WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.859 Welcome back to The Deep Dive. Today we're plunging 00:00:02.859 --> 00:00:05.419 into something really fundamental, that little 00:00:05.419 --> 00:00:08.519 question we all ask. What would happen if? It's 00:00:08.519 --> 00:00:10.820 like the spark behind everything, isn't it? From 00:00:10.820 --> 00:00:13.880 discovering fire way back when to, I don't know, 00:00:14.279 --> 00:00:17.420 modern science? It just drives us. It really 00:00:17.420 --> 00:00:20.100 does, that core curiosity. So for this deep dive, 00:00:20.280 --> 00:00:22.679 we've been reading this fantastic article. It's 00:00:22.679 --> 00:00:25.620 by Gary Ackerman over on Hackscience .Education, 00:00:26.079 --> 00:00:29.559 and the title is... Perfect. What would happen 00:00:29.559 --> 00:00:32.700 if? Simple title, but packs a punch. Totally. 00:00:32.820 --> 00:00:34.740 And it's not just about answering the question 00:00:34.740 --> 00:00:37.420 itself. It really challenges us to think about 00:00:37.420 --> 00:00:40.640 how we get to those answers, and maybe more importantly, 00:00:40.899 --> 00:00:43.659 what kind of hidden stuff might be getting in 00:00:43.659 --> 00:00:45.579 the way. And that's really our goal for you today, 00:00:45.619 --> 00:00:48.159 isn't it? To kind of unpack how that really simple 00:00:48.159 --> 00:00:50.340 question leads down some pretty complicated roads. 00:00:50.859 --> 00:00:52.579 We'll touch on the tools we're supposed to use. 00:00:53.020 --> 00:00:56.100 You know, observation. logic, controlling things. 00:00:56.159 --> 00:00:58.920 The scientific basics. Exactly. But then there's 00:00:58.920 --> 00:01:03.039 the tricky part, the big one, bias and how hard 00:01:03.039 --> 00:01:05.719 it is to actually reduce it. We want to give 00:01:05.719 --> 00:01:09.659 you maybe a shortcut, a way to see those hidden 00:01:09.659 --> 00:01:12.879 traps that shape what we believe, even when we 00:01:12.879 --> 00:01:15.299 feel totally objective, like seeing the blueprint 00:01:15.299 --> 00:01:18.799 of how we think and noticing the little cracks. 00:01:19.079 --> 00:01:22.000 OK, yeah, let's dig into that. So Ackerman starts 00:01:22.000 --> 00:01:25.000 right at the foundation, right? The core of science. 00:01:25.359 --> 00:01:28.659 Talk about observation, control, logic, all aimed 00:01:28.659 --> 00:01:31.260 at understanding nature, figuring out cause and 00:01:31.260 --> 00:01:33.560 effect, attributing changes to what we think 00:01:33.560 --> 00:01:35.379 caused them. Right. And these aren't just, you 00:01:35.379 --> 00:01:37.579 know, dusty old concepts for a lab coat. They're 00:01:37.579 --> 00:01:39.920 meant to be practical tools. Observation forces 00:01:39.920 --> 00:01:43.019 you to just look first before jumping to conclusions. 00:01:43.159 --> 00:01:46.200 Like really look. Yeah. And control, well, that 00:01:46.200 --> 00:01:48.219 helps isolate what's really making the difference. 00:01:48.319 --> 00:01:50.599 Cutting out the noise. Stripping away other factors. 00:01:51.019 --> 00:01:53.920 Exactly. Yeah. And logic. That's about making 00:01:53.920 --> 00:01:55.819 sure your argument actually holds water step 00:01:55.819 --> 00:01:59.180 -by -step. That A really leads to B, based on 00:01:59.180 --> 00:02:01.239 the evidence. What's fascinating is how these 00:02:01.239 --> 00:02:03.379 are basically our first line of defense against 00:02:03.379 --> 00:02:05.120 the biases we're going to talk about. They're 00:02:05.120 --> 00:02:07.140 designed to lead us to reliable conclusions. 00:02:07.239 --> 00:02:10.319 Right. Designed to. But even with that solid 00:02:10.319 --> 00:02:13.689 foundation, Ackerman points out this huge challenge. 00:02:13.810 --> 00:02:16.610 Uh -huh, the bias part. Yeah, he calls it, perhaps 00:02:16.610 --> 00:02:18.990 the most difficult principle of science to follow, 00:02:19.490 --> 00:02:23.169 the constant effort to identify and reduce bias. 00:02:24.169 --> 00:02:27.430 And honestly, reading that, it really, it made 00:02:27.430 --> 00:02:31.400 me think, can we ever fully get rid of it? even 00:02:31.400 --> 00:02:33.560 with the best methods. Well, that's the million 00:02:33.560 --> 00:02:35.439 -dollar question, isn't it? And Ackerman explains 00:02:35.439 --> 00:02:37.979 why it's so tough. We're usually just unaware. 