Why is it hard to accept that we make mistakes?
Try, one day, to walk up to someone, maybe up to many people, and tell them that you think they have made a mistake in their most recent decision. You can even try to sugar-coat it by telling them that the reason for this mistake is not because they are stupid or negligent, but because this is just the way they are wired — just the way their brain works.
If you take this approach, chances are that you will not be chosen as the most popular person in the office. My guess is that people will view your comment in a very negative light, become very offended, and distance themselves from you.
Now think about another case:
You walk up to someone, maybe up to many people, and show them a visual illusion — something that causes them to see something differently from what it actually is. When you show them their mistake, you also tell them that the reason for their mistake is not because they are stupid or negligent, but because this is just the way they are wired — just the way their brain works.
If you take this approach my guess is that your popularity will not suffer, and in fact, you might be considered a fun and interesting person.
Why would people react so differently to being told that they made a mistake in their decision than in their vision?
I am not sure of the answer, but it is clear to me that our over-sensitivity to the fallibility of our decision making causes us to limit the negative feedback we give others (saying, for example, “You are wrong.”), and that it is also the main reason that we try so hard (despite the evidence) to consider ourselves rational.
Hi Dan
My EUR 0.01:
We _learn_ to make decisions of the kind you refer to (say choosing the medical plans in K-T’s original Prospect Theory example); therefore making wrong decisions is perceived to be our fault, a failure of our learning. We don’t learn to use our eyes, so optical illusions are perceived as a manufacturer’s defect, not our fault.
Cheers,
J
Hi,
part of the story could be that mistake in a decision somewhat suggests that they are less smart then others (and you, since you noticed the mistakes). Also, if you criticize something work related, they might think that you imply that the mistake comes from lack of hard (team) work – ie., they take it as if you said that they did not work enough to make that decision right. That’s not likely to happen in something work not related – like a vision game/trick.
Jan,
If I understand you correctly you are saying that we take more pride and blame in our decisions, I agree with you but this does not answer the full question of why we do this. Could it be that we all feel that in the mental domain we can produce flawless performance, while in the physical domain we are well aware of our limitations and so adjust our expectations accordingly?
Dan;
I would interested in your comments on Carol Travis and Eliot Aronson’s book “Mistakes were made, but not by me”
I have short review of it here:
http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/due-diligence/how_we_justify_foolish_acts_an.html
This would be an excellent question to ask of the Chicago Bears management who just re-signed their quarterbacks…
It might be interesting to conduct an experiment to see if people with dyslexia are less troubled by learning that they have made a mistake. After all we dyslexics are used to being wrong, used to thinking twice, and I think temperamentally we grow relatively more comfortable with contingency. To me, what makes the difference is the clarity, the certainty of the initial impression. If we have reason to doubt our initial impressions, we might be less resistant to learning that our conclusions turned out to be wrong.
Daniel Heins
I think you made a mistake. The javascript that launches the quicktime videos craters. And why use Quicktime anyway? Flash is reliable.
I think you might be headed in an irrational direction, Mr. Dan.
You assume that man is an irrational creature by nature, which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense if you look to human history. How could we progress?
Then you make isolated logical constructs, call them rational, and BAM! proof arrives that no one is rational.
Ever heard of Pathos, Logos, and Ethos? Logos=logic. Rationality is an understanding of all three of those. Not one. Not two.
If you say something doesn’t make sense and never take it upon yourself to try to make sense of it, it is rather hard to actually know the truth of the matter. Its easy to call stuff crazy and dismiss it as unworthy of your time.
Hypocrisy rules your book. Please fix that in the next one.
By the way: I scored higher the first round of three-doors but didn’t play correctly till the second.
Don’t confuse the ideal with the real.
I think that its partly about culture. Today, we (at least I feel) very pushed to be perfect, and there’s no room for error. I think we don’t like to admit mistakes not only because of pride, but fear that we’ll be left out of the race..
for what it’s worth. I think the test is flawed. It took me several clicks to understand the scoring system. Scores were random and varied significantly with each click. So in the first game I tried each door 2-3 times. In the second game I found a door that paid off and stuck with it. What results would you get if you switched the shrinking doors to the second round. If this was done in the original testing, great. If not, I think it was a grievous oversight and the results should never have been published in the first place.
Well I had a long-winded answer that I lost when I put in the wrong protection code, but maybe that’s a good thing
. To more briefly summarize, I interpret the 2 scenarios are distinct in:
1. Who is being accused as wrong: just him/her, or me also? With the illusion, for example, I assert that we BOTH were fooled by it at least initially
2. How CERTAIN are we who is wrong? Again with the illusion, there usually is the AHA moment where you realize that indeed you were being fooled.
