In NLP, one of the central Metamodel questions is, “How do you know?” An honest answer to the question provides information about a person’s “model of the world,” which is essentially a “reality strategy”—the way people decide what’s real. In most cases, what we think of as “real” is more accurately a “belief,” in some cases with very little in the way of supporting evidence. Most beliefs begin, of course, with some evidence in the external environment. Through the natural processes of deletion, distortion, and generalization, beliefs that have a logical beginning can become increasingly distorted over time. One of the concepts I have used with some frequency in this blog is the shift in the belief in a geocentric world view to a heliocentric view.
Before Galileo and Copernicus, sensory evidence supported the belief that the earth was flat, with the sun and moon orbiting around what was often called “Middle Earth.” If you had asked our European ancestors, “How do you know the earth is flat?” they would have said that it’s obvious. You can, after all, walk or ride a horse all day and, other than mountains and valleys, never come to a place where it curves. Thanks to Galileo, Copernicus, and a number of others who looked for additional evidence, we now have the advantage of being able to see what the earth looks like from space. From that perspective, it’s easy to see that the earth is indeed round. That change in perspective was resisted by those in political power and put those who searched for additional evidence at risk.
The impetus for this blog entry is some of what is being said as those of us in the U.S. are entering the season of political and economic discontent. Some other areas of the world (such as Greece, Spain, the rest of Europe, and most of the Mideast and Africa) are experiencing similar problems, of course. In general, where conflicts occur, they occur because of differences in beliefs. When beliefs differ, the human tendency seems to be a desire to silence contrary beliefs instead of looking for evidence that would support or challenge the existing beliefs. Technology may have improved since the days of Galileo and Copernicus, but the human tendency to reject alternative perspectives and to punish those who hold them doesn’t seem to have changed much.
Four of the belief systems that divide “liberals” and “conservatives” in the U.S. (and perhaps much of the rest of the world as well) are (a) science in general and evolution in particular, (b) global warming/climate change, (c) economic policies to enhance prosperity, and (d) the role of government in regulating behavior.
- Science and Evolution: You would think (at least I would think) that science ought to be a disciple firmly rooted in evidence procedures. At its best, it is true of Science as a discipline. Scientists, however, often have their own axes to grind and are perfectly capable of maintaining a pet belief in the face of mounting evidence that the belief is false. This is especially true when the scientists in question have closely held beliefs in other areas that conflict with the emerging evidence calling those beliefs into question.
The PSA test for prostate cancer is one example. The most recent scientific evidence suggests that the test results in more harm than good. Even so, many doctors object to eliminating the screening. Whether they have additional evidence that should be considered, or whether their belief is influenced by income considerations isn’t clear. They typically provide anecdotal evidence of the one or two patients they know about for whom early detection made a difference. They conveniently ignore the number of problems caused by “false positives.”
The same is true for the conflict between mammography, which takes a picture using X-rays, and thermography, which uses the difference in heat generated by normal breast tissue and cancerous cells to create an image. Why the safer system, the one that avoids using X-rays, isn’t the one used most often seems to be a case of “follow the money.” Mammography is well-supported by lobbying. Thermography is not. The same is true for a number of other “overprescribed” medical tests.
In some cases, the rejection of scientific evidence is not based so much on monetary concerns as on competing belief systems. The Amish, for example, have rejected modern technology (including using hooks and eyes instead of buttons to keep their clothes on) out of a belief that a spiritual life depends on separation from “the world.” Resistance to the idea of evolution—and evolution education—is also based on a greater degree of faith in the Bible (the “Old Testament” in particular) than in evidence presented by geologists and biologists.
- Global Warming/Climate Change: If you live in the States, it’s been hard to overlook the conflict between those who believe that we need to take corrective action to slow the pace of climate change and those who believe that the climate will “correct” itself over time regardless of what humans do. One of the problems with examining the evidence for this issue depends on beliefs about science and evolution. Those who look at geophysical evidence over time see a different picture than those whose sense of time is based on religion. Of course, just having a long-term view of geophysical time doesn’t eliminate different opinions.