00:02:38.180 --> 00:02:40.360 We don't see our own biases. Or end spots. Total 00:02:40.360 --> 00:02:42.460 blind spots. We think we're seeing clearly, making 00:02:42.460 --> 00:02:45.319 rational choices. But these biases are there, 00:02:45.479 --> 00:02:47.580 shaping everything. It's like trying to find 00:02:47.580 --> 00:02:48.939 your keys in the dark when you think you know 00:02:48.939 --> 00:02:51.819 where they are. Yeah. Good analogy. He gives 00:02:51.819 --> 00:02:55.300 a really clear example. Racist and sexist language. 00:02:55.560 --> 00:02:57.840 He points out that once you identify that language, 00:02:58.060 --> 00:03:00.680 Once it's challenged, you can consciously work 00:03:00.680 --> 00:03:03.080 on reducing it. But here's the really interesting 00:03:03.080 --> 00:03:06.020 bit. It's not just about saying less offensive 00:03:06.020 --> 00:03:08.080 things, which is vital, obviously. Of course. 00:03:08.219 --> 00:03:10.879 It's that by forcing yourself to change the language, 00:03:10.960 --> 00:03:13.599 the output, you actually start to challenge the 00:03:13.599 --> 00:03:16.939 underlying bias itself. Ah, OK. So tackling the 00:03:16.939 --> 00:03:20.099 symptom affects the cause. Precisely. It creates 00:03:20.099 --> 00:03:23.080 this, like, cognitive distance, you have to reevaluate 00:03:23.080 --> 00:03:25.680 the thoughts, the automatic assumptions that 00:03:25.680 --> 00:03:27.439 produce that language in the first place. Yeah. 00:03:27.620 --> 00:03:30.060 It forces kind of internal correction. Wow. But 00:03:30.060 --> 00:03:32.199 it brings up that huge question, right? How do 00:03:32.199 --> 00:03:34.539 you even start fighting something if you don't 00:03:34.539 --> 00:03:36.699 know it's there, if you can't even perceive its 00:03:36.699 --> 00:03:39.639 influence? Yeah, that's the core difficulty. 00:03:40.780 --> 00:03:43.900 Ackerman takes this idea of bias into a slightly 00:03:43.900 --> 00:03:47.080 different, maybe more subtle area, particularly 00:03:47.080 --> 00:03:50.500 in professional settings. He talks about our 00:03:50.500 --> 00:03:53.099 preferred methods of thinking and acting. Oh, 00:03:53.300 --> 00:03:56.080 OK. Not just the big societal biases, but our 00:03:56.080 --> 00:03:59.479 personal preferences. Exactly. It's less about 00:03:59.479 --> 00:04:02.319 overt prejudice and more about how we fall in 00:04:02.319 --> 00:04:04.759 love with certain ideas or ways of doing things, 00:04:05.340 --> 00:04:08.120 especially new, exciting ones. Right. He uses 00:04:08.120 --> 00:04:12.300 that great analogy, the shiny object. Yes. Like 00:04:12.300 --> 00:04:14.560 a new teaching method or maybe a new management 00:04:14.560 --> 00:04:17.120 strategy or even just a new app someone raves 00:04:17.120 --> 00:04:19.819 about. It catches our eye, it promises great 00:04:19.819 --> 00:04:22.279 things. And the trap, the psychological trap 00:04:22.279 --> 00:04:24.639 is that once we believe it's going to work. We 00:04:24.639 --> 00:04:27.220 start looking for proof that it is working. Exactly. 00:04:27.279 --> 00:04:30.600 We become predisposed to see confirmation. Our 00:04:30.600 --> 00:04:32.860 brain starts filtering everything. We notice 00:04:32.860 --> 00:04:35.680 the successes, maybe explain away the failures. 00:04:35.759 --> 00:04:38.300 Or attribute failures to something else entirely. 00:04:38.459 --> 00:04:41.420 Right. We might even sort of unconsciously steer 00:04:41.420 --> 00:04:43.800 things to get the result we want, just because 00:04:43.800 --> 00:04:45.699 we're so invested. It's like, you know, that 00:04:45.699 --> 00:04:48.060 new diet. Oh yeah, I know this one. You start 00:04:48.060 --> 00:04:50.519 it, you're convinced it's the answer. For two 00:04:50.519 --> 00:04:53.480 weeks, every little thing feels like proof. You 00:04:53.480 --> 00:04:56.579 feel lighter, more energy. Totally. Confirmation 00:04:56.579 --> 00:05:00.680 everywhere. Then, maybe a few months later... 