Research Should Be A Tool For Thinking Clearly

Research Should Be A Tool For Thinking Clearly

By Jeffrey M. Bowen

Students are typically told that research should come before drawing conclusions.  However, life experience prompts us to jump to conclusions, and then backfill selectively to justify them.    

What is wrong about this?  It seems quite natural to look harder for justifications than for contradictions.  But there are pitfalls lying in the weeds.  Most obvious are suspicions about so-called fake news.  As a result, we may close our minds to opposing viewpoints spawned by the internet or the media.  When conclusions rely on bias and emotions, the truth acts like a candle in the wind.   

Having spent a lifetime conducting research for many different purposes, I have a few suggestions regarding ways to make it a better tool for thinking clearly.

First, carefully define potential misconceptions, and then ask why.  For instance, if I eat a lot of peanut butter, does this make me more intelligent?  Or do I eat more of it because I am more intelligent?  Cause and effect is a two-way street, so it always makes sense to balance correlational research with common sense.  Along with this we should rule out questionable causes – like whether chunky or smooth peanut butter makes a difference – and realize that relationships are not necessarily a matter of cause and effect.  Things may just vary together by coincidence.

Another fallibility is called herd instinct.  Unless we analyze an issue to form our own opinions, we may be tempted to “go with the flow” and embrace what others tell us is a popular choice.  Herds could be a matter of survival, as when a crowd gallops toward an exit because of fire.  Or it might occur simply because an overhead sprinkler has malfunctioned.  

Rolf Dobelli, head of a decision science lab at Harvard, describes a fascinating collection of misconceptions that can best be corrected by self-awareness and a bit of research.  He points out that we jump to conclusions using whatever information is handy (availability bias).  We hold onto a house that has become a money pit when logic and research tell us it is time to sell (sunk cost fallacy).  Another potential warp, called “story bias”, leads us to turn truths into fairy tales for purposes of consistency or to hide something.  After all, stories are usually more interesting and exciting than time-consuming research.

Often we invent reasons to short circuit research.  Most popular is the knowing-doing gap.  By investigating an issue into near oblivion, we can delay doing anything about it.  Instead, research might reasonably convince us to act and then make adjustments afterward.       

Research and the internet go together.  For this reason, digital literacy should be a necessity for all of us.  Reading habits have changed drastically in recent years, especially for young people.   A new study reports that just 16 percent of our high school seniors read a book, magazine, or newspaper every day.  In contrast, eight of every 10 spend vast periods of time staring at computer screens.   A helpful step toward research literacy could be Google Scholar.  Via this computer application students can be guided to ask well-worded questions, investigate real-world problems, share their work, and to compare and refine documented references.

Simply collecting information is hardly enough.  Thinking should be clarified beforehand.  Misconceptions should be anticipated.  The internet may be a worldwide data treasure, but mining it calls for integrity and a systematic approach.  Valid and reliable research takes time, effort, and open-mindedness.  It can be used to test hypotheses, for advocacy or to tell a story, but in every instance, research should be respected as a feature of daily life.     

Seeking Simplicity is Only Human

Seeking Simplicity Is Only Human

By Jeffrey M. Bowen

Simplicity can be a complex matter.  This sounds like a contradiction, but when we stop to think about the interwoven choices that surround our daily lives, it is no wonder that finding simplicity amid the din is something like discovering silence at a rock concert.

When the term simplicity is googled, lists of advice appear to tell us how to clear out living quarters, pare down wardrobes, and change our diets.  Unfortunately, not much is available to show us how simply being human can be a very natural way to enhance simplicity.

Today’s avalanche of technology provides an excellent example.  Not long ago our refrigerator died after weeks of ticking ominously.  Disappointed that it had lasted only nine years, but delighted that we had a 25-year-old substitute fridge to store things temporarily, we hastened to the local appliance store and complained to a sympathetic saleswoman about planned obsolescence.

 She said she was truly sorry.  She explained that years ago refrigerators seldom died because their compressors were built to last.  Today’s regulatory and safety mandates doom appliances to a much shorter life span. She could have added that computerized features have made many appliances easier to throw out rather than repair. 

This savvy saleswoman simplified our lives.  We realized an extended warranty would hardly protect us from malfunctions that were inevitable.  Our bias in support of the good old days was reinforced.  And given her apparent knowledge and emotional sensitivity at a time of stress, we were grateful to make a quick, simple choice based on her recommendation. 

A more dramatic example of why simplicity often wins dates back 40 years ago.  At the time I subscribed to a science magazine in which one of the feature articles was about the pros and cons of jet fighters.  Today’s stealth aircraft were foreshadowed with a stark warning:  they were precariously designed to stay in the air only as long as instantaneous and constant computer adjustments to the controls were operating.  When these experimental jets were flown into simulated dog fights with old jets using simplified technology controlled largely by humans, the Wright brothers would have cheered.  You know who won.   

Why was this?  For one thing, the technology back then was undependable.  Second, human judgment and skill spelled the difference.  Without a doubt, artificial intelligence and amazing electronic communications have changed our game, but we should never sell human judgment and simple thinking short.

 Even in a world of mystifying change, simplicity can be achieved.  I think one good way is to slow down, focus on just one or two goals at a time, and forgive ourselves for being human.  Another is to leave multi-tasking to others who may be much better at it than we are.  When we limit choices deliberately, this reduces the possibility of getting paralyzed by information overload. It helps to start by getting started even when the outcome may not be clear, and some data are lacking.  Adjustments can be made afterward.

Simplicity thrives on the present moment.  Spending too much time regretting the past, or trying to predict the future, can complicate life and immobilize us.  By learning to live our days one by one, a simpler life can be achieved.  

Finally, the abundance of simplicity in our natural world should be preserved.  When you see a photo or a painting of nature, most appealing is nearly always the impression of simplicity in the scene.  I try to use this as a guide for every photo I take.  It also serves as a satisfying guide to being human.