It is quite likely that the same reward system provides the positive feedback necessary for us to learn and to continue wanting to learn. The pleasure of a thought is what propels us forward; imagine trying to write a novel or engage in a long-term scientific experiment without getting such rewards. Fortunately, the brain has provided us with a wide variety of subjective feelings of reward ranging from hunches, gut feelings, intuitions, suspicions that we are on the right track to a profound sense of certainty and utter conviction. And yes, these feelings are qualitatively as powerful as those involved in sex and gambling. One need only look at the self-satisfied smugness of a "know it all" to suspect that the feeling of certainty can approach the power of addiction.
LEHRER: To what extent do these mechanisms come into play during a presidential election? It seems like we all turn into such partisan hacks every four years, completely certain that our side is right.
BURTON: The present presidential debates and associated media commentary feel like laboratory confirmation that the involuntary feeling of certainty plays a greater role in decision-making than conscious contemplation and reason.
I suspect that retreat into absolute ideologies is accentuated during periods of confusion, lack of governmental direction, economic chaos and information overload. At bottom, we are pattern recognizers who seek escape from ambiguity and indecision. If a major brain function is to maintain mental homeostasis, it is understandable how stances of certainty can counteract anxiety and apprehension. Even though I know better, I find myself somewhat reassured (albeit temporarily) by absolute comments such as, "the stock market always recovers," even when I realize that this may be only wishful thinking.
Sadly, my cynical side also suspects that political advisors use this knowledge of the biology of certainty to actively manipulate public opinion. Nuance is abandoned in favor of absolutes.
LEHRER: How can people avoid the certainty bias?
BURTON: I don't believe that we can avoid certainty bias, but we can mitigate its effect by becoming aware of how our mind assesses itself. As you may know from my book, I've taken strong exception to the popular notion that we can rely upon hunches and gut feelings as though they reflect the accuracy of a thought.
My hope is the converse; we need to recognize that the feelings of certainty and conviction are involuntary mental sensations, not logical conclusions. Intuitions, gut feelings and hunches are neither right nor wrong but tentative ideas that must then be submitted to empirical testing. If such testing isn't possible (such as in deciding whether or not to pull out of Iraq), then we must accept that any absolute stance is merely a personal vision, not a statement of fact.
Perhaps one of my favorite examples of how certainty is often misleading is the great mathematician Srinivasava Ramanujan. At his death, his notebook was filled with theorems that he was certain were correct. Some were subsequently proven correct; others turned out to be dead wrong. Ramanujan’s lines of reasoning lead to correct and incorrect answers, but he couldn’t tell the difference. Only the resultant theorems were testable.
In short, please run, do not walk, to the nearest exit when you hear so-called leaders being certain of any particular policy. Only in the absence of certainty can we have open-mindedness, mental flexibility and willingness to contemplate alternative ideas.
See what we're tweeting about
68 Comments
Add CommentI thopught that I was wrong once. Happily I was mistaken.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, the candidate who is most certain is one we should NOT vote for. While possibly correct in their expressed ideas, "facts", and opinions, they may also be wrong but are unable to analyze their views. Thus, those with differing opinions are likely to be rejected out of hand with out regard to available data/facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is but one part of the "puzzle" in trying to explain the absurdity of the persistence of religious fundamentalism in the 21 century... when enlightened skeptics have existed for milenia and the Universe has become "naturalized" by science and reason. "Faith" is just a proxy for (delusional) "certainty", completely at odds with reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheers!
