Opening the closed mind: Making assumptions, jumping to conclusions.

SANFORD I. BERMAN, PH.D. (*)

What Do You Assume?

One of the most important questions that we can ask ourselves is, "What am I assuming when I am thinking, talking and behaving?" When we are speaking, listening, thinking, observing, behaving, what assumptions are we making? Our unconscious assumptions control our behavior.

Life is a series of unconscious assumptions. We must make assumptions. But wisdom begins when we are conscious of some of the assumptions that we make.

We can say one thing, but what we really mean is something else again. Our unconscious assumptions indicate how we really feel about things.

It is important to remember that we speak, think, observe and behave according to the unconscious assumptions that we make about people, situations, things, and most importantly, about ourselves.

Voltaire was conscious of this in the course of an argument. A question was brought up and he said, "There are too many of us present." The other replied, "What do you mean? There are only two of us present."

Voltaire said, "I'm sure that there are at least six of us. There is what you are, what you think you are and what I think you are. And there is what I am, what I think I am, and what you think I am."

What we think about ourselves, the picture that we have of ourselves, is due to these unconscious assumptions. What you think you are is not you. It is an abstraction or a map of the "real self." This phenomenon self, what you think you are or the way you would like to look to yourself, is a product of the assumptions that you make about yourself. The important thing in effective communication and good mental health is to understand these assumptions as much as we can and to try to bring this self-concept to reality. This is what we mean by maturity.

From our set of assumptions or premises our feelings and behavior logically follow. This is what mathematician-philosopher Cassius Keyser called logical fate or logical destiny. From our unconscious assumptions our conclusions or behavior logically follow.

We tend to overlook the fact that assuming-feeling-thinking-behaving are part of a single act. If we have an unconscious assumption that we "know it all," don't be surprised if we have attitudes, feelings and behavior of the know-it-all and closed mind. The "know-it-all attitude" or assumption does not fit the structure of the world of reality for no one can know all about anything. The world is extremely complex and unlimited while our knowledge must, of necessity, be limited.

And so we are concerned with the kinds of assumptions that "fit the structure of the world of reality," that fit the facts, that are mature, efficient, productive, and lead toward a high degree of predictability. This is the basis of general semantics and the scientific method. For it is impossible not to have assumptions as indicated in the following examples:

During a heated campaign in Cincinnati over fluoridation of the water supply, a woman called The Enquirer to say that she didn't vote for fluoridation because she felt it wasn't anything for the average citizen to decide. "So," she declared, "I voted against it!"

"I'm against Kennedy," said one retired Atlanta railroad engineer, "but I'm not going to explain why. You might be a Catholic."

A young father was telling a group of friends what a bad time he had when his baby was born. Finally a young matron inquired: "Who had that baby, anyway?"

The young man nodded toward his wife, "She did," he answered quite seriously. "But she had an anesthetic."

Try to dig out some of the unconscious assumptions that stand in the way of your effective communication, good human relations, a happy marriage, or a successful life. What false assumptions do you have about yourself or others that are holding you back? If you have difficulty understanding some of these false assumptions perhaps a good psychologist or psychiatrist can help. After all, this is his or her job, digging Out false assumptions that people have about themselves that get in the way of productive and happy living. And then people can do something about those false assumptions.

We project our unconscious assumptions Onto the world of reality. We are both the creator and the product of our assumptions.

Learning to Control Response

Now let us take a closer look at why we have so many communication and human relations problems at home, on the job, and in life generally.

One of the main reasons we jump to conclusions or have misunderstandings is that we tend to have impulsive, trigger-like reactions. Let us analyze three different kinds of responses to see what a human kind of response is like.

1. A reflex action is inborn, not conditioned or learned. If you shine a light into the pupil of your eye, it will constrict or close. Hit the patellar tendon of the knee and your knee jerks. Hit the plantar tendon on the base of the foot and you get an immediate response. These are reflex actions, quick, immediate, automatic, trigger-like responses, where the stimulus controls the response. There is not much that we can do about reflex actions as they are not conditioned or learned.

2. A signal reaction is reflex-like behavior. It, too, is quick, automatic, trigger-like, impulsive, but it is learned or conditioned. You and I have learned how to respond in an automatic, quick, unthinking manner and here too the stimulus controls the response. Too much of our behavior is thus rigid, habitual, unchanging, although the world of reality changes. A signal reaction is learned or conditioned. Therefore, we can unlearn signal reactions. We can stop behaving like emotionally disturbed persons or people with primitive mentality.

