Tag: information

Competence and character

Trust is a function of two things: character and competence. Character includes your integrity, your motive and your intent with people. Competence includes your capabilities, your skills and your track record. Both are vital. – Stephen Covey

In response to my last post, one of you asked a really good question – “How do we get competence AND character in our elected officials?”

I [tried to] provide a brief answer in the last post:

If what you see doesn’t match what you’re being told – by either the politicians or the media – then suspect you’re being lied to. Dig at it until you get at the truth – and then act on it. Most importantly, don’t vote based on loyalty, or to just go along – vote for who is going to do the best job. If they don’t live up to your expectations, vote them out. And if none of that works, then vote with your feet – leave.

So let me personalize this. I vote for the candidate that I most trust to do the things that need to be done. Too often, our elections become a referendum about one candidate or the other (arguably, 2020’s Presidential election was a referendum on Trump). But elections actually are choices. A vote against a candidate is a vote for their opponent. If we vote for someone because we dislike/loath/hate their opponent we may well get what we deserve – an incompetent with little integrity.

That skeletal bone “the things that need to be done” demands a bit more meat. The first duty of community office is to maintain or improve the community’s quality of life. Ideally, that means finding people who will “do the right things right the first time.” Finding people who will not only work to solve Today’s problems but are also focused on Winning Tomorrow – a sustained effort to improve the community’s capacity and its quality of life (I’ll talk more about Winning Tomorrow in my next post). But we’re all flawed; there are too few of these paragons around.

Thus, one way to get competence and character in office is to urge those we believe approach this ideal to stand for election. I judge a candidate’s competence based on

  • The candidate’s past. Does the candidate meet the requirements for the position (e.g., age, experience, education)? If the elected position requires working with a bureaucracy, does the candidate have any relevant experience? Has the candidate handled difficult situations before in an acceptable manner?
  • The candidate’s positions. Is the candidate focused on solving what I believe to be the community’s problems? Which of these are the candidate’s highest priorities? Is the candidate offering likely solutions, that won’t have any obvious “unintended consequences?” Is the candidate driven by ideology or by observation of the community’s conditions?
  • Tenure. Has the candidate (or the candidate’s party) held the office for longer than a decade? If so, what does the candidate propose doing differently to solve the community’s problems?

I judge a candidate’s character based on

  • The candidate’s past. Any scandals, or anything unsavory? If it’s something said or written in the candidate’s youth, has the candidate learned and moved beyond the immature transgression? Conversely, are there laudable actions or statements (e.g., serving one’s country)?
  • Confidence. Is the candidate confident – neither cocky nor projecting mock humility? When confronted by those who disagree, does the candidate “keep their cool?”
  • Trust. Do I trust the candidate to do their best in the position? This is a personal thing: the person’s confidence plays a role, as does the candidate’s respect for those who disagree. Ultimately, I’m looking for that person who, if necessary, will “rise above principle to do the right thing.”

The crucial element is information. Correctly judging a candidate’s competence and character requires accurate – and often nuanced – information. As a result, I spend a great deal of time before an election seeking information about the candidates in the races I care about. I try to glean information from several sources to construct the best picture I can. As an aside, the consolidation of the media often makes that difficult. We often overlook that the news media are both reporters and curators. If they choose not to cover a story (e.g., Hunter Biden’s laptop; JFK’s infidelities) then we as citizens are denied the ability to factor it into our decisions. The rise of the “New Media” such as the Free Press (left of center) and the Daily Wire (right of center) is helping to restore balance at the national level. But while there may be multiple sources of information in some of our big cities, in many locations – especially smaller cities – there often is only one.

Once I’ve collected the information, it’s crunch time. Remember, elections aren’t referenda, they’re choices. And since we’re all flawed, it’s highly likely that each candidate has pluses and minuses. I look for the candidate best able to get the things done I believe desirable under the circumstances.

We can’t always have both competence and character. In one of the first elections in which I voted, I was faced with the choice between a competent (possible) crook and an (apparently) honest fool. I voted for the crook because he seemed best able to make and implement the hard decisions demanded by the times.

If we want both, we have to urge competent people of character to run for office. But – like us – our information will always be flawed. We will make mistakes. The easiest is to simply vote straight party tickets, as if one of the parties has a monopoly on mendacity and the other lives close to the saints. If we vote for the candidate and not the party; vote for what we believe is needed for our communities to survive and thrive; and dig for the information we need to do these – we likely won’t go too far wrong … at least not very often!