3. How confrontational was the situtation that this information delivered?
I believe in the two scenarios, you give a different answer to all these questions, and all contribute somewhat to the distinct difference in how they ultimately turn out. If you tweak the scenarios so that these answers aren’t as distinct, the interpretation is less black-and-white as to how it turns out.
Gene
Ah, the “It’s not me” or the “Not my fault” syndromes.
I commonly hear it in the winter months when everyone professes to everyone else around them that, “Snow doesn’t bother me, no, it’s all of the idiots who don’t know how to drive on it that ruins it.”
I also find that most discussions which recount events or other discussions tend to center around supporting that “I was right.” issue.
Nobody wants to be wrong or the idiot.
Why would people react so differently to being told that they made a mistake in their decision than in their vision (just copied from the text of your entry)?
If you were to claim that someone is mistaken in his vision, you automatically propose his general lack of rationality in all of his decisions, which is much more offensive. You provide him with an overflow of criticism (i.e. information) that he’s nearly incapable of comprehending because it’s simply too daunting to sufficiently defend himself against (and pick his way through). On the other hand, if you allude to a mistake in one of his particular decisions, it allows him to focus on a less suffocating (and less presumptuous) assessment of him that keeps the door open to the chance that he’s not hopelessly irrational. He’s forced to more acutely examine the fallibility of his rationality when you bluntly state (or assume) his vision is irrational.
I would be relived and not offended. After working with some special needs people and trying to do a little rewiring, more untangling of my own perceptions it would be a nice to know that there is a point when I can blame it on my brain. It’s more work to be rational than it is to be reasonable.
But you are so right. The right brain left brain twirling girl thing always gets a good reaction, but nobody takes the news of some cognitive snafu well at first. Or at least they haven’t in my experience.
I think there is another dimension to consider. Perhaps overjudgementally, I will term this dimension posturing. It seems that people are not particularly upset at the fact that they made a mistake but that their posture of correctness has been deflated. This posturing has everything to do with the flux of interpersonal relations and little to do with actual correctness. I think this shows up in politics especially. A politician is judged more on how well he can maintain an air of certitude on an issue than he is, down the road, on how often he is actually correct.
The power to persuade is the Cadillac of survival skills. Intent and loyalty run a close second. I’m sure a lot of our behaviors are chemically driven wired from an early age. Cloning will answer many questions and probably diminish many of the surprises, but we will adjust.
I forgot one more thing regarding mistakes and why we have a hard time excepting them. Honor and dishonor, this is the foundation for every law abiding civilized society.
Dan, I found the book enlightening and entertaining. I also found what I believe to be a number of mistakes. First, on page 155 you write “The quarterback hikes the ball….”. In fact, the center hikes the ball to the quarterback. Second, on page 216, your listing of the 10 commandments has errors. First, you omit the second commandment (thou shall not have idols) and compensate by splitting the last commandment (thou shall not covet) into two separate ones. Second, the prohibition is not “You shall not kill” but rather “You shall not murder”. At times it is necessary to kill (eg. in self defense) but it is never correct to murder (ie an innocent person). Thank you.
Dan, I found the book enlightening and entertaining. I also found, what I believe to be, are a few mistakes. First, on page 155 you write “The quarterback hikes the ball….”. In fact, the center hikes the ball to the quarterback. Second, on page 216, your listing of the 10 commandments has errors. First, you omit the second commandment (thou shall not have idols) and compensate by splitting the last commandment (thou shall not covet) into two separate ones. Second, the prohibition is not “You shall not kill” but rather “You shall not murder”. At times it is necessary to kill (eg. in self defense) but it is never correct to murder (ie an innocent person). Thank you.
Dan,
Are you familiar with motivating operations (which until recently were known as establishing operations)? I am a graduate student studying behavior analysis. Motivating operations (MO) are not well understood in my field and are virtually unheard of outside of my field but are beginning to prove their utility in applied behavioral literature as well as in clinical practice.
I believe that the question you posed can be answered rather easily when considering MOs, operant behavior, “emotional” responding typically exhibited when punishment (or a worsening situation) is likely.
Hi,
We think that everyone can have visual disillusions,that it’s inherent, like being a lefty or a righty. But when you point out a mistake, you judge someone, and you cause a defensive reaction (you can trace the roots of this reaction to our conflicts with our parents and authorities).
I really enjoyed your book.Thank you for the new perspective.
Посоветовали мне этот блог, и видно что незря, есть все что я хотел найти.