Psychiatrist Dr. S. H. Kraines, in his book, Managing Your Mind, spends almost half of the book describing how patients with emotional or mental problems respond in an impulsive manner. He also stresses the necessity of pausing and delaying one's response in order to achieve maturity. Anthropologists have pointed out that modern man did not become modern man until he stopped to think, until he paused, delayed and analyzed situations, in order to have a more human kind of response. It is a delayed response that makes one human.

3. This third kind of response is called a symbol reaction. Korzybski pointed out the important difference between signal reactions and symbol reactions. Signal reactions are quick, impulsive, automatic responses, controlled by the stimulus. Some of you might recall the reactions to an Orson Welles broadcast in 1938. These were a series of unthinking, signal reactions. Panic behavior is characteristic of signal reactions. Mature behavior is characteristic of symbol reactions.

While animals' responses are conditioned, human responses are capable of having a higher degree of conditionality. This means that humans can change their responses, depending upon the facts of the situation. Conditioned responses are animalistic responses. They are the same no matter what the external facts are. This is why rat traps are so effective to catch rats. To a rat, "cheese is cheese." I suggest, however, that cheese inside of a rat trap is not quite the same as cheese outside of a rat trap. To a fish, "minnow is minnow," but one at the end of a hook is not quite the same as a minnow not at the end of a hook.

How many of us have the same kind of automatic, conditioned responses to people, situations and things? We have these "frozen" responses, as if the world of reality or the people in it never change. How can we learn the symbol reaction, the human kind of response, in our dealings with people?

We can learn how to pause, delay, analyze situations more than we normally do.

In pausing and delaying, and allowing the cortex to "think" and see differences, we are behaving like humans rather than animals. We are not lowering ourselves to an animalistic kind of response. We are not CATegorists or DOGmatists.

By having a symbol reaction, we control the situation or response, rather than having the stimulus or external event control us. Self-control is one of the most important of human responses.

By having a symbol reaction our behavior becomes much more mature. In fact, this is what we mean by mature behavior, being able to control ourselves, being able to analyze situations objectively.

Signal reactions lead toward many other kinds of misevaluations, arguments, fights and disagreements. Further on we will analyze the different kinds of misevaluations that signal reactions lead into. For now, however, if you remember that symbol reactions are a human kind of response, you will tend to pause, delaying and analyzing situations, rather than "bursting out into speech" or "flying off the handle."

Quote for the day: The purpose which runs through all other educational purposes -- the common thread of education -- is the development of the ability to think. -- Educational Policies Commission.

Differentiating -- Fact and Inference

Our automatic, trigger-like reactions lead toward misevaluations. One of the most common kinds of misevaluations is jumping to conclusions. Why do we jump to conclusions? One of the important reasons that we jump to conclusions is that we have never been taught the difference between a statement of fact and a statement involving an inference, an assumption, or a guess.

In my book, Why Do We Jump to Conclusions? I point out five differentiating characteristics between a statement of fact and an inferential statement. First, a factual statement can only be made after you have observed something, whereas an inference can be made anytime -- before, during or after observation, or, as is usually the case, with no observation at all. In other words, unless you have seen something with your own eyes, you are speaking inferentially.

Second, a statement of fact stays with what can be observed, whereas an inferential statement goes beyond observation. The following example illustrates how easy it is to jump to conclusions or make false inferences.

My mother rented a room in our house to two boys whom she did not know. She was a little worried at first, but in a few days she stopped fretting. "They must be nice boys," she explained. "They have towels from the YMCA."

Whenever I ask my students to make a statement of fact about the above story, some say, "The boys stole the towels" or "They took the towels from the YMCA." These statements are obviously inferential. They go beyond the facts. If they say, "The boys have towels with YMCA printed on them," they stay within what my mother observed.

A third differentiating feature between a statement of fact and one that is inferential is that a statement of fact approaches certainty whereas statements involving an inference have varying degrees of probability. Why don't we say that a statement of fact is certain? Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy (or uncertainty principle) states that the moment we talk about the world of reality we are in the realm of probability.

In other words, our statements and behavior are probable, not certain. Too many of us, however, jump to conclusions. We are too certain about what other people mean or do. We fail to ask questions. We are certain that we know what other people mean, when we don't. This is why we have misunderstandings. When we are too certain, we don't ask questions or check our assumptions. This is important in scientific behavior. You must replace your assumptions of certainty with assumptions of probability.

