Right Attitudes

Ideas for Impact

Conviction

The Streisand Effect: When Trying to Hide Only Makes it Shine

By Leave a Comment

In a famous episode of the beloved British sitcom Father Ted, the main character and his fellow priests embark on a protest against the airing of a film titled “The Passion of Saint Tibulus.” The movie portrays a Catholic saint disrespectfully, causing outrage among the Vatican and local bishops. However, despite the priests’ efforts, their parishioners do not heed to the boycott. To their dismay, media coverage of the priests’ pickets only amplifies the controversy, inadvertently making the film even more popular.

This comical scenario perfectly exemplifies the Streisand Effect, a phenomenon wherein attempts to suppress something end up drawing more attention to it.

The term “Streisand Effect” originated in 2003 when singer and actress Barbra Streisand sued a photographer for including an aerial photo of her Malibu home in a collection of images documenting coastal erosion. The lawsuit garnered significant attention to the photo, which had only been downloaded six times before the legal action. Suddenly, the photo went viral, accumulating millions of views and symbolizing the Streisand Effect.

A more recent example of this phenomenon occurred in 2017 when then-White House press secretary Sean Spicer attempted to quash a story about his meeting with reporters. Spicer had requested that the reporters keep the meeting private, hoping to prevent it from being reported. However, his efforts backfired spectacularly when the journalists went ahead and wrote about the meeting. During a press briefing, Spicer scolded the journalists for disregarding his wishes, inadvertently bringing even more attention to the original story. Had Spicer ignored the reporting, the story might have fizzled out quietly. Instead, it became a viral sensation, sparking numerous memes and jokes.

These examples serve as a powerful reminder to carefully consider the potential consequences before attempting to suppress or control information.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. Presenting Facts Can Sometimes Backfire
  2. Fight Ignorance, Not Each Other
  3. No One Has a Monopoly on Truth
  4. The Data Never “Says”
  5. The Problem of Living Inside Echo Chambers

Be Open to Being Wrong

By Leave a Comment

The philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell, one of history’s brightest minds, was once asked whether he’d be prepared to die for his beliefs. He replied, “Of course not. After all, I may be wrong.”

Feeling that you’re making more sense than others shouldn’t be the gauge for being accurate about your convictions. Especially when you’re good at arguing, you can take your ideas and judgments in various directions that will mislead you in ways that are more convincing to you than what the other side thinks. Blind spots can spawn certainty quickly.

Idea for Impact: Hold yourself to a higher standard. Turn doubt into a deliberate attitude. Allow your mind to wander in unexpected directions. Be open to other perspectives. Be open to being wrong.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. How to Embrace Uncertainty and Leave Room for Doubt
  2. Question Success More Than Failure
  3. Why People are Afraid to Think
  4. 3 Ways to … Avoid Overthinking
  5. Group Polarization: Like-Mindedness is Dangerous, Especially with Social Media

How to … Pop the Filter Bubble

By Leave a Comment

You’re inclined to be drawn toward those who are similar and wary of those who differ. Similarity bias propels you to unwittingly filter out ideas and opinions that diverge from your own.

Expand your view by actively seeking opposing views. Break your routines. Fraternize with considerate, ‘unlike’-minded people. Remain open to alternative interpretations. Ask big “what if” questions and frame things with an exploratory conjecture: ‘what if we did it this way?,’ ‘do we understand the problem?’ or ‘why doesn’t this work better?’

Putting yourself in a learning and questioning mindset will inspire, stimulate, and challenge you to step out of what you know. Decision-making and creativity will soar.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. Surrounded by Yes
  2. How to Stimulate Group Creativity // Book Summary of Edward de Bono’s ‘Six Thinking Hats’
  3. Group Polarization: Like-Mindedness is Dangerous, Especially with Social Media
  4. Consensus is Dangerous
  5. Couldn’t We Use a Little More Civility and Respect in Our Conversations?

3 Ways to … Avoid Overthinking

By Leave a Comment

Overthinking and over-analyzing the causes and meaning of your thoughts can be tamed through greater self-awareness and mental disengagement.

  1. Set a time limit for your “thinking time,” then make yourself move on to something else or force your decision. Vent your worries to the world, but there’s a risk that you’ll end up even more confused if you keep asking everyone’s opinion. Most of the time, things aren’t as complicated as you perceive them.
  2. Pause and take a step back. Interrupt the thinking process or distract yourself by diverting your attention to something very different. Focused distraction can calm your mind and help you have a coherent view of the whole situation.
  3. Accept that uncertainty is part of this life, and you’ll never have all the facts or know what’s further down the road. Studies suggest we fear an unknown outcome more than a known bad one. Not everything you plan will work out, and that’s ok. It’s often better to set a clear course today and tackle problems that arise tomorrow.

