Perfectly Imperfect

“Since no one is perfect, it follows that all great deeds have been accomplished out of imperfection. Yet they were accomplished, somehow, all the same.” — Lois McMaster Bujold

Photo by Samuel Ferrara

Welcome!

“There is nothing more rare, nor more beautiful, than a woman being unapologetically herself; comfortable in her perfect imperfection. To me, that is the true essence of beauty.”

~ Steve Maraboli ~

I’ve noticed a troubling pattern emerge among popular science-related sources on the internet. As their popularity grows, so does extremist reactions. Some followers are idolizing the source and fail to see the shortfalls and limitations. Conversely, some followers take great joy in knocking down the idols while failing to see the virtues of the source. The resulting conflict between these two groups ends up poisoning what would be useful scientific debate.

This becomes relevant as this page now shifts from broad foundational newsletters on human behavior to tighter discussions on specific topics. As we travel on this journey together we should embrace that there are flaws and virtues in all (honest) source materials. The areas where not everyone agrees are the most educational and present the most opportunity for personal growth.

This newsletter contains errors

“One of the basic rules of the universe is that nothing is perfect. Perfection simply doesn't exist.....Without imperfection, neither you nor I would exist”

~ Stephen Hawking ~

In previous issues we covered how little information we are exposed to, how little we perceive, how little we remember, and how imperfect our recollection is. These are human traits that affect of us and our creative efforts — including this newsletter.

I will make mistakes, the sources I reference will make mistakes, and sometimes the perceived accuracy depends on the assumptions being made by the writer and reader are similar.

Underlying this is our imperfect and fractured language. Academia tries to get around the language problem by utilizing highly specific language for advanced topics or papers. This never fully resolves all the issues as different schools may use terminology slightly different.

I ran into this a few weeks ago when I wrote about how the brain processes memories. Different programs/authors favored different frameworks for how memories worked in humans. Even when the same phenomena was being explained, the definitions and terminology would vary. When writing about this I settled on language I thought would best help the non-academian to understand the broad concept, though it might irritate those wallowing deep in the details.

While academia attempts to be rigorous with their language, colloquial language use on scientific issues is not rigorous as all. Colloquial language is less rigorous, but it is better understood. Whereas, academic writing is more rigorous, but it is heavily misunderstood and misinterpreted by the lay person. This is why I link to both academic papers/articles and articles written for broader audiences.

You’ll find that few of my science-related citations will link to the popular press. News articles you’ll commonly find linked to on social media are written to attract ‘clicks’, often using contrived emotions to drive interaction, but the actual research they are referencing is often quite different from what is being reported.

Mistakes are made by experts

“Philosophers are people who know less and less about more and more, until they know nothing about everything. Scientists are people who know more and more about less and less, until they know everything about nothing.”

~ Konrad Lorenz ~

There is a lot of great research going on, including some amazing advancements in recent years from neuroscientists (which will be referenced here frequently). There is also a lot of poor quality research being done. To progress in their fields, many academians are caught on a treadmill of frequent publishing and choosing topics that best attract attention. This has led to a lot of bad science being conducted.

It has been estimated that 85% of all research funding is actually wasted, due to inappropriate research questions, faulty study design, flawed execution, irrelevant endpoints, poor reporting and/or non-publication.

Another isssue is that much of the research we discuss here was structured around the school calendar and the availability of those conducting the research. Many of these studies are setup to be organized, conducted, and analyzed within a single college semester; causing long-term effects to be missed (and short term effects to be over emphasized).

Study subjects are often just pulled from the college’s student body; which gave rise to the acronym “W.E.I.R.D” to describe them — western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic. These study subjects are also generally young; in their teens and twenties. Yet much of behavioral research is conducted with this not-very-diverse population.

Almost everything experimental psychologists believe about the human mind comes from studies of the Weird. But perhaps you've guessed the problem: from a global standpoint, Weird people may be really... what's the word? Yes: odd. As Henrich et al show, many phenomena we've assumed are universal probably aren't: we can only really say they're universal among Weird people, who make up 96% of subjects in behavioural science, or Americans, who make up 68%, and often only among US college students, who provide US researchers with a supply of guinea pigs. And the Weird, they say, "are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species"

Peer review is flawed

“The beauty of imperfection is better than no progress at all.”

~ Vikram Verma ~

I won’t spend too much time discussing this now but ‘peer review’ isn’t the gold stamp that people think it is. There are only a handful of prestigious publications whose peer review process is rigorous and offers a consistent value add to the authors and the readers. There is a growing industry of ‘pay-to-publish’ academic journals that will accept almost an anything if a check is included with the submission. Many of those state that they are ‘peer reviewed’ but the rigor of those reviews are highly questionable. Read this for more on peer review problems. And this.

Right now, many people think peer review means, "This paper is great and trustworthy!" In reality, it should mean something like, "A few scientists have looked at this paper and didn't find anything wrong with it, but that doesn't mean you should take it as gospel. Only time will tell."

Of those papers that get peer reviewed and published in prestigious journals, many still contain errors and, sometimes, fraud. Errors are not easily caught. There disincentives within academia to replicate/verify results of a study and, in some cases, attempting to publish a critique of a paper written by a high-status researcher can be career threatening.

What can we trust?

“There are stories about perfection, but those stories are lies. No one ever made the world better by being perfect. There is only mess in humans, and sometimes that mess turns to magic, and sometimes that magic turns to kindness, to salvation, to survival.”

~ Maria Dahvana Headley ~

We are imperfect people living in an imperfect world that are getting by with imperfect information. Just because someone or something is imperfect that doesn’t mean they are not valuable. As long as you recognize our potential cognitive biases and avoid falling into logical fallacies (which we will frequently cover here), you can trust in your judgement. Just remember to be humble enough to be open to changing your mind.

Being humble forces us to ask, “Where do I fit—in my family or at work? How does my stance stand up to others’? Why is my country outstanding, or is it? Why does it need to be for my or my country’s ego? Why do I need to brag? How can my field work with other professions? Why do I think my values are the only ones that count?”

Putting this all together

“What a rich wisdom it would be, and how much more bountiful a harvest, to gain pleasure not from achieving personal perfection but from understanding the inevitability of imperfection and pardoning those who also fall short of it.”

~ Barbara Kingsolver ~

The purpose of this newsletter is to guide you in better understanding the behavior of yourself and those around you. With better understanding comes better decisions. It’s important to remember that just as mistakes are made by everyone, including ourselves, there will be mistakes made here as well. That warning applies to everything you read. Recognizing this reality will lead to fewer and less painful mistakes in the long run.

Our goal (with very rare exceptions) should never to be perfect but to look for our errors and correct them quickly when discovered. Just as we can’t expect ourselves to be perfect, neither can we expect others to be perfect as well. Our humility needs to be paired with grace for others.

Exercises

• Remember a time when you found something you had previously read was incorrect. Why was it wrong?

• Remember a time when something you read changed your mind. Why were you open to changing your mind?

Finale

To make the most out of this newsletter, and your other reading, assume that what you read will have inaccuracies and flaws. This aids in applying what you’ve read to what you’ve experienced and learned previously. We don’t easily retain knowledge that was accepted uncritically.

I appreciate that you chose to use your valuable time to read these newsletters. Now that we’ve laid the foundation for understanding human behavior, future issues will delve into some fascinating areas of why we do what we do.

To support this newsletter please like and comment below. Don’t forget to recommend us to your friends and family. Have a great week!

Your friend,

DJ

Thank you for reading Seeing The Mountain. This post is public so feel free to share it.