If you want to see reality better, you must form a truthseeking group.

From Annie Duke “Thinking in Bets“

If you want to see reality better, you must form a truthseeking group.

• “A good decision group is a grown-up version of the buddy system. To be sure, even with help, none of us will ever be able to perfectly overcome our natural biases in the way we process information; I certainly never have. But if we can find a few people to choose to form a truthseeking pod with us and help us do the hard work connected with it, it will move the needle—just a little bit, but with improvements that accumulate and compound over time. We will be more successful in fighting bias, seeing the world more objectively, and, as a result, we will make better decisions.” (p. 124)
  
  
• “It is almost impossible for us, on our own, to get the diversity of viewpoints provided by the combined manpower of a well-formed decision pod. To get a more objective view of the world, we need an environment that exposes us to alternate hypotheses and different perspectives. That doesn’t apply only to the world around us: to view ourselves in a more realistic way, we need other people to fill in our blind spots.” (p. 138)
  
  
• “Motivated reasoning and self-serving bias are two habits of mind that are deeply rooted in how our brains work. We have a huge investment in confirmatory thought, and we fall into these biases all the time without even knowing it. Confirmatory thought is hard to spot, hard to change, and, if we do try changing it, hard to self-reinforce. It is one thing to commit to rewarding ourselves for thinking in bets, but it is a lot easier if we get others to do the work of rewarding us.” (p. 132)
  
  
• “Accountability, like reinforcement of accuracy, also improves our decision-making and information processing when we are away from the group because we know in advance that we will have to answer to the group for our decisions.
  
  Example- “I was much less likely to break a loss limit because I knew I was accountable to my pod. If I reached my loss limit and my inner voice said, “This game is so good that I should put up more money and keep playing,” it also reminded me I’d have to answer for the decision to a group of players I respected.” (p. 136)

How can you form a truthseeking group?

• “Members of our decision pod could be our friends, or members of our family, or an informal pod of coworkers, or an enterprise strategy group, or a professional organization where members can talk about their decision-making.
  
  Forming or joining a group where the focus is on thinking in bets means modifying the usual social contract. It means agreeing to be open-minded to those who disagree with us, giving credit where it’s due, and taking responsibility where it’s appropriate, even (and especially) when it makes us uncomfortable. That’s why, when we do it with others, we need to make it clear the social contract is being modified, or feelings will get hurt, defensiveness will rear its ugly head” (p. 125)
  
  
• “So, while we find some people to think in bets with us, with the rest of the world, it is generally better to observe the prevailing social contract and not go around saying, “Wanna bet?” willy-nilly.” (p. 125)
  
  
• “Whatever the obstacles to recruiting people into a decision group (and this chapter points out several, along with strategies for overcoming them), it is worth it to get a buddy to watch your back—or your blind spot. The fortunate thing is that we need to find only a handful of people willing to do the exploratory thinking necessary for truthseeking. In fact, as long as there are three people in the group (two to disagree and one to referee*), the truthseeking group can be stable and productive.” (p. 125)

The truthseeking group needs an agreement.

• “We know our decision-making can improve if we find other people to join us in truthseeking. And we know we need an agreement. What’s in that agreement? What are the features of a productive decision-making pod? The remainder of this chapter is devoted to offering answers to those questions. Chapter 5 builds on that by providing a blueprint for rules of engagement within truthseeking groups, how to keep the group from drifting off course, and the productive habits of mind the group can reinforce in each of us.” (p. 127)
  
  
• “Without an explicit charter for exploratory thought and accountability to that charter, our tendency when we interact with others follows our individual tendency, which is toward confirmation.
  
  The expression “echo chamber” instantly conjures up the image of what results from our natural drift toward confirmatory thought. That was the chorus I heard among some groups of players during breaks of poker tournaments. When one player brought up how unlucky they had gotten, another would nod in assent as a prelude to telling their own hard-luck story, which, in turn, would be nodded at and assented to by the group.” (p. 128)

Some suggested rules for your agreement.

• Individuals need to avoid confirmatory thought and promote exploratory thought.
  
  
• A focus on accuracy (over confirmation), which includes rewarding truthseeking, objectivity, and open-mindedness within the group
  
  
• Accountability, for which members have advance notice,
  
  
• Openness to a diversity of ideas. “In addition to accountability and an interest in accuracy, the charter should also encourage and celebrate a diversity of perspectives to challenge biased thinking by individual members.” (p. 129)
  
  
• If the truth seeking group follows this agreement regularly, it becomes a habit. “Once we are in a group that regularly reinforces exploratory thought, the routine becomes reflexive, running on its own. Exploratory thought becomes a new habit of mind, the new routine, and one that is self-reinforced. ” (p. 134)
  
  
• “None of this should be surprising to anyone who recognizes the benefits of thinking in bets. We don’t win bets by being in love with our own ideas. We win bets by relentlessly striving to calibrate our beliefs and predictions about the future to more accurately represent the world. In the long run, the more objective person will win against the more biased person. In that way, betting is a form of accountability to accuracy. Calibration requires an open-minded consideration of diverse points of view and alternative hypotheses. Wrapping all that into your group’s charter makes a lot of sense.” (p. 130)
  
  
• “As a rule of thumb, if we have an urge to leave out a detail because it makes us uncomfortable or requires even more clarification to explain away, those are exactly the details we must share. The mere fact of our hesitation and discomfort is a signal that such information may be critical to providing a complete and balanced account. Likewise, as members of a group evaluating a decision, we should take such hesitation as a signal to explore further.” (p. 156)

Some questions people should ask.

