As the value of cognitive diversity becomes more recognised, what is striking is how slow we have been to realise the need to revise our habitual ways of consuming information and interacting with those who hold contrary views. Whilst pioneers who think different are celebrated in modern western culture, in reality we are far less amenable to entertaining disagreement and diverging ideas. In the professional and academic realm we are quick to follow an authority and align with a school of thought. The hordes are likewise quick to leap into the breach to defend the doctrine against perceived challenge or dissenting views. If anything debates in all circles are increasingly polarised, as the assembled masses flock to either one side or the other. We might appreciate cognitive diversity on a conceptual level, but on a practical level we are clearly not there yet. So what steps can we take to enjoy the benefits of cognitive diversity and open our minds to the possibilities as we form our opinions?
Studying history taught me the value of synthesising a host of different sources and accounts. There are many versions of events and differing views, and the truth is generally somewhere in between. It follows we need to consider diverging views in order to arrive at a final position that is proximal to the truth. Given this approach serves us well when looking back, we should perhaps apply it to current affairs.
Which brings us onto triangulation. Triangulation describes a navigation process for locating a specific point within a large territory by progressively narrowing the search towards it from known points, which are initially spaced far apart but gradually converge onto the target. In other realms we can use a similar process of triangulation to get a more rich and detailed understanding by employing a variety of methods and including a host of different perspectives.
BENEFITS OF AGGREGATION AND TRIANGULATION…
A great illustration of the wisdom of aggregating diverse viewpoints is the parable of the blind men and the elephant. Individually each of them is wrong (an elephant is not a snake, a rope, a wall, a tree, etc.). Collectively they are right (each of them describe different parts of what make up an elephant as a whole). Importantly, as well as sythesising the valid parts to gather a complete picture, the triangulation and aggregation processes also help to cancel out the biases and flawed interpretation of the respective sources.
Wisdom of the crowds is another example of the value of aggregating independent inputs. A host of diverging guesses or predictions average out at a position that is often astonishingly close to being right. Nate Silver adopts a similar approach of aggregating a host of different polls in order to come up with forecasts that are increasingly accurate at predicting the outcome.
The triangulation process works best when we survey a lot of ground at the outset. This means we need a healthy degree of separation between the fixed points of view that we originally consider, ideally in a variety of directions. Conversely, if we were to begin with a selection of fixed points that are more clustered within narrow range, the territory in between is much smaller and contains only a very limited set of possibilities.
To begin with an open mind and avoid being entirely off the mark as we survey the possibilities, we need to cast a wider net. We should be aiming for a constellation of data points rather than a tight cluster. We can always narrow things down from this broad array of possibilities. Not considering the possibility from the outset is harder to recover from.
It bears repeating that a major benefit of triangulation and aggregation is cancelling out the biases and flaws in thinking that are inherent with any single source, no matter how reputable they might be.
STEP AWAY FROM THE GURU…
Particularly within North American culture there is a tendency to put individuals whom we admire within our chosen field on a pedestal. The status as leader in the field or authority on a given topic is bestowed upon individuals, sometimes based on little more than a social media following. The reality is that there is no such thing as a singular authority on any given topic. Nobody has all the answers. Nobody has it all figured out.
There are very few universal truths. Very little applies in every instance with everybody. For the most part, there are exceptions to any given rule. Even the best solutions tend not to work in all conditions. For leaders and coaches working with a group of individuals it is important to realise there is no single best way that will work optimally for each individual. It is questionable if there is a single best way that is optimal even for the same individual at different points in their journey.
The advice I give to coaches and practitioners (particularly early in their journey) is ‘don’t swallow anything whole’. Personally I don’t agree with anybody 100%. I don’t even agree with myself 100% at all times.
“If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives... In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar”
Admittedly by nature I am disagreeable (an under-rated quality), but it is important to allow at least a little uncertainty and room to move. Holding out even a small amount of disagreement creates the space to consider alternate viewpoints. This should be considered a good thing, rather than a sign of disloyalty.
When we hold a particular individual or ‘authority’ in high esteem we are typically reticent to express any dissent. It is crucial to recognise that disagreement is not an expression of disrespect to the source. If the source is unduly troubled that you don’t agree entirely with their viewpoint then this should raise questions about their motivation and credibility as a source.
VIVE LA DIFFERENCE…
We need to step outside our tribe in order to encounter different perspectives on a given topic and discover potential alternative solutions. Sameness adds very little to our overall picture. Like-minded individuals add very little new information.
All of which is a bit of a shame given our natural inclination towards like-minded individuals. We tend to warm to those who think alike. We don’t tend to be quite as receptive to those who challenge our beliefs or hold diverging views. If we want to be better informed we need to reverse our natural predisposition.
With a shameless plug of the new book, a theme of the latest title Prepared is the value of cognitive disagreement. As the merits of cognitive diversity within teams have been demonstrated, within the chapters we explore how we might create and maintain a performance environment that favours and supports cognitive diversity and disagreement. This includes fostering a culture of healthy cognitive conflict and ensuring that decision making processes preserve and leverage the benefits of diverse inputs.
Beyond our working environment, on an individual level we can similarly take steps to ensure we are exposed to diverse sources and diverging viewpoints. We can actively seek out those who have been exposed to alternative ideas and bring experiences that differ to our own.
Clearly this does mean we need to foster an ability to hold more than one view in our head at the same time. We also need to develop the habit of interrogating our views, paying particular scrutiny to those views that appeal to us given our tendency to give them a pass.
An interesting and worthwhile thought experiment is to role-play alternative viewpoints. Another useful exercise is to imagine an alternative reality where our favoured position happened not to be true. A simpler version is to consider the specific conditions or circumstances where the chosen solution does not apply.
TRUE ENGAGEMENT IN DEBATE…
Independent thinking does not mean dismissing or discrediting other sources. In order to engage in critical thinking we first need to entertain other viewpoints before we can arrive at an independent conclusion.
The ultimate ninja skill is the ability to entertain the information presented independently of our feelings about the source. It is a stunning and rather uncomfortable realisation that even those we don’t like are capable of making valid points occasionally.
“One big mistake people repeatedly make is focusing on proving themselves right, instead of focusing on achieving the best outcome”
An argument should be a debate of ideas. It provides a forum to articulate your position and receive whatever insights are shared by the other side. If we were seeking to expose the flaws in the other side’s argument the best way of doing so is with questioning, rather than insisting our argument is superior and wrestling each other to a standstill.
Perhaps there is also a need to reconsider what outcome we are striving for. If we enter into a debate with the objective of being crowned as winner at the end, the exchange is more about competition and ego than it is about discovery. Rather than seeking to win, to derive real value we should seek to gain insights from the process.
By extension there need to be agreement and acceptance on both sides that the other has a legitimate right to hold a different opinion. We are entitled to different preferences, views, and feelings on any given matter.
Those interested in learning about the services we offer to organisations and teams can find more via the consulting section on the site. You are also welcome to reach out via the Contact page.
Found this a worthwhile read? Subscribe to get Informed Blog posts direct to your email inbox and free to share with anybody in your network who might find value. When you subscribe you will receive a link to access a course entitled Fundamentals of Physical Preparation for free.
Also check out the Books section for a host of resources that take a deeper dive on various topics relating to human performance, coaching, athletic preparation and sports injury. The recent release Prepared: Unlocking Human Performance with Lessons from Elite Sport is now available worldwide.