How do we form beliefs? Maybe a heavy question for a Monday morning but I think one we need to understand if we practice organisational change? There seem to be four main sources on which we form beliefs - Logic, Intuition, Evidence & Systems - Logic - Deductive reasoning (top down) starts with widely held facts going to the specific – everyone goes through the stages of change; this person is going through change, they must be experiencing the stages of change.? Inductive reasoning (bottom-up) starting with specific observations (what we see around us) that person is angry, they are going through change, they must be experiencing the stages of change and abduction reasoning is concluding based on what you ‘know’ about the situation but is not definitive, forming a hypothesis for testing – I think this person is angry, lets find out why. - Intuition -?According to the works of?Daniel Kahneman, intuition is the ability to automatically generate solutions without long logical arguments or evidence. ?Michael Shermer refers to “patternicity” the human tendency to see patterns & meaning in unrelated events and then assign people (trying to control the world) to those events which he calls “agenticity”.?These two brain ‘short cuts’ leave us susceptible to believing in conspiracy theories and the supernatural. - Evidence – this relates to evidence-based practice which uses four sources of evidence to make decisions through the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of the best available evidence which we mentioned in last week's post https://bit.ly/3KywBsp - Systems – arguably the most important dimension of how beliefs are formed because it has the biggest impact on the way we think and because it is something we can challenge and change.?Top business schools are now calling for a more human approach to teaching management theory and consultants pushing for a more evidence-based approach Neuroscientists suggest that our actions (behaviours) are just self-fulfilling predictions (beliefs), and those predictions are based on our mental models of how we view the world based on our beliefs. A retrospective, reverse rationality loop where we form beliefs then look for evidence to support them. The danger of the ‘system’ is that if it gives us false mental models & beliefs, we start to seek patterns & create intuitive automatic solutions to problems we potentially haven’t defined very well. These mental models also effect our logical deductive & abductive thinking.?They may become so strong that we deny what is going on around us (inductive reasoning) and we become victims of complex cognitive bias. In organisational change how can we successfully challenge people's beliefs? Maybe we should start with changing behaviours which help people form new beliefs of what is possible? Here are some further thoughts ;) https://bit.ly/3KCMVbC #changemanagement #evidencebasedpractice #organisationaldevelopment #organisationalchange
I've always held that beliefs are upstream of behavior, and I have had this perspective validated throughout my life and work ... fitting the confirmation bias. And I am on the lookout for lines of research that might provide a contrary perspective. Does anyone know of research that suggests that "belief to behavior" causality is not as certain as I/many believe it is?
Throughly enjoyed this mind map Alex Boulting, Chartered FCIPD. I too believe that when you are in a organisons there are so many components to change, that we often unconsciously forget there are some core values, beliefs and peoples passion that drive an organisation forward. Well captured!
Excellent mindmap Alex Boulting, Chartered FCIPD! Saved it for future reference. Perhaps we can also ponder: Why do we allow beliefs to change? And How and why do we stop allowing our beliefs to change? Why is this important? - Suppose we have the Logic, Evidence, have a conducive System to encourage the belief change and also target the innate Intuition of the person we want to change: WHAT IF the target person is not receptive to changing beliefs? What about the system? One study I am doing now simulates system change in different population proportion of close-minded (high need for cognitive closure) vs open-minded agents (low need for cognitive closure). Interim results is showing both types of agents are equally important for system to evolve. This means a society of pure close-minded or open-minded agents are not likely to change or stay changed. Looking forward to share more when results are more conclusive.
Over the years I have found the Ladder of Inference a useful model for how we shift our beliefs, behaviours and assumptions (and therefore culture). It might give some insight Alex Simpler, effective and gets you to a good conversation about the data that makes the difference - which in organisations often comes from our need to stay safe - we please our boss. We follow their lead. If they love something, we love it to. If they are meh! we are meh! too.
The danger of the ‘system’?? there is no such thing as "the system"
Thank you for this interesting piece… Alex Boulting, Chartered FCIPD I have to admit to being intrigued by the premise that beliefs (which I hear as being something rooted in an act of faith - where we may never know but only form our point of view) being underpinned with things like logic and evidence which for me underpin knowledge (provable or disprovable things). This distinction, for me, explains why it is not possible to, for example, use logic or evidence to persuade someone to accept a vaccine. Once you accept that it is a faith based belief rather than a rational argument it allows a more curious, inquiry based, values based approach. I’m intrigued that this piece understands belief differently from me - tell me more about how you see it?
Michael Polanyi’s book “Personal Knowledge” is the biz here. No snazzy graphics but plenty of deep insights including “we know more than we can tell” (recently claimed by a contemporary wannabe guru) and the crucial difference between focal and subsidiary awareness.
Great thought prodder for a Monday morning Alex Boulting, Chartered FCIPD. Where I go with this is.... and what is our capacity for acknowledging, nay admitting, when we are wrong? It is all well and good being clear on types of beliefs and accompanying mental models. Without the capacity for ambivalence, nuance and the willingness to consider not only that new data may exist that challenges our assumptions, but may mean we are flat out wrong, we are in the realms of fundamentalism not belief. The capacity to say simply "I got this wrong", without equivocation, qualification, dissembling etc (see Trump, Johnson et al) is a rarity, in politics and organisations generally. Personally, I know I get stuff wrong, and am comfortable in my own certainty here, such that it makes me more comfortable to be certain in my uncertainty of my right-ness. If you see what I mean ??
Software, Systems, Simulations and Society (My Opinions Merely Mine)
2 年I dispute those "Sources of Belief". How about: Perception Experience External Authority Logic is not a "source". It is a method of formal proof of a statement based on a set of axioms and a given set of rules that essentially define that particular "Logic". Intuition I could accept, but would instead frame it as "rapid retrieval of experience". It may be correct or incorrect. The key characteristic of "Intuition" is rapid (often non-verbal) access. Evidence. Evidence often forms the basis of Inductive Reasoning, which also may or may not be correct. There are a plethora of errors due to faulty data and analysis, often giving a false sense of accuracy or reliability. This is why Courts of Law create strict "rules of evidence" to avoid faulty Inductive Reasoning. Systems. I don't even see how this is a source of belief. To me, Systems are arrangements and interfaces of component parts to achieve some set of goals or requirements. How do they relate to beliefs? "Challenging" individual or organizational beliefs would involve identifying, examining, and assessing their perceptions, experiences, and previously trusted authorities.