Interesting piece, food for thought. I have to wonder though, don't these very intuitions enable us to survive and calculate conditions where experience has deemed them vital? Certainly subconscious directives can be just as often misleading, yet in scenarios where elaborate patterns converse with an individual's proven record of experience, we see these subtle feelings often parse and validate logical conclusions (ie. an detectives intuition after 15 years investigating particular crimes). Perhaps notions of 'certainty' serve us best contextually and often in the short term, however. Consistently challenging one's gut reaction sure, but are feelings of certainty a irrelevant factor?... I'd have to dissent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow! Imagine that... the God who created our minds creates them so that we have pleasure in finding faith in Him! That's a good God!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCompletely, unshakable certainty is dangerous. If one is not capable of routinely questioning, at the very least, one's own motives and attitudes, then there you have a recipe for trouble. To be sure, self questioning can be take to extreme, most things can. Reasoned conficence is a good thing, unwavering certainty is most certainly NOT (pun intended, of course).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI once wrote a paper in school about thought. The premis was that if we were born into a black void, everyone would be the same and think the same as there would be no variance in experience. However due to everyone's very unique upbringing, even siblings can have vastly different views and thoughts. Gut feelings and feelings of certainty I think stem from the past situations we've found ourselves in. There definatly is a biological componant when addressing addictions but in terms of religion, politics and other "learned" views, most if not all are programmed into us by our up bringing. Of course there are exceptions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow does this apply to Al Gore and Global Warming? He is a politician and seems pretty cock-sure of himself. I'm just saying.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis may stem from a basic survival requirement. When faced with the need to make a quick life or death choice, we must act immediately and with certainty. Cogitating nuances when being pursued by a terrible lizard is not good for one's health. Likewise, pack leaders are "in charge," and any sign of wavering on their part is a sign of weakness, a threat to the group, and an invitation to internal challenge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was absolutely certain that there were not absolutes until one day I realized how absurd that was.... but why did it take any time at all to see the paradox, perhaps that is why we fall into false certainties... we have a sort of tunnel vision.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think...therefore I am.........HAPPY!!!!!!!!! =D
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think........therefore I am...........HAPPY!!!!!!!! =D
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI saw an UFO. So did a fellow witness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've never seen god.
I've had very odd experiences which would pass for ESP events. So did the participants.
I never saw the devil.
All of this is experiential.
So, if I were to choose those who are dogmatic from those who are not , I would choose you, mine author. to fit in the former.
Now what does this do to your credibility from my perspective?
"Knowbody Nos" (what a bizarro moniker) somehow pontificates, based on the above opinion piece on the fallacies of certainty that 1. the god-construct in his brain created his "mind" and 2. that equates with pleasure... which... 3. means his god is "good". Huh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if this poster has ever pondered the role of his culturally-created-creator-god of his mind (somehow apart from his clearly evolved physical brain)... in the innumerable and myriad psychopathology that has plagued frail humanity... er, god's creation? Are schizophrenics, pedofiles, autistics... those bound by addiction and paralyzed by phobias... epileptics... the demented and the self- identities literally lost to Alzheimer's... and those very tragic individuals imprisioned by depersonalization & derealization syndromes "sinful" in not "thanking (your) glorious god"?
WOW! What a very, very bad god indeed!
Sheesh!
intuitions save valuable time and provide shortcuts. Intuitions are not certainties, even in the minds of those who have them in many cases, they are just hypotheses to be tested if there is time and opportunity. In an emergency, if there is nothing else to go on with, it may certainly be better than acting at random. presuming some analysis of past, experience is triggering the intuitive process rather than blind faith passed on without intellectual analysis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor physicians the "certainty" issue can be a conundrum. We are trained in, and usually enjoy science. But to practice good science requires an open and inquiring mind. Patients, on the other hand, want certainty, confidence, authority for the most part. So the qualities that make a scientist, are not necessarily those that make a popular doctor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust saying.
"Certainty" is an ongoing conundrum in clinical medical practice. The qualities that inform medical training- scientific method and an attitude of inquiry- do not serve in the clinical setting. Patients want confidence, certainty, and even authority.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust sayin'.
During my upbringing I was surrounded by people with absolute confidence in what was true i religous matters. But my gut feeling told me to be careful with that kind of attitude towards life, even if I wasn't clever enough to win an argument against them. It seems I was saved from my peers ideas by my own "uncertainty bias".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you certain that we should be wary of those who are certain?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIntuition works great for split second decisions. Sure you might be incorrect, but if you don't have time to empirically test your hypothesis... then you had better be certain that your intuition is correct and act on it quick. The subconscious is also fairly good at coming up with ideas. Some have better intuition than others. Intuition for some is often much better than random chance.
I do agree, however, that it makes sense to use these intuitions as an initial direction and then test those before being "absolutely certain". That way you can be "certain" that you're right, test it, and verify if you are indeed "correct".
