April 18, 2006
CORRECT BIASES:
I'm O.K., You're Biased (DANIEL GILBERT, 4/16/06, NY Times)
VERIZON had a pretty bad year in 2005, but its chief executive did fine. Although Verizon's earnings dropped by more than 5 percent and its stock fell by more than a quarter, he received a 48 percent increase in salary and compensation. This handsome payout was based on the recommendation of an independent consulting firm that relied on Verizon (and the chief executive's good will) for much of its revenue. When asked about this conflict of interest, the consulting firm explained that it had "strict policies in place to ensure the independence and objectivity of all our consultants."Please stop laughing.
The person who made this statement was almost certainly sincere. Consultants believe they can make objective decisions about the companies that indirectly employ them, just as legislators believe that campaign contributions don't influence their votes.
Doctors scoff at the notion that gifts from a pharmaceutical company could motivate them to prescribe that company's drugs, and Supreme Court justices are confident that their legal opinions are not influenced by their financial stake in a defendant's business, or by their child's employment at a petitioner's firm. Vice President Dick Cheney is famously contemptuous of those who suggest that his former company received special consideration for government contracts.
Voters, citizens, patients and taxpayers can barely keep a straight face. They know that consultants and judges are human beings who are pulled by loyalties and pushed by animosities, and that drug reps and lobbyists are human beings who wouldn't be generous if generosity didn't pay dividends. Most people have been around people long enough to have a pretty good idea of what drives their decisions, and when decision-makers deny what seems obvious to the rest of us, the rest of us get miffed. Sell our democracy to the highest bidder, but don't insult our intelligence.
So who's right — the decision-makers who claim objectivity or the citizens who roll their eyes? Research suggests that decision-makers don't realize just how easily and often their objectivity is compromised. The human brain knows many tricks that allow it to consider evidence, weigh facts and still reach precisely the conclusion it favors.
Posted by Orrin Judd at April 18, 2006 8:35 AM
Which is why the key to a successful and decent society is to accept the objective biases of faith and tradition rather than to pretend that folks can Reason.
If politics is show business for ugly people, upper management is show business for greedy, ugly people.
Posted by: Ed Bush at April 18, 2006 8:46 AMWell, NYT, the solution is pretty obvious, isn't it? Quit selling "objectivity" and "The need to be objective" as the be-all and end-all. Learn to accept, and promote, your own biases.
"Learn to accept, and promote, your own biases".
Dan Okrent tried to show them the way in 2004.
"objective biases?" How can a bias be objective?
Posted by: Brandon at April 18, 2006 1:20 PMIt's all just too imperfect.
Posted by: ghostcat at April 18, 2006 1:33 PMAnd of course it appears in that unbiased, neutral, objective, "Newspaper of Record", the New York Times-Democrat, so its gotta be true.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at April 18, 2006 2:08 PMBrandon:
Judeo-Christianity is an unreasoned bias--it's also true.
Posted by: oj at April 18, 2006 6:07 PM