Idea for Impact: Right-size your expectations. Overthinking comes from trying to control what you can’t control.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. Smart Folks are Most Susceptible to Overanalyzing and Overthinking
  2. Accidents Can Happen When You Least Expect Them: The Overconfidence Effect
  3. It’s Probably Not as Bad as You Think
  4. The Data Never “Says”
  5. How to Solve a Problem By Standing It on Its Head

When Anonymity Becomes Cowardice

By Leave a Comment

A variety of psychological factors contribute to people being nasty online. Rider University psychologist John Suler famously argued that online environments unleash aspects of our personality that we usually keep under guard—a phenomenon he called the online disinhibition effect. With names concealed, there’s no pressure to maintain a public facade. Cyberspace becomes a separate dimension where the usual rules don’t apply. Actions no longer carry consequences. There’s no liability for rudeness and inappropriate behavior.

The disinhibition effect is also called ‘The Gyges Effect,’ after the Ring of Gyges, a mythical invisibility device in Plato’s Republic. The ring grants its owner the power to become invisible at will. Plato considers whether an intelligent person would be just if one did not have to fear any bad reputation for committing injustices.

When Anonymity Becomes Cowardice - The Psychology of Internet Trolls Social media has a way of magnifying some of the worst facets of human nature. By allowing masked identities, as Professor Suler points out, abusers avoid accountability for their conduct and dissociate their online selves from their real-world selves. In real life, combative behavior triggers a victim’s immediate reaction–a change in tone of voice or a counterargument, even aggression. However, these deterrents are missing or delayed in the online world, and social inhibition is removed. Online abusers see their victims as faceless, abstract cutouts with no feelings and undeserving of fairness, compassion, and honesty.

Idea for Impact: Keep away from being nasty online. Awareness and activism are vital to civic duty, but you should seek out actual human beings who know how to converse intelligently on anything they disagree with.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. Cancel Culture has a Condescension Problem
  2. Could Limiting Social Media Reduce Your Anxiety About Work?
  3. Let’s Not Talk About Trump
  4. The Problem of Living Inside Echo Chambers
  5. Consensus is Dangerous

Why People are Afraid to Think

By Leave a Comment


Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth—more than ruin, more even than death. Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habits; thought is anarchic and lawless, indifferent to authority, careless of the well-tried wisdom of the ages. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. (Bertrand Russell, Why Men Fight: A Method of Abolishing the International Duel (1916,) pp. 178–179)

Laziness and inability usually coerce people to reject thinking. But, as Russell contends, fear is a non-obvious inhibitor of thought. Not just because meticulous reasoning is demanding but because thinking may occasion an undermining—even revaluation—of our long-held convictions about all sorts of matters—notably religion and ethics.

People reject thinking because we fear it may challenge our equilibrium—how we make sense of the world. We’ll be coerced to see the world anew. As I’ve emphasized previously, once a belief is added to our corpus of viewpoints, we indulge in “intellectual censorship.” We cling to our ideas rather than objectively reassessing and questioning them.

Idea for Impact: Life should alter you. Through conscientious thinking, your worldview can—and should—reflect that growth.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. No One Has a Monopoly on Truth
  2. The Data Never “Says”
  3. The Problem of Living Inside Echo Chambers
  4. No, Reason Doesn’t Guide Your Politics
  5. Nothing Deserves Certainty

Can’t Expect to Hold the Same Set of Beliefs Your Entire Life

By Leave a Comment

It’s okay to challenge your core values and change.

That’s normal and healthy.

It means you’re able to ability to transcend your current worldview and have an open mind. You’re willing to learn about new perspectives. You’re eager to search actively for evidence against your favored beliefs, discover and challenge your internal biases, and change your core values if they no longer make sense.

Having the freedom to change your core beliefs and being able to reason and reconsider your positions on something is an integral part of being human, as Aristotle writes in his Nicomachean Ethics.

Don’t be more committed to the appearance of consistency than to real growth.

Don’t inadvertently buy into the values that predominate popular culture.

When you have doubts and questions and changes of heart and mind, even on fundamental issues such as faith or political orientation, don’t consider them character defects or moral flaws. You’re just exercising your ability for rational thought.

Life should alter you. It should recondition your soul and mind and refocus your lens. Time and experience—the people you meet, the ideas you stumble upon, and how you discover meaning—should all change you. On religion, say, you won’t have the understanding of yourself and of God and the world that you had ten years ago. And you can bet that the same won’t be true ten years from now.

As a human, you grow and change. Your worldview can—and should—reflect that growth. Regardless of what you feel, think, believe, and profess today, if someday in the future you find yourself in a different place, remember: it’s okay to realign your mind—and to speak it.

Idea for Impact: Rethink everything you previously thought out. It’ll only strengthen your character.

You’ll also discover that you’re rarely offended by other people’s opinions anymore, even when they differ significantly from your own. You’ll be care far more about how people justify and rationalize those views. And you’ll get a better appreciation of the nuances—this is much more important than whether or not someone agrees with you.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. It’s Probably Not as Bad as You Think
  2. No One Has a Monopoly on Truth
  3. Saying is Believing: Why People Are Reluctant to Change an Expressed Opinion
  4. Care Less for What Other People Think
  5. The Power of Counterintuitive Thinking

No, Reason Doesn’t Guide Your Politics

By Leave a Comment

“The human mind is a story processor, not a logic processor,” observes the American political scientist Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (2012,) a captivating voyage of discovery of the social psychology of politics and ethics. Haidt makes a compelling case for why reason and logic aren’t what people use to contend with problems and steer through to the right answers.

