The Hidden Jazz of Groups

I wore two hats today at a presentation by two of my friends, Dan Rubright and Leslie Peters. I was already planning to attend the “The Hidden Jazz of Groups” presented in the Cortex District of St. Louis. Dan asked me whether I could also shoot some photos of the presentation, which sounded like fun.

Dan and Leslie, who are married to each other, have combined their skillsets into a way that celebrates both individual differences and the magic of collaboration. Dan, who is both an exquisite musician and an educator, began the session by giving his insight into the process of creating jazz, and then moved on to discuss the wide variety of creating and combining sounds to create music. Leslie, an author and speaker on group dynamics, then joined in. It was a smart and unintimidating way to broach the topic of efficient group dynamics. These are a few of my photos from the presentation.

If you click on the video, you'll hear Dan’s impromptu performance of some of his music. His style is truly his own. I’m always delighted by the amount of music he can coax out of a single guitar.

Continue ReadingThe Hidden Jazz of Groups

Kahneman’s Inevitable Heuristics and Powerful Optical Illusions

Today, I was thinking about Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow. I think of this book at least several times each week. It's got to be one of the most important books I have ever read, in that it identifies numerous ways in which people are unwittingly mislead by mental heuristics, i.e., by their intuitions and shortcuts. You might be a bigger threat to yourself than any outsider.

The solution to Kahneman's heuristics is seemingly that we should be more careful or that we should train ourselves so that we are not mislead by these heuristics. Kahneman concludes, unfortunately, that heuristics are too strong to recognize in real time. He characterizes them to be like optical illusions. When we look at them over and over we will be fooled over and over.

Here is one of my favorite optical illusions: The Ames Window. My mind is intransigent. I can't unsee this illusion even though I know exactly what is going on.

Many (e.g., I've heard interviews by Sam Harris and Shane Parrish) have suggested to Kahneman that since we know about these systematic ways in which the mind runs off the rails, we can make adjustments. Kahneman will have none of it. "“The question that is most often asked about cognitive illusions is whether they can be overcome. The message … is not encouraging.”  Kahneman writes further: "Kahneman writes. “We would all like to have a warning bell that rings loudly whenever we are about to make a serious error, but no such bell is available.”

Or consider that Kahneman and Richard Nisbett seem to disagree on whether we can train out our systematic mistakes, yet this article ("The Cognitive Biases Tricking Your BrainScience suggests we’re hardwired to delude ourselves. Can we do anything about it?") suggests that we seem to be more easily trainable with regard to "easy problems."

This is nonetheless, discouraging, right?  Maybe that's why it is a good idea to work with groups of people.  Maybe someone else will catch your mistakes.  And if not, maybe you can catch your mistakes in a post-mortem and then add your mistakes on your check list to help you for the next time the situation arises.

Continue ReadingKahneman’s Inevitable Heuristics and Powerful Optical Illusions

An Impeachment Trial Where the Rule of Law Got the Death Penalty

With this single question, Elizabeth Warren has precisely voiced the deep concerns of every honest and proficient trial lawyer in the United States:

At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?

I applaud Elizabeth Warren because this question (which is really a searing accusation) needed to be asked directly and publicly. The Emperor has no clothes. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is sitting on his hands in the front row seat while the Rule of Law rots. The bare-majority raucous crowd is getting its way with this modern day Pontius Pilate.

Continue ReadingAn Impeachment Trial Where the Rule of Law Got the Death Penalty

Parents, Plants and Darwin’s Dangerous Idea

Life has been too good to me recently, filling me with more upbeat energy than usual. That type of good fortune can make it difficult to sit still and concentrate on my work, so yesterday I took my monkey-mind for a brisk walk to the Missouri Botanical Garden. I then meditated while sitting on a park bench in front of a huge tree. I didn’t know that this big tree would trigger vivid thoughts about my parents and my attraction to dangerous ideas.

My dad was an engineer who designed weapons of war for McDonnell-Douglas. Now deceased, he was proud of his ability to analyze problems and to come up with answers, even when he was considering life’s heaviest mysteries. He also embraced many of the pat answers offered by his religion and repeatedly tried to shame me into accepting them, which led to the extremely strained relationship I had with him.

My mom is very much alive and, at age 87, she still lives independently. She did not work outside of the home, was not hardened by the outside world, and was not comfortable challenging the arguments and lectures my dad launched from his seat at the family kitchen table. Far from those dinnertime arguments between her husband and her teenage son, however, she allowed her mind to freely explore ideas based on a rather unfettered sense of curiosity. My mom often asked me simple questions around the house, not realizing that simple questions would be the ones most likely to challenge my comforting inner narratives and presumptions. Simple questions can even be dangerous.

Friedrich Nietzsche recognized that truth is dangerous and that it took courage to determine what is true. Are you willing to question your most basic beliefs? For Nietzsche, real philosophizing was a demanding and dangerous endeavor that many people simply cannot endure.

From her perspective, my mom simply asked questions about things that seemed interesting, like “What is time?” Or “Is more always better?” Or “What if the beliefs of Buddhism are correct?” To this day, she looks puzzled whenever I thank her for being such a free-thinker (which she was, well before that term became popular). Regardless, her dangerous questions took root in me and they prepared me to appreciate many of the extraordinary aspects of life’s “ordinary” things. Her questions were probably a big reason why I majored in philosophy and psychology and, ultimately, created my website, Dangerous Intersection. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingParents, Plants and Darwin’s Dangerous Idea

Gaslighting Checklist and Tutorial

Is someone gaslighting you? Here's a basic definition:

Gaslighting is a tactic in which a person or entity, in order to gain more power, makes a victim question their reality. It works much better than you may think.
Here is a handy checklist.

How can you combat gaslighting as a journalist? Mary Louise Kelly did a great job in her interview of Mike Pompeo recently. Here's a bit of that interview.

In the 1950's, social psychologist Soloman Asch did some experiments that showed how powerful it is to be gaslit (or at least something that seems similar to gaslighting) even when it involved strangers with no emotional connection in a laboratory setting.

Continue ReadingGaslighting Checklist and Tutorial