00:05:00.189 --> 00:05:01.689 You're kind of back where you started, wondering 00:05:01.689 --> 00:05:05.029 what happened. That initial belief just colored 00:05:05.029 --> 00:05:07.569 all the data coming in. That is such a perfect 00:05:07.569 --> 00:05:09.629 example. We've all done that, haven't we, with 00:05:09.629 --> 00:05:13.050 diets or work projects or tech gadgets. And this 00:05:13.050 --> 00:05:15.110 brings us to Ackerman's really critical point, 00:05:15.250 --> 00:05:18.089 the one that shakes things up. Once we believe 00:05:18.089 --> 00:05:21.269 the method will work, then any data that we collect 00:05:21.269 --> 00:05:26.269 will confirm our bias. That statement just directly 00:05:26.269 --> 00:05:28.509 challenges the whole idea that we can collect 00:05:28.509 --> 00:05:31.089 objective data once we're already sold on something. 00:05:31.170 --> 00:05:33.290 It really does. But doesn't that create a problem? 00:05:33.709 --> 00:05:36.269 Like, how do we ever embrace genuine innovation 00:05:36.269 --> 00:05:38.649 if we're so suspicious of our own enthusiasm? 00:05:38.889 --> 00:05:41.300 Can we become too cynical? That is the Balancing 00:05:41.300 --> 00:05:43.399 Act. Absolutely. It's not about shutting down 00:05:43.399 --> 00:05:47.639 new ideas entirely. It's more about adopting 00:05:47.639 --> 00:05:50.600 maybe skeptical optimism. Skeptical optimism. 00:05:50.759 --> 00:05:53.740 I like that. Acknowledge the potential, but maintain 00:05:53.740 --> 00:05:56.600 critical distance. Ackerman isn't saying new 00:05:56.600 --> 00:05:59.779 is always bad. He's questioning the unquestioning 00:05:59.779 --> 00:06:02.899 acceptance. And that leads to his critique of, 00:06:02.899 --> 00:06:05.660 say, data -driven educators. But really, it applies 00:06:05.660 --> 00:06:08.060 everywhere. Anyone claiming their decisions are 00:06:08.060 --> 00:06:10.420 based purely on data. Right. Data -driven decisions 00:06:10.420 --> 00:06:14.160 are huge now. Huge. But Ackerman suggests they 00:06:14.160 --> 00:06:16.519 might be fooling themselves and the constituents 00:06:16.519 --> 00:06:19.420 if that data is just confirming a preexisting 00:06:19.420 --> 00:06:22.160 belief. So the data isn't driving the decision. 00:06:22.399 --> 00:06:24.860 The decision is selecting the data. Potentially, 00:06:25.040 --> 00:06:27.459 yes. If you connect this to the bigger picture, 00:06:27.980 --> 00:06:30.439 think about marketing campaigns, policy decisions, 00:06:30.699 --> 00:06:33.240 business strategies, any field where numbers 00:06:33.240 --> 00:06:36.040 are used to back up a strong conviction. We tend 00:06:36.040 --> 00:06:38.100 to find the data that supports what we want to 00:06:38.100 --> 00:06:40.100 be true or what we already think is true. And 00:06:40.100 --> 00:06:42.920 the danger is, well, bad decisions, wasted effort, 00:06:43.100 --> 00:06:45.699 lost trust when the data -backed plan fails. 00:06:46.120 --> 00:06:48.459 It's an echo chamber disguised as evidence. And 00:06:48.459 --> 00:06:49.819 this leads to what I thought was maybe the most 00:06:49.819 --> 00:06:52.259 powerful line in the article, that inversion. 00:06:53.019 --> 00:06:55.860 The opinion shaping the facts. Exactly. Instead 00:06:55.860 --> 00:06:58.300 of saying they're detailing the facts upon which 00:06:58.300 --> 00:07:00.759 they base their opinions, Ackerman suggests they 00:07:00.759 --> 00:07:02.519 might actually be detailing the opinions upon 00:07:02.519 --> 00:07:05.720 which they base their facts. And that just flips 00:07:05.720 --> 00:07:07.420 everything, doesn't it? It makes you question 00:07:07.420 --> 00:07:09.420 the entire process, not just the outcome. Are 00:07:09.420 --> 00:07:12.139 we finding truth or just confirming our opinions? 