A fourth characteristic of a statement of fact is that we can make a limited number of factual statements but an unlimited number of inferences. It is the easiest thing in the world to make inferences. It takes no grey matter or intelligence to jump to conclusions. As someone once said, "Jumping to conclusions is the poorest form of exercise." But knowing the difference between our inferences and statements of fact is the beginning of wisdom.

A fifth characteristic difference between a factual statement and an inferential statement is that factual statements tend to lead to agreement whereas inferential statements lead to disagreement. There is so much disagreement in the political arena because so much of the discussion or argument is inferential, rather than factual.

How can you become more scientific or stop jumping to conclusions?

1. Basically, life is lived on the inferential level. Most of what you and I do is purely inferential. We live in the realm of inferences and assumptions. Make all the inferences you want, but know that you are doing so. Know the difference between your inferences or assumptions and statements of fact.

2. Check your inferences. Scientists make many inferences, some of which are called hypotheses, but they keep testing and checking their inferences. You should do the same in your behavior.

3. Don't pass off inferences as if they were statements of fact. And don't accept others' inferences as if they were factual.

4. Don't act on inferences as if they were factual. Fights, arguments, wars, divorces, are all caused by people acting on inferences as if they were factual. People who jump to conclusions often wrongly accuse others of behavior that they were not guilty of.

5. Orient your life in terms of the "assumptions of probability," not the "assumptions of certainty." Don't be too certain. The person who is certain never checks his assumptions or inferences. He is certain, and he is often wrong.

In the next section, we will apply this principle to the newspaper profession, a profession that deals in words all of the time.

Quote for the day: The question is not whether or not we make inferences; the question is whether or not we are aware of the inferences we make.

S. I. Hayakawa.

Delaying Jumps to Conclusions

We have differentiated between a factual statement and an inferential statement. We said that a statement of fact can only be made after observation, and stays with what has been observed, whereas an inference can be made at anytime and goes beyond observation. For example, if you observe a table in your room, that table is the non-verbal fact. If you say, "This table is in the room," that is a statement of fact. Notice that facts are nonverbal and statements are verbal. If you read a label on the back of the table that says, "G. B. Clark Company, Los Angeles, California," and if you say, "This table was manufactured in Los Angeles, California," that is an inference. You don't know where it was manufactured. If you have observed the label all that you can factually say is, "The label says G. B. Clark Company, Los Angeles, California."

Why is this so important? Because we all continually jump to conclusions. People make inferences and false assumptions and think that they are uttering factual statements. Divorces and unhappy human relations are centered around people making false accusations and attributing motives to others that are only within themselves.

Notice how often people have opinions about others that they don't even know. They base their opinions on the flimsiest of evidence. This is why I tell my students, "Never criticize anyone until you know why they are doing what they are doing, from their point of view." We have many people who continually knock others, basically because they are unhappy with their own lot in life. And this is precisely why they have never achieved very much, because they are filled with hate and a negative mental attitude.

Psychiatrists say that people who hate others basically hate themselves. Those who are envious, cynical, jealous, or negative, are merely projecting their own internal state onto the world around them. Self-hate is the greatest disease that man has.

Too many people have bad opinions about themselves. And notice that I said "opinion." Unfortunately, these individuals act as if these negative opinions are facts. And so they create these negative opinions into nonverbal facts.

Perhaps the most important area for inferences is in newspapers. People read the newspapers as if they are receiving statements of fact when in reality the ability of the reader to verify or corroborate what they read is practically zero. The reader must assume that what the writer is describing is a factual statement, which immediately puts the reader on the inferential level. Let me describe this in terms of three different levels of abstracting.

Korzybski described at least three different orders of abstraction in his book, Science and Sanity. If you see a fire, that is a first-order abstraction. You are abstracting, or selecting directly from the non-verbal fact. If you say, "I see a fire" or "The fire burned down the buildings," that is a statement about the non-verbal fact. The statement is one order removed from the actual observation, so that is a second-order abstraction. And if a newspaper reporter writes about the burning building, that is a third-order abstraction to the newspaper reader -- the reader is further removed from the actual happening.

This shows you how newspaper reporters can introduce inferences, opinions, or assumptions into their writing, but especially why the reader is, of necessity, continually on the inferential, rather than the factual level. This is why we are often surprised when we read about a person in a newspaper or magazine, and when we meet them personally they turn out to be completely different from the "picture inside of our head." The "picture inside of our head" is never the fact; it is an opinion, an assumption, at best a guess.

This means that we should hold our opinions tentatively and be willing to change them the moment the facts indicate that we should. Newspapers are one of the most important means of information and education. But we must remember that words, and words about words, and words about words about other people's words, ate never the direct experience. This is what we mean by the inferential level.