Why wouldn't you expect that there would be genetic and gestational factors that would influence the brain areas involved in imposing a certainty bias? I would be surprised if there were NOT differences in size, excitability, or connectivity of such neural systems. I'm thinking in terms of a "confidence module," which would have certain characteristics at birth, but would then be modified by all subsequent experience.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbasically recalling my college term paper: Certainty and Bounded Rationality must take into account the "State of Mind"- databaseben
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne 'thing' we ought be certain of is that: all perception and conclusions are "partial truths" (at best); whence, many if not most are; "untrue-self-evident-truths"; where the discerning measure subsist upon the extant of Ones manipulative capacity over the "external" or "internal"!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCertainty Bias reminds me of the comment I read in Boorstin's Discoverers, "the greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,but the illusion of knowledge"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCertainty Bias seems to support what Daniel Boorstin quipped, that, "the greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance, but rather the illusion of knowledge."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about when you grasp at straws and just LOOK like u know what you're doing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat if you're just grasping at straws and only LOOK like u know what you're doing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd what if you're not sure wheter this person seems so sure about the issue? And if you feel certain about your own judgement, should you trust yourself? Arrgh.....this is sooooo confusing. Now I'm not sure of anything. ThXs a lot!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuestion (perhaps author could answer ?): it has been my "theory" that in fact rituals, traditions and ceremonies perform that same role: provide feelings of certainty which create a feeling of reassurance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is known that ancient cultures around the world created many different types of ceremonies and rituals from the agricultural age (or at least we have more evidence). It is becoming clearer and clearer that those were often based in patterns they saw in nature (such as solar, star movements etc).
So my question would be: would you go as far as to tying these two together: by imitating in ceremonies/processes the patterns of nature, man would get a feel good feeling of certainty that nature would treat man well, e.g. with a great harvest etc. ? In other words: "please the Gods" ?
I should add: the reason for this is that it struck me that the brain works by pattern recognition and that it's not a coincidence many ceremonies are trying to create a man-made copy of a pattern occurring in nature. I had this "subconscious gut feeling of certainty" these two had to be related: in other words: man feels it can create a level of control over nature of which it is dependent by simulating it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent article. Many of the same conclusions are found in "Think Better". I'll paraphase" "it's not what we don't know that will do us in, it's what we 'know' that isn't true that's really dangerous". Beware of a candidate or a party who jumps in feet first and dismisses dissenters with a label. When we stick our heads up...the sand...we ignore options that may save us. Real leadership is inclusive, considers all possible sides of a question before jumping in - and looks for win-win in every decision...sounds like good game theory to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if our own addiction to bias forces politicians (or others in our tribe) to present themselves as 'certain' even though they themselves know that they must rely on analysis of empirical evidence to draw valid conclusions. Could it be the following order? 1 - Biased thought leads to 2 - analysis of empirical evidence which then leads to 3 - biased presentation of the conclusion to influence people (in other words a biased presentation may appeal to others' bias in order to influence or appeal to them). But I'm in way over my head here. I think I'll read the book!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Beware the true believer because he truly believes" Eric Fromm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Beware the true believer because he truly believes" Eric Fromm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Beware the true believer because he truly believes" Eric Fromm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoint well taken Gerald. But maybe Eric Fromm would have also been wary of the false believer, for he is trying to manipulate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter reading Edward De Bono's result of his Black Tower experiment, which concluded that 85% of its participants, although they knew zero about any mechanism or obvious manipulative procedure, described in intricate detail the cause of its fall. 15% said do not know or who cares.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI marvel at my own prior ignorance and continue to do so in the face of similar attitudes. Occasionally I sensibly remain silent and just walk away, reminding myself to learn to not be as ignorant as them in the future.
I am certain that I am never certain, therefore I decided to investigate people who are certain they are certain, and I am now certain that it is never wise to trust people who are certain they are certain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a strategic planner, it is amazing how often the Certainty concept occurs in organizational planning. Many times, my greatest challenge is getting planners to question their own beleifs. I often do this with a simple question - "as measured by what?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobert A. Simpkins
Global Crosswinds, LLC
Author:
- Not Another Pretty Binder: Strategic Planning That Actually Works!
- Secrets of Great Sales Management
e-mail: robert@globalcrosswinds.com
As the article states, we need to test our "certainty" empirically. Ample scientific and anecdotal evidence supports global warming and its effects, and this article addresses the exact mechanisms why people can look at vanishing glaciers and sea ice, increased drought and wildfires, yearly increases in record-high temperatures and increased storm strength, and then say "Global warming does not exist!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was certain I would enjoy this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClearly I was mistaken. Oh, bother!