00:07:12.300 --> 00:07:15.000 It's a profound shift in perspective. It forces 00:07:15.000 --> 00:07:18.769 you to confront that uncomfortable idea. Maybe 00:07:18.769 --> 00:07:21.050 our beliefs aren't always the logical endpoint 00:07:21.050 --> 00:07:24.910 of analyzing facts. Maybe, often, the belief 00:07:24.910 --> 00:07:27.329 comes first, the preference, the shiny object, 00:07:27.569 --> 00:07:30.689 and that dictates which facts we notice, how 00:07:30.689 --> 00:07:33.670 we weigh them, even how we look for them. It 00:07:33.670 --> 00:07:36.269 challenges that ideal of pure objectivity we 00:07:36.269 --> 00:07:38.990 strive for. And look, this isn't just some abstract 00:07:38.990 --> 00:07:41.350 philosophical point. It has real consequences. 00:07:41.649 --> 00:07:43.850 How so? Well, think about public debates. People 00:07:43.850 --> 00:07:46.750 cling to ideas, even with contradictory evidence, 00:07:47.250 --> 00:07:49.569 by just dismissing or twisting the data, right? 00:07:49.569 --> 00:07:52.589 It happens all the time. Or, in companies, teams 00:07:52.589 --> 00:07:54.430 might stick with outdated methods they like, 00:07:54.509 --> 00:07:57.250 finding data points to justify it, instead of 00:07:57.250 --> 00:08:00.089 genuinely evaluating effectiveness. It's a constant 00:08:00.089 --> 00:08:02.269 battle against how we're wired. So, wrapping 00:08:02.269 --> 00:08:04.750 this up then, what's the big takeaway for you 00:08:04.750 --> 00:08:07.569 listening? This whole deep dive into Ackerman's 00:08:07.569 --> 00:08:10.230 article, it really highlights this ongoing, often 00:08:10.230 --> 00:08:13.470 invisible fight against bias. Even when we try 00:08:13.470 --> 00:08:16.790 to be scientific data -driven, our own preferences, 00:08:17.089 --> 00:08:19.970 those shiny objects, can subtly pull us towards 00:08:19.970 --> 00:08:22.230 confirming what we already think instead of discovering 00:08:22.230 --> 00:08:25.230 something new. It's a reminder that understanding 00:08:25.230 --> 00:08:27.470 isn't just about gathering information, but also 00:08:27.470 --> 00:08:29.610 about constantly checking the lens we're using 00:08:29.610 --> 00:08:32.710 to see it. It really is. And considering Ackerman's 00:08:32.710 --> 00:08:35.870 background, his books on technology and schools 00:08:35.870 --> 00:08:37.950 management. He's clearly thought a lot about 00:08:37.950 --> 00:08:40.070 how this works in practice. It makes you wonder, 00:08:40.149 --> 00:08:43.070 how can you, in your work, in your life, get 00:08:43.070 --> 00:08:45.549 better at spotting your own biases? When you 00:08:45.549 --> 00:08:48.269 see that new method, that convincing argument, 00:08:48.370 --> 00:08:52.169 that shiny object, can you pause and ask, what 00:08:52.169 --> 00:08:54.590 are the opinions here that might be shaping how 00:08:54.590 --> 00:09:00.029 I see the facts? Maybe try actively looking for 00:09:00.029 --> 00:09:02.029 stuff that contradicts what you initially think. 00:09:02.110 --> 00:09:04.850 Ooh, that's uncomfortable. It is. Ask, what if 00:09:04.850 --> 00:09:07.669 I'm wrong? Before you ask, how can I prove I'm 00:09:07.669 --> 00:09:10.929 right? It's not easy. It's a continuous process 00:09:10.929 --> 00:09:13.929 of, like, self -awareness. Really powerful questions 00:09:13.929 --> 00:09:15.830 to ask ourselves. Maybe just start noticing, 00:09:15.830 --> 00:09:18.029 you know? Notice when the data seems to line 00:09:18.029 --> 00:09:19.929 up perfectly with what you hoped for. Right. 00:09:19.970 --> 00:09:22.210 Just pause and question it. Was it objective 00:09:22.210 --> 00:09:24.850 discovery, or was it perhaps finding facts to 00:09:24.850 --> 00:09:27.110 fit an opinion, building that muscle, that vigilance 00:09:27.110 --> 00:09:29.230 seems crucial? Well, thank you for joining us 00:09:29.230 --> 00:09:31.929 on this deep dive into critical thinking bias 00:09:31.929 --> 00:09:35.629 and the slippery nature of objectivity. Always 00:09:35.629 --> 00:09:37.470 a pleasure. Until next time, keep asking, well, 00:09:37.549 --> 00:09:39.590 what happened if, but maybe, just as importantly, 00:09:39.789 --> 00:09:41.570 keep asking, how do I really know?