When I was in elementary school, my Dad stopped smoking. He has told me two stories about this. One involves a simple observation: every time he answered the phone at the office, he lit a cigarette. His doctor had told him to quit, of course, but the sudden realization that he was behaving like one of Pavlov’s dogs motivated him a lot more. He also told me that a coworker saw him in the hall one day and asked for a cigarette. Dad said, “here, this is my last one.” “I don’t want to take your last cigarette,” his friend said. “No,” Dad replied. “That’s OK. Take my last cigarette.” And that was it. He never smoked again. Fast forward to 1993. Dad survived a major heart attack. His doctor told him if he hadn’t quit smoking, there might have been no way to save him. I’m thankful he knew when to stop.
In 1935, Konrad Lorenz published a study on “imprinting,” which delved into the phenomenon of geese forming a strong attachment to the first large moving object they perceived in lieu of their mother. It could be a human being or a sock puppet. The main idea was that they encounter the object soon after hatching and becoming aware of the outside world. Humans also display some predisposition for imprinting, but not to the degree of geese and some other animals. My wife was adopted as a baby and still regards her adoptive parents as her “real” parents. Her younger sister thinks of her as a biological sibling. Both learned about the adoption later in their childhood.
It seems to me we all tend to “imprint” on information too. We can remember the first time we heard a song or where we were when we learned some major news. Often, we believe the first story that reaches us is “correct,” even if it is dead wrong. As a teacher, I had to be very careful to tell the class the straight story the first time. I’ve learned that some students will have a difficult time unlearning their first impression. One of my finest teachers, Dr. James Bonk, was meticulous when presenting methods to solve chemistry equations. Many of us marveled that he rarely made a mistake, and even then, it was minor and corrected on-the-spot. If I had a time machine, I would go back and thank Dr. Bonk for that. It is much easier to present a concept correctly the first time than try to clear up the confusion later. If I didn’t know the answer to a question well-enough to explain it satisfactorily, I either admitted I was only giving a partial answer, or I told the class I would get back to them after I had a chance to do a little research. I firmly believe that admitting you don’t know something is better than sharing a half-baked answer.
We are exposed to incomplete information all the time. Journalists often have gaps in their stories and some people leave gaping holes on purpose. Even so, honest people freely admit their errors and omissions and do their best to fill-in the blanks. The problem is, even when the first story is wrong or is missing important facts, many people still believe it is the truth. Fortunately, some wait, reserving judgement until they know more. But many are eager to have their biases confirmed. Wrong stories imprint, and they’re difficult to change, even when more facts come to light.
Politicians understand all of this on a fundamental level. They know if they can present their “side” of the story first, there is a good chance many people will be imprinted by whatever they are able to “put out there.” So, they act fast and repeat their story often. This is how propaganda works. Those who are already in a politician’s camp are more likely to believe his version of events, and with each story, each “alternative fact,” they can become more convinced they are right, while others are simply wrong.
We are conditioned to make snap judgements. Our survival sometimes depends on our “fight or flight” instinct. This kind of thinking is great when a person hears a twig snap and sees a massive flash of brown fur in the forest. However, when we are trying to decide someone’s guilt or innocence, or choose a political position, it can quickly lead us astray. While we might need to act quickly when we see a bear, courts have rules to help us slow down and get a better picture. In a complex world, we need to take time to evaluate all the evidence and decide whether someone is telling us the truth or just telling us what they want us to know.
I learned from reading Buckminster Fuller that the greatest truth, as some say, “the truth with a capital T,” is the most comprehensive. Truth must reflect our most complete understanding of the facts, not just what we want to believe. We must resist the temptation to believe the first story that sounds good to us. We must base our opinion on “the whole truth” and not our favorite part of it. And we must have faith that we can find objective truth if we decide to find it. Fuller also pointed out, “Faith is much better than belief. Belief is when someone else does the thinking.”
Currently there is a battle between those who believe an incomplete, misleading story and those who comprehend the 12th Amendment and think for themselves. The Vice-President was caught in the middle of this battle and proved his integrity by following the law. There is also common sense. Counties with fewer people completed their vote counts much sooner than counties with more people, and more absentee ballots. In addition, areas with small populations tend to vote differently than areas with large populations. In defiance of rationality, many first impressions, imprints from a story that began long ago, have not been abandoned.
I’m left to wonder when some people will decide they have made their last jump to conclusions based on the first thing they heard, so they can take a more comprehensive view of the world. It seems to me this habit must end if we want to live in a healthy society. We can’t survive much longer as a species if too many of us continue to imprint on stories from those who tell us what we want to hear.
MurrayWorks 