Q.E.D.
Exactly I agree with you. If you listen to any candidate they sound like near all powerful demigods. Our electoral system perpetuates this. They must appeal to as many voters as possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother thought. Why is it that every social process or system always gets dragged down to the physiological functioning level of our least brightest citizens? Is there any way to break this cycle?
Certainty is the end result of the belief process. It is a rote learning of behavior patterns that are successful within a culture. It has nothing to do with cognate abilities or perception. It is process that forms values, good, bad, right, wrong, out of feelings of successful behavioral experiences that are adapted to any imagined (future) event.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCertainty cannot deal with reality. Only an idea of imagined potential can express a feeling of certainty. It is neither right nor wrong. It is an expression of virtual reality. It is not reality.
How does this apply to George W Bush and Global Warming? He's a politician and seems pretty cock-sure of himself...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow does this apply to George W Bush and Global Warming?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe's a politician and seems pretty cock-sure of himself...
Self-confidence is merely a delusion
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs shown by Muller-Lyers illusion
Expressions of certain erudition
Should be viewed with suspicion
And Ill engage in certainty bias ablutions.
Excellent Interview. I just want to let readers know that they can hear an in depth interview of Dr. Burton in Episode 43 of the Brain Science Podcast. Here is a link:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://docartemis.com/brainsciencepodcast/2008/07/25/42-onbeingcertain
Ginger Campbell, MD
host and creator of the Brain Science Podcast
I am absolutely sure about for whom to vote, at least I think so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am absolutely certain about for whom to vote, or at least I think I am!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI rarely agree with FrGough but this time he expressed my feelings perfectly. Also, I still believe that Christ is my saviour and God exists. I have no evidence beyond "truthiness" but all of my study, pondering and prayers have put no dent in my faith and I find no conflict between proper science and honest religion. I have found no verse in scripture that claims the Bible to be the whole and complete history of the world in absolute detail. Narrow mindedness is not faith or logic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The only thing that I know is that I know nothing." - Socrates
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQUICK.....memo to Obama supporters!! If course those of us not supporters knew this all along.....heh!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe comedic irony here was intentional, right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe comedic irony here was intentional, right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Burton; You should be ashamed of yourself trying to use science for your own point of view with no conclusive evidence. This goes to show how individuals with an education, could distort things to fit their own imaginary illusions of the facts. Your own fear come to play to your so call study, and you don't have to be a PHD to see this obviously, anybody with half a brain like yourself could see the result of your ignorance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Burton; You should be ashamed of yourself trying to use science in order to explain your own hidden fears. This goes to show that anybody with some education, could twist the truth in order to fit their own believes. Your study has show nothing but your illusory, and imaginary distortion of the facts with no conclusive evidence. Anyone with half a brain could see that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question of global warming isn't the issue, it's whether the human contribution of CO2 is the cause and whether hobbling the industrial economy that has been blamed for it would mitigate it in any meaningful or even desired way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisreligion is teddy bear. god is barbie doll. they are foe kids. (not that kids are inferior in any way).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrama prasad tellmeram@gmail.com
Please consider the example of Ronald Reagan, and his wife, Nancy, and her astrologer. Ronnie seemed quite sure of a lot of things that were completely wrong, and so did his wife, and probably her astrologer, too. This was obviously at least in some part along the lines of what the author suggests. Even as Ronnie reported to the American people that his administration had traded weapons to Iran for hostages, he also reported that he could not believe it. For some reason or another, Ronnie reported two mutually exclusive claims at the same time, and thus may have been acting on two different motivations. So it is not necessarily the case that a closed mind holding unfounded beliefs would necessarily not be amenable to consideration of the possibility of being wrong, though in this case there were probably some mitigating emotions as Ronnie slowly realized he was losing his mind. Keeping that in mind, please consider the current candidate, McCain, who with seemingly absolute certainty of the rightness of his beliefs (whatever they may be) has proclaimed that Ronald Reagan is one of his heroes. I hope that makes you, the reader, consider viewing your electoral choice this year in light of the knowledge of abnormal psychology as well as critical thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting article. BUT
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. There is a difference however between the certainty of a mathematician that the proof of a theorem is correct and the certainty of an (ex) alcoholic that god told him to start a war to find something that was not there. Both certainties seem to be pleasing!
