“Nobody sees anybody truly but all through the flaws of their own egos. That is the way we all see each other in life. Add to those the corresponding distortions in the egos of others and you see how cloudy the glass must become through which we look at each other”
— Tennessee Williams
I’ve been thinking recently about what clouds our perceptions of others. The human body sends 11 million bits of sensory information per second to the subconscious brain for processing, yet the conscious mind seems to be able to process only 40-120 bits per second. This means that there’s a staggering amount of compression taking place at each moment. Think about all the ways that your brain has to filter and simplify information.
Subtle biases creep in and influence the way we see and think about the world. How does this happen? Well, the brain does not simply process or filter external information, but actively interprets it. Think of perception as an actively formed view of the world rather than a passive reaction to sensory input from it.
However, when our past experiences and pre-existing beliefs (not objective input) are solely guiding our perception of the world, this behaviour would be classified as cognitively biased.
Attention is a limited resource so the brain often uses mental shortcuts to speed up our ability to make judgements—this is what leads to bias. Here are some well-known examples of cognitive biases that influence how we think and behave:
Only paying attention to news stories that confirm your pre-existing opinion
Attributing other people’s success to luck, but taking personal credit for your own accomplishments
Assuming that everyone else shares your opinions or beliefs
There’s currently over 250 classified cognitive biases which can be categorised into different types such as:
Hindsight bias — the tendency to see events, even random ones, as more predictable than they are. For example, insisting that you knew all along which political candidate was going to win an election.
Anchoring bias — the tendency to be overly influenced by the first piece of information that we hear. For example, the first number voiced during a price negotiation typically becomes the anchoring point from which all further negotiations are based.
Misinformation bias — the tendency for memories to be heavily influenced by things that happened after the actual event itself. For example, watching television coverage can later change how a person remembers an event.
Actor-observer bias — the tendency to attribute our actions to external influences and other people's actions. For example, complaining that you missed a work meeting because you had jet lag.
Halo effect bias — the tendency for an initial impression of a person to influence what we think of them overall. For example, thinking that a political candidate who is confident must also be competent.
Availability bias — the tendency to estimate the probability of something happening based on how many examples readily come to mind. For example, after seeing several news reports of car thefts in your neighbourhood, you might start to believe that such crimes are more common than they are.
The question is then: if we tend to think in certain ways that can lead to systematic deviations from rational judgments, what does this mean for the way in which we view each other?
For instance, during a break-up, two people who broke up for whatever reason, both feel that their own subjective account of what transpired is ultimately the most accurate. Is one story more valid than the other? Who is to say that your subjective version of an event is more accurate than someone else’s version? In fact, there is a person, right now at this very moment, who objectively harmed you at some point in your life, who is sitting at home convinced that you were the bad guy. In their mental story, you were in the wrong, and they fully believe this. Remember that nobody plays the villain in their own head.
“Words never mean what we want them to mean”
– Jonathan Safran Foer
In addition, strong emotional experiences become your body’s emotional history. For example, have you ever met somebody who espouses the misguided and sad 'trust no-one' ideology? These kind of people live behind emotional barbed wire, completely closed off the world in fear or rejection or failure. If you were to meet an individual like this, it is likely that they will never truly see you because their jaded emotional patterning colours their current perception in such a deep way.
The lens with which we look at others and the world is so clouded that it’s almost impossible to say that we understand each other completely. Different filters blur and overtake our rational judgement so frequently in ways that we’re not even consciously aware, that it makes sense to question the very nature of what it means to see someone clearly. This isn't some nihilistic we're-all-doomed kind of trope, but I am simply questioning the the grounds of perception we use to validate our understanding of what it means to know someone and to see them for who they really are. I am questioning our understanding of understanding.
What does it mean to see someone? Evidently, I am using the term loosely here. But if I were to describe what this means to me personally—it's the ability to burn through all the layers of opacity and to see someone’s naked heart. There is freedom in acknowledging that the only way to truly know and see someone is through vulnerability. It forces us to surrender to our inner-world and to leave ego at the door. Of course, you'll need to engage in directed thinking and self-reflection to be sure that you're not being guided by subconscious cognitive biases. But when it comes to true understanding of others, honest vulnerability and open-heartedness is really the only way.
Σχόλια