In a past note, we set out Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. One of the lessons this great metaphor offers is that thinking differently from the group isn’t a way to make friends. Being “weird” isn’t welcome.
You’ll recall our wakened caveman upon return to his friends thinks his perspective of a new, expanded, outside world will be as amazing and inspiring to them as it was for him. Yet, his enthusiasm isn’t absorbed but outright rebuffed. The others are comfortable in their existing world. They don’t want to know that perspectives outside of their own exist. Tech analyst, Benedict Evans, has offered, “The more the Internet exposes people to new points of view, the angrier people get that different views exist.” The Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer put it differently observing, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” Gandhi put it similarly noting, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
The returning and enlightened caveman is first ignored, then ridiculed and laughed at. Shortly after, he’s opposed and threatened. He’s told in no uncertain terms that his perspective isn’t welcome. He’s attacked as dangerous and crazy. We don’t, unfortunately, in Plato’s allegory get to the point where the caveman wins and his truth is seen by all. Different isn’t desired, it’s detested. An extension of this idea is seen in Tall Poppy syndrome well known in the UK or the Japanese aphorism of the tallest nail is the one the hammer hits first. Both describe the circumstance where those that are different or distinguish themselves from the crowd do so at risk to themselves. Those that stick out above the crowd become targets. We come to understand it’s not a favorable position. Better to blend in like a chameleon than to stick one’s head up and stand out. Dissidents don’t stand to gain, instead they’re looked at with disdain. The powers that be seek to discredit and devalue those that differ.
The Semmelweis reflex is a name given the idea that we default to discounting different viewpoints when first encountered. We’re like our chained cavemen treating the returning caveman with scorn and suspicion when presented with information different than what we’re used to. Author, Timothy Leary offered the following as a definition for the Semmelweis reflex, “mob behavior found among primates and larval hominids on undeveloped planets, in which a discovery of important scientific fact is punished.” We don’t like those that differ. We want to stuff down those that stick out.
Ignaz Semmelweis was a Hungarian training to become a doctor that worked in the mid 1800s. Complications and death during childbirth occurring at hospitals was substantial. Though most women gave birth at home, many still made their way to hospitals for help. Of those, mortality rates were upwards of 30%. The established view within the field of medicine was this was just the way things were. Whether from overcrowding, poor ventilation, or other reasons, hospitals had limitations and there was an inherent risk to being there.
As a recent graduate and while working as a resident, he noticed that the simple act of handwashing by doctors led to a significant decrease of death in maternity wards. In those days, doctors moved from performing autopsies to managing childbirth. Doctors made these transitions casually without washing and sterilizing their hands. Dr. Semmelweis put forth a chlorine solution for doctors to wash their hands with when moving from the morgue to maternity ward and those that did this in his hospital saw appreciable decrease of mortality, upwards of 90%.
This modest proposal backed by objective evidence wasn’t welcomed with open arms and immediately adopted even in Dr. Semmelweis’s own hospital. Younger doctors seemed to be open to trying the approach suggested by Dr. Semmelweis. The established, older crowd didn’t think much of it or him. Instead of earning his credentials at the top of his cohort and being celebrated for his insight, his approach was resisted. His political ideas weren’t in favor with established doctors either and his job prospects suffered as a result. He toiled in obscurity in several places. His approach was used on limited levels. Where used, the mortality rates dropped virtually to zero. Nonetheless, objective evidence of utility didn’t translate into adoption or recognition.
He left and established a private practice in Hungary. He was able to convince through his results his process to be promoted there. Resistance in Austria and Germany continued. The established academics basically shouted him down and Semmelweis shouted back getting angrier in his papers and correspondence. This did nothing to garner sympathy for his cause. He became seen as disgruntled and was easier to discredit. Slowly, and sadly, his own mental health deteriorated, and he was institutionalized briefly before dying of an infection himself. Only years after his death was his approach accepted. He, like our chained caveman, had found a new way of seeing a circumstance which he thought would become obvious to others and eagerly adopted. To his surprise, and chagrin, it wasn’t. The idea and he, as an individual, were both rejected from the group.
Our need to belong and fit in is potent and powerful. On Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, belonging sits just above survival needs like shelter and food. Belonging is our core social driver. In the movie, The Matrix, Morpheus said to Keanu Reeves’s character, Neo, “You have to understand, most people are not ready to be unplugged.” They would prefer being shielded from the truth and live sheltered in their existing comforts.
