Death by Witchcraft?

We began the semester by considering the importance of mental models in understanding why we believe the things we do. Mental models are tacit assumptions that inform our understanding of the world. In a very real sense they create the world that we see. Our beliefs are the tip of a cognitive iceberg or, as Wilson suggests, the snow the tip of that iceberg. The heavy lifting of our belief-making apparatus is generally done below the radar; i.e., without conscious acknowledgment of the cognitive functions that yield the beliefs. One metaphor that captures this idea is the ladder of inference. On this model, adopting a belief is the result of a series of largely tacit operations that involve selecting particular bits of information from a continuous stream of data (James’s “blooming buzzing confusion”), adding meaning to what we’ve selected, making assumptions about it on the basis of which we draw inferences, and finally adopting a belief. Without substantial effort most of this cognitive processing will pass unnoticed. It happens quickly and largely automatically. (Sometimes it happens in the blink of an eye – or a brain.) We become aware that we believe something but, more often than not, we have no idea why. Of course, after the fact, we can generally rationalize our belief and find “good reasons” for it. But this is because those tacit cognitive processes build on our existing system of beliefs. As in our conscious life, we prefer harmony and order rather than conflict and disruption. This is the path of “cognitive least resistance” that generally passes for reasoning in everyday life.

Tacit cognitive processes come in two flavors. We can surface many of our mental models (or cognitive frames) using tools such as reflection, conscious application of the ladder of inference, the left-hand column, etc. (as discussed by Senge, Argyris, Schoen, etc.) Othersmodels are permanently locked behind the door of our unconscious. They require a more indirect approach such as the IAT (see Wilson). But in either case the most important and potentially dangerous feature of our mental models is their intransigence in the face of contradictory data. Our mental models are “self-reflexive” or “self-generating” in the sense that they define the world we see. And they do this by automatically filtering out information that could undercut their own validity.

We’ve seen many examples of this during the semester. The most familiar is the “bozo effect.” If you strongly believe someone is a bozo (i.e., untrustworthy, inconsiderate, pompous, loud, disingenuous, slovenly, etc.) you will, in the first instance, interpret that person’s actions so as to make them consistent with this belief. If you are gripped by fear – if your model of the world is one of a hostile and perpetually unsafe environment, then you will see threats everywhere. This, in turn, confirms your belief that the world is a dangerous place. To cite a concrete example, in defending the “weaponization of space” one proponent argued in the following way in an NPR interview this week. By every measure the U.S.dominates space today. We have more satellites, more technical sophistication and a larger space budget than any other country. Therefore, the argument goes, we offer our enemies the biggest target. It follows that we need to spend even more and fully “weaponize space” to remain safe and protect ourselves. In this argument our very strength is turned into a weakness. When the facts don’t matter, the discussion is no longer about facts. It’s often about the mental models that underlie our interpretation and understanding of the facts.

Best presents a particularly instructive example of the power of culturally embedded mental models in his discussion of the impact of organizational practices on statistics. Why are there no recorded deaths from witchcraft? Well, the obvious answer is that there are no witches. But this is not the whole story. After all, there were presumably no witches in Salem, Massachusetts in the 1600’s and there were recorded witchcraft deaths. There are probably recorded witchcraft deaths today in other cultures. There are no recorded witchcraft deaths in our culture because this is not something we recognize as a cause of death. It’s not something that we allow as a possibility. And we disallow it in a very concrete way:

“… the law requires coroners to choose among a specified set of causes for death: homicide, suicide, accident, natural causes, and so on. That list of causes reflects our culture. Thus, our laws do not allow coroners to list ‘witchcraft’ as a cause of death, although that might be considered a reasonable choice in other societies.” (Best, 24)

In this example we see the self-reflexive character of mental models writ large. A current cultural mental model, the belief that witches don’t exist, results in a method of collecting evidence that ensures this belief cannot be challenged. It’s self-validating.

The natural reaction to this observation is, of course, “Yes, but there are no witches.” This response misses the point in two different ways. First, whether or not witches exist is irrelevant to the general point that deep tacit assumptions create the world we see and are therefore relatively immune from counterevidence. Best’s point is that our “organizational practices” recognize certain causes of death as legitimate. Only those can be recorded. Death by witchcraft is not on the list. Perhaps this is far-fetched. But less so are the following, also not on the accepted list:

  • Death by stress caused from overwork
  • Death by spiritual disillusionment
  • Death by pollution induced cancer
  • Death by over-ingestion of carcinogenic food
  • Death by despair about the plight of the poor
  • Death by the long-term effects of chronically abusive parents
  • Death by the increase in temperature resulting from global warming
  • Death by … make up you own

Do people die because they are, e.g., spiritually disillusioned? There’s no evidence to suggest that they do. But if we apply a bit of double-loop learning we should take the matter one step further. Is there no evidence because 1) this never occurs or because 2) our “scientific” view of the world guarantees that anything that counts in its favor is therefore not considered evidence?

There’s a second and somewhat more philosophical way in which the “There are no witches” response misses the point. It assumes that our point of view about the world is the correct one. It assumes that we, given our theories, metaphors, assumptions, values and language, are in a privileged position that allows us to look back at other very different times and places and pass judgment on they way other cultures described and saw the world. No one can deny that given our understanding of what the world is, what witches are, the role that witchcraft plays, etc. it’s correct to say that witchcraft does not cause death – and never did. But it’s another matter entirely to say of another culture that given their theories, metaphors, assumptions, values and language that their beliefs about what we call “witchcraft” are incorrect. In fact it’s a matter of saying our culture is the right way of describing and modeling the world and theirs is wrong. I hope you can begin to see why our focus on tacit mental models suggests that this is a very dicey game in which to engage. If not, I leave it to you as a final exercise for the course.

And lest we be too cavalier about our contemporary ability to divine the truth, consider a more recent example with which we began the course. …

‘Newspapers spoke of a “wave of insanity” caused by [it] that had grown to “national prominence.” A typical front-page article in the San Francisco Chronicle read, “Breaking into to a house at El Cerrito, police officers yesterday took into custody several persons who had become insane from [it].” It seems a 15-year-old girl had used [it] to “induce unknown power” over the others. Two days later in another raid, other “victims,” including a policeman were found to have been transformed “from a state of normality to that of madness” under [its] influence. In a fit of what appeared to be superhuman strength the policeman had “knocked down two guards,” escaped, hijacked a car, and “dashed into Central National Bank in nude condition.”’

Hint. The passage is not talking about witchcraft.

7/21/051