If you do not know yourself, your unconscious as well as your conscious states, all your inquiry will be twisted.
“If you do not know yourself, your unconscious as well as your conscious states, all your inquiry will be twisted, given a bias. You will have no foundation for thinking which is rational, clear, logical, sane. Your thinking will be according to a certain pattern, formula, or set of ideas – but that is not really thinking. To think clearly, logically, without becoming neurotic, without being caught in any form of illusion, you have to know this whole process of your own consciousness.”
– Krishnamurti
7th Public Talk in Saanen, 1963
Brain Tricks
A cognitive bias is a flaw in our thinking that distorts the way we perceive and act. The present estimate, according to Wikipedia, is that there are 140 of them. A cognitive bias is not classified as pathological but rather as a normal, perhaps even helpful event in our daily lives. Most of them however seem distinctly unhelpful. They can be countered, so neurologists tell us, by our awareness of them, by logic, and by reflective thinking: though getting rid of habitual ones, they caution, can be a heavy energy demand on the neocortex.
140 is a daunting number but in order to cite a few likely to interest everyone the eminent physician and medical writer Jerome Groopman has helped us out in his book How Doctors Think. In a chapter entitled The Eye of the Beholder Groopman quotes Ehsan Samei of the Advanced Imaging Laboratories of Duke University reporting that ‘currently (2006) the average diagnostic error in interpreting medical images is in the twenty to thirty percent range … this has a significant impact on patient care.’
This is a chart of known cognitive biases. Click to see it in full size:
How do these errors come about? Well, all of them can be said to be or involve a cognitive bias of some kind, and radiologists are naturally concerned to identify and learn from them. So this has led to a considerable amount of research. But are there cognitive biases in the interpretation of x-rays that extend far beyond x-rays? I think there are.
For example, what is termed ‘affective error’ occurs because doctors tend to prefer happy outcomes to unhappy ones. At the first sign of a happy outcome a doctor may value this too highly compared with an unhappy sign. ‘Availability’ is also a cognitive bias to be wary of. This refers to the ease with which relevant examples from the past come to mind as a guide. Diagnoses proved right in recent weeks predispose a doctor to see a repetitive pattern [and we know that the brain likes detecting patterns]. Probably the cognitive bias known [and lived] most widely by the general public is ‘confirmation bias.’ This makes a doctor tend to see signs that confirm his initial diagnosis and not to see so readily those that disprove it.
What soon becomes clear to the general reader of Jerome Groopman’s book is that the cognitive biases which doctors may have also act in all of us in everyday life. This raises a wider-ranging question: Why is cognitive bias not taught as a subject in the curriculum of our schools? Is thinking of the clear and logical kind so highly valued by the educational system that cognitive bias gets badly neglected? [Maybe this is cognitive bias 141?] After all, it is all very well for The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy to say that ‘the most evident display of our rationality is our capacity to think.’ It is also the most evident display of our irrationality. A balanced education should reflect that.
Note: This video provides an explanation of some cognitive biases. The foundation does not endorse the Royal Society in any way.
Biased Education
The conventional public view is that our thinking is our supreme, specifically human achievement, the driving force of our rationality, what distinguishes us from the lower animals. Yet any education that fails to also fully point out to students the irrational component of much human thought is clearly unbalanced, and will risk conditioning them as adults to rely unduly on what thought can do, particularly in the area of human relationships, whether personal or international. It is here that a course, even a very short one, in cognitive bias, could play a useful role by promoting young people’s awareness of objectively established and repetitive flaws in our thinking.
When you observe thought… how do you observe thought? Is there a thinker observing thought? When there is an observer observing thought, the observer is thought, one thought looking at another thought – right? One fragment of thought looking at another fragment of thought, and saying, ‘I must be aware of that thought’ or, ‘I must control that thought, I must suppress that thought, I must overcome that thought’. But the observer, the thinker is the thought. If you see that, not abstract, if you see that then you will see the place of thought, the necessity of clear thinking. And what place has thinking in relationship? You understand? What place has knowledge in relationship?