2. Not all knowledge is based on reduction and the logical connections of individual "particles". That knowledge of "wholes" is also pleasing!
Interesting article. BUT
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. There is a difference however between the certainty of a mathematician that the proof of a theorem is correct and the certainty of an (ex) alcoholic that god told him to start a war to find something that was not there. Both certainties seem to be pleasing!
2. Not all knowledge is based on reduction and the logical connections of individual "particles". That knowledge of "wholes" is also pleasing!
just when i thought we were beginning to understand each other it turned out to be another misunderstanding!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi get sick of the idea that the brain accounts for all of a humans thoughts,this doesnt add up frankly,i see the brain as a processor for the whole body of our thoughts,ie every cell that is us thinks on some level,not just our brain,the brain is the processor for these thoughts and gives us cohesion for all the information that we give and receive with every cell of our body.i hear the idea that it all originates in the brain ,but it doesnt ,there are more subtle energies at work that perhaps we are yet to understand or even recognise,[shock horror you say,what?we dont know everything?]i trust my intuition ,because everytime i dont i wish i had,maybe there is 5% error ,but the odds are good enough,so where abouts do you find intuition inside the physical brain,can you disect the spot where intuition resides,is it the frontal lobes or where,you will never find it,this is NOT a mystical thing.its physics,there is energy yet to be discovered that is the human makeup.its there if you have the nouse too look,i assure you,and it will be discovered one day,if you have the will and dedication you will discover the more subtle energies that we are made of,,some people already know,dont think we know it all,thats dangerous and delusional,have a look outside at the infinite universe out there and do yourself a favour and put yourselves in perspective here,we know nothin!!!!!!!one more thing,stop pretending you know anything about god,you dont.no one does.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistheres an old saying and it goes like this,"thomas the tank engine doesnt get up the hill by saying- i think that i cant?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCertainty- our brains/psych crave it. This is seen with religion over the eons. Looking at the repurcussions of ardent certaintly and how our beliefs can change over time we may want to conclude there is a law of flexibility ( Certainty!). Science wants to understand things and get certainty. ACT therapy ( Acceptance and Commitment Therapy) is a useful tool for getting more mental flexibility. An Australian GP, Russ Harris has written a decent book on this called The Happiness Trap.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe interviewee seems awefully biased and envious of those of us that do have good intuition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny well balanced person will experience life and come to know which subjects that they can rely apon their intuition. For instance I've found that my intuition when it comes to gambling and cooking are both poor, but my intuition when it comes to computers is extremely high. At any rate, after time one learns which areas to ignore thier intuition and which areas to go with it. Many times I believe that intuition is what happens when the subconscious thinks through a problem and comes up with a solution. Your consious mind knows the answer but doesn't know how it knows the answer. (The subconsious mind is extremely powerful and interesting if you havn't taken an up to date psychology class in the last 5 years I'd recommend it as eye opening)
At any rate it seems to me that because the interviewee has a poor intuition, he therefore wants to bash intuition as a whole as unreliable and a bad personality trait. IMHO his energy would be better spent trying to figure out why his intuition is so poor instead of bashing everyone else's in order to make himself feel better.
I am uncertain because I know of my Emotions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes that mean people with certainty are unaware of their emotions?
Do reasons justify emotions, or do our emotions make our reasons comply with our emotions?
I believe in this theory- Because I am more of a emotional person then logical - because my gut feeling told me so.
I am certain Dr. Burton would agree with the observation:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe mind/brain is the creator of the false part of reality.
In the world of the blind, the sighted man isn't king, he's considered delusional. In modern America, the man with any intuition, creativity, imagination or even the ability to use simple logic is in the same shape.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for choosing our politicians, How about looking at the the issues? What's wrong with hearing both the confident and the uncertain people out and seeing which one is making sense, and which one is spouting nonsensical propaganda, and using senseless catch phrases? Better yet look at their past record, and see what they have actually done!
There are ways in which we can be certain on an issue. For example, I am certain that doing away with Medicare just so the rich can get a tax break is a sign of advanced political corruption, or perhaps a sign these politicians are sociopaths attempting mass murder. I think this is a fairly obvious conclusion. based on various cause and effect style projections. Morals aside this path leads to utter disaster for the American People... or at least 90% of us, any way you slice it.
I have to say though, these people aren't certain they are right. They are certain who paid billions of dollars to get them elected. That's a lot easier to be certain of.