You might be thinking that I got the title backward. Isn’t the old expression “seeing is believing”? Maybe so, but it’s not accurate. The reality is that very often our experience and expectations have a greater impact on how we view information than the other way around.
For example, which lottery ticket has a greater chance of
winning?
2, 5,16,18, 27, 36
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Statistically, both have the same chance as every number
has an equal probability of being chosen.
Was that a surprise? For some it
might have been; others already knew the answer. But let’s take it one step
further. Suppose that I was holding each ticket and told you that you could
only take one. Which would you choose?
Most people when asked this question take the first ticket. Even those who
come into the exercise with an understanding of the statistics tend to make
that choice.
People tell me that they’ve never seen the numbers
1,2,3,4,5,6 before (or any consecutive set of winning numbers). Despite knowing the statistical answer, the
fact that we haven’t experienced a consecutive number causes to reshape our
view of the data and conclude that it is less likely. As it turns out, no one has ever seen 2, 5,
16, 18, 27, or 36 before either but that’s not as obvious so we discard that
fact when thinking through the issue.
Believing is seeing - what we have seen or expect to see changes what and
how we perceive the information in front of us.
Las Vegas exploits this phenomenon to lull gamblers into a
false sense of security. The electronic display
next to a roulette table shows the numbers that have been spun recently. As with the lottery, every number on a
roulette wheel has an equal chance of winning.
Each spin is independent. If the
number five comes up six times in a row it still has the same chance of coming
up on the seventh spin as does any other number. But our brains trick us – when was the last
time you saw the same number come up seven times in a row? The casinos make us think they are helping us
by providing all of this extra data. In
reality, they are exploiting the fact that believing is seeing. The data isn’t helping the gambler make a
better bet, it’s causing him or her to make a higher bet by (falsely) increasing
the gambler’s sense of confidence.
Another classic example of the believing is seeing
phenomenon is Roger Shephard’s table illusion.
Look at the two tables in the picture.
Measure the length and width of each one. They are the same. Yet, even after you verify this you still
won’t be able to make yourself see them as the same. The image hitting your retina and registering
in your brain (e.g., the data) is of two equally sized parallelograms. However,
you don’t see with your eyes. You only
take in data with them. Your brain combines
that visual data with your past experience to create the image that you “see”. Everyone has experienced perspective. Things in the distance look smaller than
things that are closer. When you look at the Shephard illusion, your brain is
trying to reconcile the data and experience.
And, as is often the case, it is allowing your experience literally to shape
your view of reality – believing is seeing.
Finally, in his book “How we decide”, Jonah Lehrer
describes how this phenomenon resulted in a group of rats outperforming a group
of Yale students in an experiment.
In the experiment, researchers randomly placed food on one
side of a T-shaped maze. While the
individual placement was random, the experiment was designed so that the food
would be placed on the left side 60% of the time. The rats quickly learned the trick and
started going to the left thus achieving a 60% success rate overall. The students didn’t fare as well. They only found the food 52% of the
time. The problem was that the students
were convinced that there was a pattern and used that “knowledge” in their
predictions. But as Lehrer pointed out,
“The problem was that there was nothing to predict; the apparent randomness was
real.” But believing is seeing. The students believed that there was a
pattern. Most likely, their brains overemphasized those instances in which they
guessed correctly and under-emphasized when they were wrong. This resulted in them continuing to see a
pattern that just wasn’t there.
How often does your experience with a person shape the way
you view their current behavior. When one of the “superstars” on your team
doesn’t perform up to par, do you re-evaluate your opinion of him or her? Or, do you find yourself looking for reasons
(excuses) to explain the poor performance forcing the data to conform to your
experience.
If two people come late to a meeting, one a high performer
and one a low performer do you treat their tardiness the same? Or do you assume that the high performer was
just really busy while the low performer was slacking off as usual.
Do you over-emphasize events or facts that confirm your
biases while ignoring those that refute them?
Leaders often tell me that if they could just have the
right data in front of them, they’d be able to make good decisions. Yet, I don’t think it’s that simple. The problem isn’t in seeing the right
data. The problem is in seeing the data (in
the) right (way).
Believing is seeing.
Take time to think critically and challenge your assumptions and
conclusions about your data. You might
be surprised at what you find out.
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates,
a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm.
