In some ways this blog entry ties back to my previous posts on Choice Points: “Forks in the Road” and Evidence Procedures. One of the things I have been noticing about recent political debates is how often people, and perhaps especially politicians, seem to be absolutely sure of so many things.
Bell Curve
In statistical terms, when we measure most populations on most scales (such as height, weight, IQ, education, age at death, etc.) the result is the familiar bell shape of Pareto’s Law.
It make sense: Some people are really tall, some are really short, and most are in between. Pareto’s Law, the Bell Curve, is the general rule.
Bimodal Distribution
When we look at a wide variety of today’s “burning issues,” however, we end up with bimodal distribution, with ideas and opinions being grouped toward the extremes of the possibilities. Whether the issue is having military-style assault weapons be freely available for purchase, whether those who have entered the country (USA) without proper documentation should be afforded a route to citizenship, whether we can best address the deficit through increased austerity (basically making poor people poorer) or by enhancing revenues (perhaps taxing the rich) and spending on such things as improving education and our infrastructure, we end up with bimodal distribution of opinions.
Even such issues as the age of the planet (about 5 billion years old or about 5 thousand years old) and global climate change (serious problem or a grand hoax), we have people on both sides of the aisle who are absolutely certain that they have a lock on the truth. One thing you can be absolutely certain of is that if you (or someone else) is absolutely certain that he or she knows something absolutely for sure, changing that belief can be difficult and may be impossible.
At one time, having such rigid beliefs undoubtedly served some purpose in human survival. At this point in human history, however, we are living in an increasingly complex world. It may be that the world is really no more complex than it used to be, but we have become more aware of the complexities. Antibiotics, for example, were first used widely in the 1940s. Usage expanded throughout the 50s and 60s. I can remember being prescribed an antibiotic for a viral infection and having the doctor tell me that the drug would preclude an “opportunistic” bacterial infection. And, in addition to prescribing antibiotics freely to humans, we started giving them to chickens and cows as well as flushing unused prescriptions down our toilets. And the bacteria fought back. We now we have bacteria that are highly resistant to all known antibiotics.
We have done the same basic thing with our crops. We have developed increasingly strong pesticides and herbicides to kill the bugs and weeds that reduce crop yields, and then we genetically modified the crops to withstand the really strong pesticides and herbicides. And guess what…. The bugs and weeds are fighting back by adapting. They are changing in ways that allow them to survive the pesticides and herbicides we have been using to kill them.
With both antibiotics and the combination of pesticides and herbicides, we have been taking an absolutist position. Then, when the approach doesn’t work, we “double down,” basically saying that what we tried didn’t work, so we will do more of it. If we weren’t so far out on one end of a bimodal scale or the other, we would be better able to discover new solutions. When you are absolutely sure, however, it is hard to try something new, even when what you are doing isn’t working.
If you are heavily invested in fossil fuels, pharmaceuticals, agricultural chemicals, or in a belief about the age of the earth or the right to own and use military-style assault weapons, it is extremely difficult to consider evidence that supports an alternative view. Yet this seems to be exactly what the complexities of modern life are requiring us to do. One of the questions Richard Bandler often asks in his workshops is, “Are you sure enough to be unsure?” Being absolutely sure is a “stuck” state. If you are absolutely sure, you will refuse to consider new evidence. When you are sure enough to be unsure, you are much more willing to consider new evidence and adapt to new realities.
My sense is that, just as individuals have “choice points” that determine whether they are on a path that leads to success or failure, societies and cultures do as well. What we like to think of as “Advanced Civilizations” may be close to reaching our most important choice point ever. The question is, are we sure enough to be unsure?
