Based initially on the severity
of the perceived outcome (bad stuff first, and in second place – good stuff), information earns our attention. Another early sort / filter (important concept) for information is relevance. A necessary and useful filter allows us to screen out most noise and let relevant information through. Filtering, sorting or prioritizing is how we manage traffic (sight, sound – data of any kind) in our brains. If it didn’t work this way, we’d all be nuts. Once traffic arrives, we process it accordingly. The way this happens was the subject of great debate for some time, but not any more. Science actually does have a pretty clear picture of how our brains work. There is a ton of material on this subject. There’s little disagreement on the mechanics of the brain – at least down to the level of information processing, storage and retrieval. There are some mystical theories, but I filter them as irrelevant (hmmm…). Here are corroborating (also an important word to remember) excellent reads: Who We Really Are – Robert Wiedermeyer, Stumbling on Happiness – Daniel Gilbert, This is Your Brain on Music – Daniel J. Levitin, On the Sweet Spot – Richard Keefe, A Whole New Mind – Daniel Pink. I have a dozen more – all agree.I won’t bog us down with regurgitating the detail, but I will quickly dive into a specific point to which there is little argument among current scientists. Specifically, the brain does not store all data. There is no hard-drive type of system that stores movies of our experience in deeper and deeper layers of memory. This is an extreme over-simplification, but for lack of a simpler way to explain it; the brain saves and arranges fragments of memory as chemical connections upon which traffic travels in our brains (neural pathways). There’s no reason to take an alternate route when our consciousness has a regular commute to deal with. These fragments provide enough foundation data for us to plug in current activity and not have to summon everything in its entirety. The scene in the movie is stored with just enough detail to keep it intact, but everything else is completely gone. Our foundation data is shaped by our experience and prefers to remain essentially intact unless new data is more relevant, comes with vivid new evidence, has great impact (consequence) or repeated often enough to recast the perfectly good, always worked before, set. Once we see reality and truth and “what is” a certain way – based on our experience, it serves us well to keep it that way and use it to process new stuff.
Back to filtering and screening - An old illustration of a relevancy-sort goes like this:
Read the following sentence just once.
FINISHED FILES ARE THE RESULT
OF YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY
COMBINED WITH THE EXPERIENCE
OF MANY YEARS OF EXPERTS.
Now Read it again (just once) and count the number of F’s in the sentence once, then stop. Most people count three F’s in the words Finished, Files and aha… Scientific. How many did you count? Maybe you found more or less. There are actually seven F’s in the sentence. Read through it again, maybe you’ll see more F’s. Do it again once - now, then come back to this.
Hey – there are seven F’s (fact). However, almost no one sees the seven F’s on the first or even second pass. No say… Say. You look, you don’t see. Then you look again and probably still don’t see even though you were told how many were actually there. There is no relevant need to count F’s. This is a silly thing to develop a knack for (another terrific word – “knack”). This knack is virtually useless and resists finding a place in the brain’s wiring. That’s why it’s not unusual to miscount the F’s even after being told how many there were.
Since the word “of” isn’t important or relevant in the meaning of the sentence, our brain creates a type of blind spot. Isn’t it possible, or perhaps likely that we have other blind spots? Some may be useful, some not. By definition, we are blind to the blind spots. This “I don’t see the F’s” thing is an example of relevancy filtering. When something is of value and comes through as relevant, we let it in. Why is it that when you are in a crowded room with lots of chatter and conversation, you effectively block out the noise of the chatter, but when you hear your name spoken from across the room, it finds its way through? We also screen other things for other reasons.
We have a built-in and useful resistance to tearing up previously reinforced pictures. Our efficient brains easily accept the key pieces of data that fit nicely into our established framework (corroboration), but when something doesn’t fit (contradiction), our brains toss up some resistance (at least initially) by ignoring it if possible, or by interpreting it as if it did fit. That’s why we are usually quite happy to go along with a point of view that fits comfortably into our scene. The inclination to accept things that fit and resist things that don’t is something we just do. Things that reinforce out previously held view fly through our screens and things that don't, don't. We can ignore an amazing amount of logic and overwhelming evidence that doesn't fit, and yet give us a little slice of something in-line and "oh boy; "see - see - see, I told you so!" When the weight of evidence is anywhere close to balanced, we have little ability to recognize it.
We burn in our points of view when we go out hunting for information. We might read all the articles on a subject, but we do so with a predisposition to resist points of view that contradict previously accepted well-traveled thoughts. To discount a contradicting point of view, but let a corroborating view pass smoothly home, is a normal and efficient part of the process. We’re constantly checking our old reality against a new one and updating our scene. We should recognize that there is a preference for corroboration and at least a tiny bit of opposition to contradiction. If we’re saturated with evidence in support of our point of view, we might beef up our resistance – a viscous circle (or a virtuous circle – depending on your point of view –, which is in itself is a reinforcing feedback loop… I digress). You see this kind of thing in religion and politics all the time. In spite of what some would argue is overwhelming evidence, some people are convinced that there was an actual Adam and Eve; we’re all descendants, beginning to human existence. The Adam and Eve notion is preposterous to some, while the theory of evolution is unreasonable to others. Some have managed to fit the evidence into an alternate idea that gives them their Adam and Eve, but allows all the rest to happen in an evolutionary way. You get the idea. More republicans watch Bill O’Reilly and Fox News, while more democrats and independents watch Anderson Cooper and CNN. They don’t do so exclusively, but each prefers at least a hint of corroboration.
If we accept that the screening mechanism (natural – no one’s fault) might get in the way of some reward, and we can be open to the possibility that a few new set of well-feed concepts can be established, we can make something happen. It’s a tough assignment (understatement), but if you can develop the ability to shape other people’s filters, you can do some wild stuff.
A practical application:
If you have a struggling business and your employees don't believe that the way your business works is good for your customers, even more specifically - if they don't think the way you do things is a sincere effort to deliver benefit for your customers and employees, or if (say it ain't so) your employees don't trust you - you need to find a way to change how they think. To change a burned-in view of reality, you have to present a consistent and constant message, demonstrate your point often. Make the message about your vision and your unwavering belief an important part of daily life in your company. To close the deal in their minds, you'll have to get past the resistance. It may (will) take more time and effort than you think. If you've been neglectful, selfish or naughty (and they know it), you probably can't get there. You'll need a huge attention getting or disruptive event in order to get past the barriers. It will be worth it, so do it. You will not however, be able to chip away at it with any measurable success. Alternately, you can get new people and start fresh. Also tough.
You may disagree initially, but that would just be you screening.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment