Domain-Dependency May Cause Resilience, but it Undermines Learning.

Domain dependency is a cognitive fallacy that drives someone to think that same causes can lead to certain results in one domain but not in another.

This might be easier to illustrate using questions that the late, legendary motivational speaker, Jim Rohn asked his audience: What would happen if your enemy put Strychnine in your coffee and you drank the coffee? The unanimous answer was that you'd die.

He then asked what would happen if your friend accidentally poured Strychnine in your coffee? The answer was also unanimous: You'd die. And Jim Rohn advised his audience to guard their coffee from foes and friends alike.

I will add another scenario to make the illustration better. What if we reversed the intentions of the perpetrators. What if your friend did it intentionally and your foe did it accidentally? The results would be the same: You would succumb.

As illustrated, the domains are different. We have four different domains where coffee is spiked intentionally and accidentally by either foe or friend. They all end with one outcome: A dead you.

The cause is poison and the effect is death.

To the domain-dependent thinker, the Strychnine victim would not die if the friend or foe accidentally poured the poison in their coffee. The domain is cushioned from the effect of death by the good intentions of the perpetrators. The strychnine would also not have the effect of killing the victim if it was done by the friend. The domain is cushioned by friendship.

To the domain-dependent thinker, the causes are not what strictly drive the results but the domains. The results are dependent on the domain.

This example sounds absurd, but it captures domain-dependency clearly.

Domain dependency happens every day. We expect advertising to influence others but not us. Why? "We are too smart to be fooled by advertisers and their gimmicks." We think. "Those causes can't work on this domain."

When we come up with a business idea, we imagine that it will succeed despite it having failed for other people. Why? "We will do it differently. Our execution will be better. Other people may have missed things we can't miss." The domain is different. This self-assurance makes our confidence soar.

Your reasoning may be that the con game worked on your neighbor because he's lacking in wits. The con game can't work on you. You are smarter. The domain is different. However, when the con game is slightly twisted to introduce new blind spots, you get wiped clean of all your savings.

When companies like the one you work for are laying off people. You feel safe in your company. "Our company is different. The leadership is different. They care more about us than the leaders for those other companies." You assure yourself until the axe falls on you too.

Domain dependency is best captured by two phrases: That was a special case. This time it is different!

Humans have an inbuilt bias for having better chances of success where others have failed. It is mostly why domain dependency exists.

Maybe this cognitive fallacy had evolutionary benefits. Maybe it makes people resilient in the face of challenges.

If we were to all quit doing something because the people who tried it before us failed, we'd get nothing done.

In the stone-age days, if a blunt stone-tipped spear failed to pierce through a big cat's tough skin during an encounter with one. It would be the end for the unlucky tribesman.

But the tribe wouldn't move their camp to avoid all future big cat encounters. The tribesman perishing in the incident would be considered a special case.

They'd quickly rationalize that it was a problem with that spear and a problem with that tribesman fighting skills with big cats.

This way, they would continue taking on big cats with confidence in their spears and skills. This time it will be different!

While domain dependency may have had this benefit of resilience, it undermined learning. With the tribesmen example, many would perish before they considered upgrading their spear, their skills, or better yet, moving their camp to a place with fewer big cats.

When under its influence, we do not scrutinize causes to understand them and their effects. This way, we make the same mistakes over and over again.

?

?