The social conformity studies done in the 1950s by the Psychologist Solomon Asch further demonstrated this tendency to go along to get along rather than to be right. Asch’s studies put a subject in a group tasked with evaluating pictures. The pictures contained various objects and the group was asked to pick a match between one item and that same item presented in a group of slightly differing ones. For example, a black line of a given length compared to several lines some different and one the same. Match the single line to its mate presented in the group of lines. A straightforward task. In the groups, all but one were actors. The subject, the non-actor, thought all were part of the group just like he/she was. When actors selected the wrong answer, in many cases the subject went along with the group instead of picking the correct answer. When the crowd (all the actors) had picked with confidence the wrong answer, it was easier and more agreeable to simply go along than to create conflict by picking the correct answer. It wasn’t just the odd subject that picked the wrong answer to align with the group. 74% of subjects gave at least one incorrect answer. Asch wrote, “That intelligent, well-meaning people are willing to call white, black is a matter of concern.”
Additionally, thanks to the confirmation bias we value information that supports our current viewpoint more than that which doesn’t. This is a key takeaway from the Semmelweis situation. New isn’t easily endorsed. It’s resisted. If it doesn’t fit, it can’t be legit. If it doesn’t fit the existing narrative, it must be dismissed. Coupled with the confirmation bias, the authority bias leads us to lean on the opinion of those we deem in the know. We defer to the experts. The experts are invested in the status quo. They, too, will resist new ideas as new ideas threaten their position. This, also, was in play for Semmelweis. The established doctors were set in their ways and figured they knew more than the upstart resident.
Our desire to go along to belong leads us to, unfortunately, often be wrong. This is a cost of conformity. Groupthink is the result of conflating consensus with correctness. Because a group agrees, the result is deemed is accurate. This isn’t the case. As the late Booker T. Washington observed, “A lie doesn’t become truth, wrong doesn’t become right, and evil doesn’t become good, just because it is accepted by a majority.” Accuracy isn’t the result of a democratic vote. Either the facts support a position, or they don’t. G. K. Chesterton noted, “Right is right even if nobody does it. Wrong is wrong even if everybody is wrong about it.”
When consensus is overwhelming, this shouldn’t be seen as a sign of strength but one of concern. Our risk radar should rotate causing us to question the wisdom of the crowd. As Walter Lippman noted, “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.” When dissent is distant, deliberation is diminished. Critical thought is sidelined in favor of social dynamics. The desire to fit in, be respected, and admired, can cause us to worry about conforming with a group instead of performing well. When all scientists, or every expert, or all politicians agree on something, this should be seen as a cause for concern. Seek to adopt the guidance of Mark Twain, “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.”
In August of 2023, an essay was published in The Chronicle of Higher Education. The essay, “We Need Scientific Dissidents Now More Than Ever,” noted, “The world isn’t simple, what the evidence shows isn’t always clear, and things are not always as they seem. So we owe the Semmelweisses of the world a debt of gratitude—for their diligence and their courage. This doesn’t mean we should believe every heterodox thinker that comes along. But it means we should strongly resist the urge to punish them, to censor them, …” We shouldn’t hate the heterodox. Nor should we necessarily honor them. Let’s at least work to humor them with a hearing. The heterodox help us refine and improve our understanding. The more meaningful and consequential the topic, the more we should seek a diversity of input. Let competing perspectives and ideas do battle in the open.
William Osler a Canadian physician and one of four founders of the John Hopkins Hospital in the late 1800s gave a speech to a graduating class of medical students and said something to the effect of, “Gentlemen, I have a confession to make. Half of what you’ve been taught in medical school is false. The problem is, we don’t know which half.” In other words, things are rarely clear-cut and 100% certain. Science shifts. Humility is the only fruitful posture with which to lean into a complex world. We must work to welcome the input of others and not default to discounting.
To check yourself before you wreck yourself, keep two questions posed by financial author Morgan Housel accessible. Consider asking, What do I believe is true only because believing it puts me in good standing with my tribe? And what do I think is a universal truth but is actually just a norm unique to my own culture?
A quote attributed to humorist Oscar Wilde is “Everything popular is wrong.” To counter groupthink, this is not a bad perspective from which to start. We need dissidents. None of us know enough. The world is far too complex and only getting more so for any few of us to have a monopoly in the right ideas. It’s as true for us in business as it is in science and society. We should prioritize and take pride in a plurality of perspectives.
