Consider the opposite

Dr Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician, was beaten to death by a guard in a mental asylum where he was an inmate. He was 47 when he died.

It was only years later that the merits of his critical thinking and innovative approach were accepted after its validation by other scientists like Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister.

Subsequently, he was hailed as the saviour of mothers and the Dr Ignaz Semmelweis college of medicine was built in his honour in Budapest.

Between 1841 and 1846, Dr Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician, started researching on maternal death rates in Vienna. He found out that women whose deliveries were done by midwives had higher survival rates in comparison to doctors. He carefully built data-based evidence for his claim.

The solution he presented was simple. He advised fellow doctors to wash their hands and the medical instruments during childbirth.

However, his idea was rejected by his peers and colleagues. This is not unusual—the theories of Galileo and Copernicus were also rejected by the priests for religious reasons. But, why did doctors known to be men of science not heed to evidence?

Ignaz’s screams and insults at doctors who did not listen to his advice did not help. These insults hurled in public spaces and hospital corridors became “evidence” of his mental instability.

But that’s not why they did not accept his suggestions. Those doctors, like all of us, had the reluctance to change their point of view in the light of new evidence.

In a way, they were "anchored" to their particular reference point. They were neither taught to wash hands after autopsy in medical schools nor did they see Dr Ignaz as an influential authority.

In the examples of Galileo and Copernicus, the people who rejected them were anchored to a religious text or a belief as a reference point.

Promoting nuance

Psychologists Robyn Leboeuf and Shafir from Princeton university that people with extreme points of view make insufficient adjustments from their anchor point.

These academics provide a beautiful example to illustrate the point. When a parent complains that music played by the teenage son or daughter is high, even if the child turns down the volume the parent may not be happy about the extent of the reduction of volume. The teenager on the other hand feels that attempts to reconcile or compromise are ignored.

These insufficient adjustments in anchor can explain conflicts between people of differing ideologies. Are humans doomed to situations of conflicts at home and work because of these insufficient adjustments?

Biases causing errors of judgment at work and in life have an antidote. That strategy is called "consider the opposite". This strategy asks you to look at a completely divergent point from your currently held view.

If you believe that there must be more government control in businesses, then "considering the opposite" might help you think with a lot more nuance.

Or if you firmly believe that the only reason you are not able to expand your business is that you are understaffed, considering the opposite will help you come up with new strategies to create more revenue per customer.

"Considering the opposite" seems easy, but then, we are pressed for time at work and in life. Besides, our subconscious beliefs create heuristics (mental shortcuts) to avoid critical thinking needed for innovation.

However, a conscious effort to understand concepts like insufficient anchoring at the individual and organisation levels will help reduce conflicts and create empathy.

(The author is a management consultant)