Make all of the inferences that you want, but know that you are doing so. Know the difference between your statements of fact and your inferences or assumptions.

Be intelligently critical (but open-minded) about your language environment (newspapers, radio, television, magazines, etc.). Don't accept everything that you read as factual. See if it works for you. Intelligent skepticism, said Bertrand Russell, is the beginning of intelligent behavior. Knowing the difference between false assumptions and facts is the beginning of wisdom, intelligence, maturity, or scientific behavior.

PROBLEMS WITH THE CLOSED MIND

Our Human Limitations

Whenever I ask my students, "Can we ever know 'all' about anything?" they invariably answer "no." The more we discuss anything the more we realize how little we can know about it. There are vast ramifications and relationships to everything. Then I ask them, "Have you ever met individuals who act as if they know 'all' about something?" and there is usually a thunderous "yes."

Why can't we know all about anything? What ate the limitations of our acquaintance with anything?

Time is an important limiting factor. We only have a limited amount of time to observe something. This is usually very short. In our everyday observations we have but a fleeting second to observe the world of reality, hardly enough to "know all about it."

Space is another important limiting factor. We all observe the world of reality from different physical points of view. There is no physical position that will give us full focus on all aspects of a thing. Look at any object and you must, of necessity, abstract some characteristics and eliminate others.

Complexity is another limiting factor. The world of reality is complex but too often some people want simple solutions to problems. To unlock the secret of atomic energy, or to send a man to the moon, required the work of many scientists all over the world for many generations. The man or woman in the street is frequently accused of dealing in half truths, but where is the whole truth to be found?

William Jennings Bryan had this to say to those who were continually looking for the simple answers: "Let him find out, if he can, why it is that a black cow can eat green grass and then give white milk with yellow butter in it."

Interest is another limiting variable. What interests one person does not necessarily interest someone else. What we are interested in will indicate what we abstract or select from the world of reality. For example, two medical specialists were off on a holiday: "These girls in Florida certainly have beautiful legs, don't they?" said the orthopedist, after an appreciative look around the beach. "I hadn't noticed," said his companion. "I'm a chest man, myself." We see things not as they are but as we are.

Position or space is another limiting factor. We see things from a particular point of view. Alfred Korzybski, in his article "The Role of Language in the Perceptual Process" shows how darkness influenced four different abstractions from one situation. He wrote, "In a railroad compartment an American grandmother with her young and attractive granddaughter, a Romanian officer, and a Nazi officer were the only occupants. The train was passing through a dark tunnel, and all that was heard was a loud kiss and a vigorous slap. After the train emerged from the tunnel, nobody spoke, but the grandmother was saying to herself, 'What a fine girl I have raised. She will take care of herself. I am proud of her.' The granddaughter was saying to herself, 'Well, grandmother is old enough not to mind a little kiss. Besides, the fellows are nice. I am surprised what a hard wallop grandmother has.' The Nazi officer was meditating, 'How clever those Romanians are! They steal a kiss and have the other fellow slapped.' The Romani an officer was chuckling to himself, 'How smart I am! I kissed my own hand and slapped the Nazi."'

There are many other limiting factors of our acquaintance with things.

Language is an important variable in thinking, perceiving, communicating and behaving. This is one of the important principles in general semantics. The title of Korzybski's above article implies the relationship between language and human perception. Anthropologists and linguists such as Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, along with Korzybski, have emphasized the important role that language plays in thinking, perceiving and behaving.

We could list the limiting factors of our acquaintance with things almost indefinitely. There are sex differences. There are sense limitations or limitations of our nervous system. Education, training and culture are important variables in why we see things as we do. Religion is an extremely important variable and many wars have been fought because of it, and are still being fought today.

Why is it important to recognize the limiting factors of our acquaintance with things? When we fail to realize that we can only abstract or select a small amount of any total situation, we think we know it all. These limiting factors indicate that our perception or understanding of anything must, of necessity, be partial and, therefore, we cannot know all about anything.

The person who thinks he or she knows it all is a problem on the job, in a family, as a parent, as a daughter or son, as an executive, in all walks of life. Realizing that we do not know it all makes us much easier to teach, we listen to the points of view of others, we are easier to work and live with.

(*.) Author and educator Sanford I. Berman, Ph.D., has authored and edited books on general semantics and written articles for ETC. Adapted from his book Words, Meanings and People, reprinted by the International Society for General Semantics in 2001. Dr. Berman's book consists of columns which originally appeared in the San Diego Evening Tribune.