Most people’s politics tend to be ill-informed. People don’t engage in deep causal thinking about the consequences of their favored political positions. Information and analyses tend to provoke—not calm—their preconceived judgments.

Reason is Motivationally Inert

As the Scottish philosopher David Hume noted in his masterful Treatise on Human Nature (1739,) “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”

Reason becomes subordinate to the passions that have come to life in people’s tribal allegiances and their confirmation bias. People are prone to making decisions derived from instinctive, emotional, and fast thinking of psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s “System 1,” not the slow, logical deliberations of “System 2.”

Most people feel good about sticking to their guns, even if they are wrong. They tend to read newspapers, periodicals, blogs, and social media feeds to settle ever more comfortably into their preexisting beliefs. They use their tribes’ “notice boards” not to reassess their established opinions but to have them validated, comforted, legitimized, and intensified.

On the rare occasion that they do converse with someone or read something they may disagree with, they don’t revaluate their judgments, let alone change their minds. They merely use reason as a weapon to discredit contrasting evidence, spot others’ flaws, and convince them that they are wrong. Consequently, reason doesn’t bind but drives differing people apart.

Idea for Impact: The Opinions You are Blind to Could Be Your Own

Be conscious of the internal conflicts brought on by your passions. Seek and assess the counterevidence. Incorporate these counterarguments and strengthen your positions.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. The Data Never “Says”
  2. The Problem of Living Inside Echo Chambers
  3. Presenting Facts Can Sometimes Backfire
  4. Moderate Politics is the Most Sensible Way Forward
  5. Rapoport’s Rules to Criticize Someone Constructively

Consensus is Dangerous

By Leave a Comment

Management books tout the importance of harmony, cohesion, and alignment with company values and practices. Comforting though they are, such goals often carry with them the assumption that unanimity is always helpful.

Indeed, like-mindedness has its benefits, viz. high morale, a sense of identity, and a vision’s execution. But an unchallenged majority can “bend reality.” Toeing the line can delude everyone into having faith in opinions that’re not true or beneficial.

I’ve talked previously about how humans have a tendency to create, maintain, and guard cliques. Life-minded groups recruit, socialize, and reward consensus while reproving dissent (consider Scientology.) People are recruited to fit with the organization, and they become even more socialized into the culture.

Influence-by-majority belief narrows the cognitive map

For the sake of consensus, people can overlook the confutation from their own senses and blindly follow the majority, whether right or wrong. In the bestselling Outliers: The Story of Success (2008,) pop sociologist Malcolm Gladwell calls attention to the cultural predisposition to maintain silence and not rock the boat:

Korean Air had more plane crashes than almost any other airline in the world for a period at the end of the 1990s. When we think of airline crashes, we think, Oh, they must have had old planes. They must have had badly trained pilots. No. What they were struggling with was a cultural legacy, that Korean culture is hierarchical. You are obliged to be deferential toward your elders and superiors in a way that would be unimaginable in the U.S.

Uniformity of thought and esprit de corps can act together to make people amenable and taciturn when they see a problem or a better option.

Idea for Impact: Making sure everyone’s on the same page can produce harmony—of the cult-like variety. Encourage dissent and counterevidence in decision-making.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. Group Polarization: Like-Mindedness is Dangerous, Especially with Social Media
  2. Presenting Facts Can Sometimes Backfire
  3. Never Make a Big Decision Without Doing This First
  4. Could Limiting Social Media Reduce Your Anxiety About Work?
  5. How to Stimulate Group Creativity // Book Summary of Edward de Bono’s ‘Six Thinking Hats’

The Problem of Living Inside Echo Chambers

By Leave a Comment

Psychologists use the term realistic ignorance to explain the human tendency to believe that we’re normal—that the way we see and do things is entirely representative of everybody else.

Realistic ignorance is intensified by our natural desire to associate with people similar to ourselves.

Social media algorithms make this worse—they reinforce our attitudes but not change them. They steer us to the type of stuff we already know and like. They make it easy for us to form our own echo chambers, packed with people who share the same views. This causes confirmation bias. Tribal allegiances form flawed ideas and viewpoints about what is typical for organizations and communities.

Idea for Impact: Seek out and engage thoughtful folks who don’t think like you. Discuss, debate, and improve your reasoned understanding of one another and of the crucial issues. Your goal should be to enhance your own awareness of the counterarguments in contentious matters, not win over anyone.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. Let’s Not Talk About Trump
  2. Couldn’t We Use a Little More Civility and Respect in Our Conversations?
  3. Presenting Facts Can Sometimes Backfire
  4. Moderate Politics is the Most Sensible Way Forward
  5. Fight Ignorance, Not Each Other