Wanted to post a quick book rec: On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not
It's not flawless, but it's provocative, and includes some fun brain science.
Quick takeaway: Certainty is an emotion. Just a feeling. Let that sink in. Ever been "certain" and wrong?...
My favorite takeaway: The Challenger Study. Where were you when the Challenger blew up? (I was on the phone with the program director of our local PBS station, and he said "I've gotta go, the space shuttle just blew up" and hung up on me.) In this study, researchers a year or two after the event asked subjects to report on where they were when they got the news and asked them to write their recollections down. Then, maybe ten years later, they contacted as many of those people as they could find and asked them again where they were. Answers varied widely, and here's the kicker: In many of the cases where the story had changed, and the subjects were shown their own written reports and asked about the discrepancy, the subjects agreed that that was their handwriting but said "but that's not what happened"(!).
Maybe it's the lawyer in me, and the flashbacks to my Evidence class and impeaching a witness with a prior inconsistent statement, but I find that fascinating. Given the choice between their present recollection and their written testimony from years prior, they "go with their gut" over against their previous written statement. What?!
Anyway, submitted for your consideration....
It's not flawless, but it's provocative, and includes some fun brain science.
Quick takeaway: Certainty is an emotion. Just a feeling. Let that sink in. Ever been "certain" and wrong?...
My favorite takeaway: The Challenger Study. Where were you when the Challenger blew up? (I was on the phone with the program director of our local PBS station, and he said "I've gotta go, the space shuttle just blew up" and hung up on me.) In this study, researchers a year or two after the event asked subjects to report on where they were when they got the news and asked them to write their recollections down. Then, maybe ten years later, they contacted as many of those people as they could find and asked them again where they were. Answers varied widely, and here's the kicker: In many of the cases where the story had changed, and the subjects were shown their own written reports and asked about the discrepancy, the subjects agreed that that was their handwriting but said "but that's not what happened"(!).
Maybe it's the lawyer in me, and the flashbacks to my Evidence class and impeaching a witness with a prior inconsistent statement, but I find that fascinating. Given the choice between their present recollection and their written testimony from years prior, they "go with their gut" over against their previous written statement. What?!
Anyway, submitted for your consideration....