• Why might my belief not be true?
• What other evidence might be out there bearing on my belief?
• Are there similar areas I can look toward to gauge whether similar beliefs to mine are true?
• What sources of information could I have missed or minimized on the way to reaching my belief?
• What are the reasons someone else could have a different belief, what’s their support, and why might they be right instead of me?
• What other perspectives are there as to why things turned out the way they did? (p. 138)

Here are some problems a truthseeking group may run into.

• “while a group can function to be better than the sum of the individuals, it doesn’t automatically turn out that way. Being in a group can improve our decision quality by exploring alternatives and recognizing where our thinking might be biased, but a group can also exacerbate our tendency to confirm what we already believe.” (p. 128)
  
  
• “Philip Tetlock and Jennifer Lerner, leaders in the science of group interaction, described the two kinds of group reasoning styles in an influential 2002 paper: “Whereas confirmatory thought involves a one-sided attempt to rationalize a particular point of view, exploratory thought involves even-handed consideration of alternative points of view.”
  
  
• “In other words, confirmatory thought amplifies bias, promoting and encouraging motivated reasoning because its main purpose is justification. Confirmatory thought promotes a love and celebration of one’s own beliefs, distorting how the group processes information and works through decisions, the result of which can be groupthink.
  
  Exploratory thought, on the other hand, encourages an open-minded and objective consideration of alternative hypotheses and a tolerance of dissent to combat bias. Exploratory thought helps the members of a group reason toward a more accurate representation of the world.” (p. 128)
  
  
• “Their 2002 paper was one of several they coauthored supporting the conclusion that groups can improve the thinking of individual decision-makers when the individuals are accountable to a group whose interest is in accuracy.” (p. 129)
  
  
• “This is why it’s so important to have intellectual and ideological diversity within any group or institution whose goal is to find truth.” (p. 129)
  
  
• “Diversity is the foundation of productive group decision-making, but we can’t underestimate how hard it is to maintain. We all tend to gravitate toward people who are near clones of us. After all, it feels good to hear our ideas echoed back to us.” (p. 141)

Not everyone in our lives needs to be in our truthseeking group.

• “It’s also helpful to recognize that people serve different purposes in our lives. Even if we place a high value on truthseeking, that doesn’t mean everyone in our lives has to adopt that or communicate with us in that way. Truthseeking isn’t a cult; we don’t have to cut off people who don’t share that commitment. Our Pilates friends or our football friends or any of our friends shouldn’t have to take the red pill to remain our friends. Different friends fill different needs and not all of them need to be cut from the same cloth. Those different groups can also provide much-needed balance in our lives. After all, it takes effort to acknowledge and explore our mistakes without feeling bad about ourselves, to forgo credit for a great result, and to realize, with an open mind, that not all our beliefs are true. Truthseeking flies in the face of a lot of comfortable behaviors; it’s hard work and we need breaks to replenish our willpower.” (p. 126)

Other good quotes.

“The only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner.”(P. 137)

“When seeking advice, we can ask specific questions to encourage the other person to figure out reasons why we might be wrong. That way, they won’t be as reticent to challenge the action we want to pursue; we’re asking for it, so it’s not oppositional for them to disagree or give us advice contrary to what they think we want to hear.” (p. 171)

“Even among those who are committed to truthseeking, judges and academics, we can see how strong the tendency is to seek out confirmation of our beliefs. If you have any doubt this is true for all of us, put this book down for a moment and check your Twitter feed for whom you follow. It’s a pretty safe bet that the bulk of them are ideologically aligned with you. If that’s the case, start following some people from the other side of the aisle.” (p. 148)

“We don’t win bets by being in love with our own ideas. We win bets by relentlessly striving to calibrate our beliefs and predictions about the future to more accurately represent the world. In the long run, the more objective person will win against the more biased person. In that way, betting is a form of accountability to accuracy. Calibration requires an open-minded consideration of diverse points of view and alternative hypotheses. Wrapping all that into your group’s charter makes a lot of sense.” (p. 130)

“confirmatory thought amplifies bias, promoting and encouraging motivated reasoning because its main purpose is justification. Confirmatory thought promotes a love and celebration of one’s own beliefs, distorting how the group processes information and works through decisions, the result of which can be groupthink. Exploratory thought, on the other hand, encourages an open-minded and objective consideration of alternative hypotheses and a tolerance of dissent to combat bias. Exploratory thought helps the members of a group reason toward a more accurate representation of the world.” (p.128)

“Our brains, likewise, have evolved to make our version of the world more comfortable: our beliefs are nearly always correct; favorable outcomes are the result of our skill; there are plausible reasons why unfavorable outcomes are beyond our control; and we compare favorably with our peers. We deny or at least dilute the most painful parts of the message.” (p. 122)

“Be a data sharer. That’s what experts do. In fact, that’s one of the reasons experts become experts. They understand that sharing data is the best way to move toward accuracy because it extracts insight from your listeners of the highest fidelity.” (p. 158)