– Krishnamurti
2nd Public Talk at Brockwood Park, 1973
One wonders what Krishnamurti, who saw the scientific mind as part of the religious mind, would have said of a proposal to teach students about cognitive bias in schools. Perhaps he would have welcomed what well-founded neuroscience has to say about the brain’s mistakes. Perhaps he would have welcomed too what the Yale neuroscientist Steven Novella, in his fine Great Courses lectures A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking, says of the heavy consequence of our cognitive biases and allied errors of perception: because of them he says: ‘Our very sense of self and what we perceive of reality is an illusion created by the brain.’ That is, of course, a subject on which Krishnamurti has much to say.
By David Skitt
Book Editor for Krishnamurti Publications
Krishnamurti said that “To think clearly, logically, without becoming neurotic, without being caught in any form of illusion, you have to know this whole process of your own consciousness”, but what evidence is there that he did that, or that it can or should be done? Is there good reason to believe we’d be better off with no unconscious mind? I can recall passages in K’s teaching where he spoke of the operation of the unconscious as something innate and necessary. If the mind, the cognitive faculty, is not divided into the conscious and the unconscious, would it be able to process information at all? I find this pronouncement of Krishnamurti’s to be not only dubious, but contradictory relative to other things he said about the unconscious.
It’s more reasonable to regard the unconscious mind as an intrinsic part of consciousness rather than an obstruction to rational thought. Should all dreaming be lucid? Or, as Krishnamurti believed, is dreaming unnecessary? Without the bifurcation of mind, the whole field of consciousness would be overwhelming and paralyzing. Krishnamurti may have believed his whole field of consciousness was exposed and under observation, but I doubt that it was, and the burden of proof is on K-cultists who disseminate these dubious notions as if they were irrefutable facts.
Hey Minerva,
First off, let’s start by removing the obvious stuff out of the way. Only K knew his own experience, so it is rather useless to discuss what he lived or not lived. Now, depending on whether the readers will try to find security in the description, in the words K is using, trying to get a more refined picture of the mind, or are interested in their desire and their frustration, they will read and speak differently. Many readers can take the texts, double-check their accuracy in their lives and make of those words the truth, thereby creating a new cult. Now it will be fairly easy to tell from the people who speak from their conclusions and what they know and people who are talking from the feeling of disturbance, desire or whatever you want to call it. If it is not so clear sometime, at least one can probe into what is said with another and quickly see if it is limited in the known or grounded in the feeling. I hope that what I say makes sense.
I feel that we should not lose sight of the main subject that K is talking about, which is basically what we are, desire, fear and frustration. It is only if we don’t lose sight of those things in us, that we may come to understand what K is trying to convey when he talks about the conscious and the unconscious, or uses any other words. The question for us is always to understand if we are using those words as a theory, as an explanatory system of the mind which includes thoughts and emotions, or if we are using those words in contact with the feeling of desire. Only in this last case can the words be meaningful. Otherwise we get quickly lost in the models of interpretation trying to correct or defend certain views instead of actually probing our own perception. The models don’t matter, the words don’t matter. Only the feeling matters, only desire, fear and frustration matter as eventually those things are the driving forces in our lives that shape our perception and how we feel. It is easy to get caught in arguments, opposing, agreeing but all that it reveals is that we are mainly concerned about the words, how things are said, and not what is behind them. K is not about siding, comparing what he says with what I think, agreeing or disagreeing and leaving at that. If someone came along and tried to share a certain perception with words, it would rather silly to get lost in the conceptual disagreement. A blind man sees everything in black and explains everything in black. If he met someone talking of light he would not understand and may discard it as being inconsistent. The first challenge for the blind man is not to believe what the other guy says but to try to understand where he is trying to get at. The blind man must feel his pain, his reactions, his frustrations. The other guy only talks about this. The blind man is not interested in having a different system of explanation, for he is concerned with his pain, with his conflicts. Because he cares about his suffering and not about the words, he will have to relate with the other man who only talks about suffering. But if the blind man starts a contest in words and logic, he will be the smartest guy on the block and yet remain in his pain. The blind man must choose what matters most to him, a seemingly infallible logic or a life without despair. Eventually we can disagree only with what we can understand. But to understand is not the same as to make sense of something from where we stand. The question is : would we say the same thing as K? We judge and disagree only when we don’t understand, otherwise everything falls into place I feel. This life is about understanding myself and everybody else. Ultimately there must be order and truth in everything. Now if we don’t see it, we just need to understand why.