Featured

Cognitive bias and community resilience

Beliefs are not like clothing: comfort, utility and attractiveness cannot be one’s conscious criteria for acquiring them.

It is true that people often believe things for bad reasons – self-deception, wishful thinking and a wide variety of other cognitive biases really do cloud our thinking.

Sam Harris

Have you ever tried to convince your boss, your spouse, or someone else about something?  And found your blood pressure rising as you thought to yourself “Why can’t he / she keep an open mind?”  You may have been a victim of the other person’s cognitive biases (of course there’s always the possibility that you were wrong!).

When we receive new information, we try to fit it into our existing mental models – the patterns that we have formed to help us organize information.  These patterns are important and useful because they help us rapidly respond to threats.  However, sometimes our existing mental models act as barriers to incoming information, especially if the new information doesn’t fit into an existing pattern very well.  This is known as cognitive bias.

Community leaders are human.  They are just as subject to cognitive bias as anyone else.  But that means that they may under- or overestimate risks facing the community, or ignore potential solutions to the community’s problems, or accept “solutions” that simply won’t work.  Thus, cognitive bias can have profound impacts on a community’s resilience.  In this post, I want to explore some common kinds of cognitive bias in a community context.

Perhaps the most important kinds of cognitive bias are what I call “delusions of competence.”  These appear in many different guises.  Sometimes we ignore new information because we don’t trust the source.  The messenger may be our political opponents (For example, a recent paper found that most Republicans who didn’t believe in climate change cited the fact that it’s being touted by liberal politicians as a primary cause of their disbelief.  The state of denial by progressive politicians [now there’s an oxymoron!] of the truth of recent revelations of Iranian nuclear misdeeds may have a similar cause.).  We may think we’re smarter than the messenger.  Or better at making decisions, or at predicting the future.  However it appears, this type of cognitive bias usually causes us to discount or ignore new information.  It introduces blind spots in our thinking.

Another type of cognitive bias arises because humans are social animals.  Most of us want to be part of “the group” (whatever that is).  If (noboby/everybody) thinks X then we should think the same.  Or we let our instincts be overridden by trying to be politically correct, or polite.  Or we respond to the confidence exhibited by a squeaky wheel.  This type of cognitive bias often ends up in a sort of community groupthink and misdirected actions.

A third type of cognitive bias is “the Tyranny of the Status Quo.”  Often, we tend to value what we have so much that we will do almost anything to avoid change.  This kind of bias can be summed up in something my friend Jim Kelley once said to me:  “People will only change when the pain of not changing becomes too great.”  This type of cognitive bias can also show up in more subtle ways.  We may tend to downplay some new information because it either conflicts with or pushes aside what we are concerned with now.  Or, rather than recognizing a new pattern, we may try to force fit new information into an old mould. 

Confirmation bias is closely related.  In this case, we pay attention to new information only if it buttresses previously held opinions.  This is particularly pernicious because we are flooded with so much information and so many studies that come to contradictory conclusions that it is way too easy to fall into this trap.  It seems that Climate Change Zealots on both sides are especially prone to this.

Every one of us as humans will fall prey to cognitive bias at some point – pattern making and matching are important evolutionary advantages.  But the leadership of our communities is made up of more than one person.  Inherent in the types of cognitive biases described above are ways that community leadership can avoid their negative impacts.

  • Diversity.  The best way to counter groupthink is to have people with diverse mental models each grappling with new information.
  • Respect.  If people respect one another, then they are highly unlikely to overweight their capabilities against someone else’s.  They are also more likely to listen to each other.
  • Good governance structures.  Diversity can lead to conflict; respect can lead to a desire to placate everyone.  Both can lead to inaction.  Good governance structures can achieve an appropriate balance as well as adding other checks and balances to avoid cognitive biases.

Our communities need information to gauge the risks they face and to find ways to either adapt to or mitigate those risks.  They need information to find ways to grow healthier and to recognize and seize the opportunities around them.  They need information to strike a good balance among their myriad needs and competing priorities.  Cognitive biases disturb and distort the flow of information.  If our communities are to become more resilient, they must find ways to combat cognitive bias.