heavens and the earth?" Of course St. Augustine could have answered some thing like "God was making the hell for people who ask these kind of questions". But St. Augustine did not do that. St. Augustine told him that "time is a property of the physical universe and hence time does not exist before God created the heavens and the earth". Actually, St. Augustine has done deep exploration regarding the nature of time. Considering that he lived in the fourth century AD, it is truly amazing !

Note: There are fundamental differences (at the level of basic underlying assumptions) in various worldviews about the nature of time. For example, in the Judeo-Christian worldview, time is linear, where as in the Hindu philosophy time is cyclical. This has implications for any statement about 'before' or 'after' including what we are discussing in this post. Of course, it can be argued that even if we consider time as cyclical, there is a singularity at the point where one cycle ends and the next one begins. In a singularity, the laws of physics break down & hence a physical property like time also vanishes!