Regarding belief, why would anybody believe anything? Either it is or it is not. But first it is important to understand whether what we want is to build a consistent picture of what is going on, or if we want to understand what the root of frustration and disturbance actually is.
Thanks for your comments Minerva, it is always refreshing when someone questions or rejects external authority. I don’t get your statement that bifurcation of the mind is necessary. For one thing by definition that would be the mind itself creating the division for some sort of fulfillment of its own programming. It seems more likely to me that the biosphere–the sphere of life and therefore including consciousness– is generally rather unitary, immeasurably interconnected. We just don’t happen to be able to perceive that.
Interesting. Yes, K said that desire can lead to illusion. So can fear. So then you perceive what you prefer, what is safe.
However K introduced in inner inquiry what he described as observing without an observer. He no entity is making any judgement. Only what is flowing in the mind, in the consciousness, is reflected as by a mirror in this observation. So all knowledge is cut off. No knowledge is used in inner inquiry. Then the flashes the mind may have is no longer an interpretation of facts by our condition. Then it is not relative. It is then insight which is true.
However even without this cognitive bias movement of knowledge cannot be without error-if I’ve understood K accurately. For knowledge can never be complete-it is the outcome of experience & experience we can have more & more. So knowledge can never produce something absolutely accurate. There is room for improvement in what it produces.
Inter sting material anyhow…..
The best way to avoid the self,which is the result of unnecessary thought,is to ask oneself the question :- is this thought really necessary .
Unnecessary thought sustains the unnecessary.
Necessary thought sustains the necessary.
I think that we do have cognitive biases that can affect the way we see things and possibly bring about faulty judgement, rash decisions, etc. But I don’t think that these biases have to be eradicated like they are vermin. I have always said that you can’t “hate” anything away. We have to look at and accept the construct of “me” that we have created. We cannot suppress our thinking or feelings. That would be false. We wouldn’t be able to learn anything from them. When we watch what arises within us, we learn who we are. More awareness and attention is the key to dissolving any bias we may have because it is only through these two actions that we can perceive the illusions that we suffer under. I think that children would benefit from having a class on cognitive bias. After all, it is our thinking that causes us to suffer. If you can study cognitive bias, you already have the door open to think well in your daily life, at the office, or when teaching the students. In fact whatever your job may be. And, if you can pay attention and come to the end of one problem, you can resolve all problems.
The problem of conditioning is a recurring topic in Krishnamurti´s talks and I found this topic the very root topic of Krishnamurti´s message. We are conditioned to a level that we do no appreciate but the smallest part of the iceberg. I personally don´t think that cognitive biases as explained in this article, build the hard core of our conditioning. In fact, it seems according to our current knowledge such cognitive biases are practically wired in our thinking and somehow, these biases have contributed in large extent to our survival as specie in the past (perhaps not so remote). However, I agree that becoming aware of these cognitive biases could improve, to an extent I am not sure we can determine, our judgments and decisions. But let´s not apart from the main stream of the issue. Yes, we are conditioned but where is the source of such conditioning? In my understanding, the main source of conditioning are to be found in our beliefs. Beliefs (and when I say beliefs I mean religion, ideas, ideologies, opinions, schemes, interpretation …) are the major source of conditioning and, thus, of suffering in the world. Beliefs are not mostly generated r by wrong judgments derived from our cognitive biases. Most of our beliefs come blindly from education, social induction and….emotions where fear is the biggest beast here. Among the most harmful belief, the one that conditions us the most is the belief of our self, the ego, the belief that we are a name, a position, a nationality, a member of a religious or political group or football team… Krishnamurti asks us often, can we get rid of the ego? Because we filter the reality of what we are and what it is with the veal of a ego, the conditioned mental projection of what we are which determines what we feel, what we actually sees, what we understand, what we want… what we fear!