If the planet’s climate has experienced times of extremes of both heat and cold, then determining the degree of influence human activity is having on current climate change requires looking at additional evidence, and determining what—if anything—humans can do about climate change is difficult. It doesn’t mean, however, that it is impossible, and it suggests that knowing more will provide more options. Much of the data collected can be plotted on what has become known as “the hockey stick.” Would changing our behavior, especially with regard to the use of fossil fuels to create the energy we use for virtually everything we do, make a difference?
Most of those (perhaps not coincidentally) opposed to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels are those with a vested economic interest in the continued (and expanded) use of coal and oil. Just because they are making money off fossil fuels doesn’t mean that they are wrong about the effect such fuels have on global warming. It does, however, mean that their vested interest may be influencing their opinion about the consequences. Ideally, science is without concern for whose ox is being gored, focusing on evidence rather than vested interests.
- Economic Policies and Prosperity: Will lower taxes enhance prosperity for more people? Are “rich people” really job creators? Will higher taxes reduce prosperity? Will increasing taxes on the wealthy eliminate job creation? We have a lot of conversation on such subjects, but very few of those doing the discussing actually look at the historical evidence showing the relationship between tax policy and prosperity. At least in the States, the information is available because we have been collecting it for a long time. Whatever it is, are you sure enough of your belief on this issue to examine the correlations?
Even if you’re willing, it isn’t easy to find good information about taxes and prosperity. Most articles on the subject have an ax to grind, and the most balanced articles aren’t easy to read or understand, especially by those of us without a background in macro economics. In the States, we have pretty good records of taxes, government spending, and economic well being since the turn of the twentieth century. We can look to see which presidents and their administrations provided the best economies and employment records, and we can correlate those with their tax rates.
Of course, macro economics depend not only on what is happening in one’s own country, but also on what is happening in other countries. When the rest of the world changes, one’s own country has to change as well. Do the same economic principles hold “at home” once the economies of other countries have changed? Are we so interdependent at this point that poverty in one location will influence the economic well-being of everyone? How much of the world’s wealth can one country or a group of “international rich people” get before poor countries and people decide that enough is enough? Tipping points are difficult—and perhaps impossible—to anticipate.
- Role of Government in Regulating Behavior: What do we really want government to do? Do we want government to be responsible for regulating transportation, including safety and routes of air traffic, road and bridge construction and maintenance, railroads—both freight and light rail? Do we want government to be responsible for national defense and police and fire protection? Do we want government to have responsibility for disaster relief? Does the government have a role to play in education? To what degree are these functions in the national interest? Do we want the government to have a hand in regulating health care?
The natural tendency is, of course, to want the government to protect my interests more than it protects the interest of others. If we’re already well-off financially, for example, we may want the government to provide school vouchers to reduce the cost of sending our children to expensive, private schools. If we’re not so well-off, we may want the government to do a better job of funding public schools. If we are among the employed, we may not be happy with paying taxes to cover the costs of unemployment insurance and food stamps for those who aren’t. If we are unemployed, we would be happy to have a well-developed “safety net” for support. These are primarily “follow the money” concerns.
When it comes to vested interests in a particular point of view, we are especially reluctant to examine the evidence surrounding the issue to see what actually benefits society as a whole. The “me first” syndrome has its origin in scarcity. When food is scarce, those who eat first have the best chance of survival. When fuel is scarce, those who have best access to it live better than those who don’t. One of the ironies in the States is that that those who object most to contributing to federal taxes are often the first to request federal support in time of natural disasters, such as floods, droughts, and severe weather.
“Me first” may be a good short-term strategy, but history provides a lot of evidence that the strategy doesn’t work well over time. If all the states objected to and refused to contribute to the federal coffers, where would the funding come from in times of disaster? It seems increasingly clear that, for better or for worse, humanity is interconnected. We are no longer isolated tribes who could hold and defend a territory to ensure our tribe’s survival and well-being. The individual treks of early explorers and traders have evolved into international travel, currency exchange, and values exploration. It would seem that we would do well to make sure that our evidence procedures are based on more than our own vested interests, to consider our neighbor’s ox as well as our own.
What are your favorite beliefs about “reality,” the ones of which you are most sure? To ask one of Richard Bandler‘s questions, “Are you sure enough to be unsure?” If so, take an honest look at the evidence to see if that changes your mind now….
