On the strength of beliefs

One of the frustrating realities of humanity is that stories constructed from data are often eclipsed by those conceived through prevailing popular beliefs. Alas, the box is small, walls are high, and it cannot be scaled by those unwilling to challenge their perceptions. Fortunately, in a well functioning market system the empirically backed processes do win out… in the end.

This is a classic archetype epitomised in Benjamin Graham and Warren Buffetts' voting machine vs weighing machine interpretation of the market. In the short run the "best" practices are decided through consensus, i.e. sensicals with social proof. They reflect the prior beliefs and ideals of the industry with promotion from powerful organisations and individuals. While in the long run those that employ the most effective practices, regardless of popular opinion, will, in aggregate, outperform their competitors and slowly force a change in the industry. Or at least break away from the competition in terms of value and success.

This process can take many decades to achieve if lesser ideas are being propped up by unsportsmanlike behaviour. A huge yet lesser known example being the sugar industry's late 20th century manipulation of research and public perception which catastrophically shifted the worrying growth in obesity related health issues from sugar to fat. To this day fat is still perceived as an enemy of health, reflected in the abundance of foods marketed as low fat or fat free. But it isn't only superior products, luck, or unethical behaviour that enable some ideas or organisations to dominate their markets. The failure of competitors to adapt and innovate must also be consulted.

Changing our minds on what is effective can be no easy feat. It requires the trimming of our belief system and cultivation of new idealings. If our beliefs have settled down, had kids, and grown roots into our wider psyche then we might have to unearth a lot of dead wood. The process jeopardises the mental stability on which we orientate and navigate the world. A state of unease and uncertainty akin to a novice with impostor syndrome. Our minds see a threat to our status or survival, perhaps both, and in defence crystallises beliefs in amber to deny their passage to the afterlife.

The fear to put the axe to old entrenched ideas is not at all unfounded or wholly irrational, for perceiving only rebelliousness or general stubbornness misses some critical factors. It can be incredibly difficult to sever something you strongly rely on for stability. This is especially true if age, environment, or current life circumstances are a hindrance to the adoption of new skills and ways of working. If you've ever been unexpectedly cheated on by a partner or been betrayed by a friend then you may have the old memories of severe anguish and uncertainty about your own self worth. You've discovered some key pillars of your perception are made of tofu and the only thing preventing its collapse is the denial of truth. It's not easy to just let such defective beliefs die, but you can't align with reality until they do.

This is a reason why I reject the motto "strong beliefs, weakly held" or similar sayings. I can't see how a belief can truly be strong unless it is held strongly. I want people to be open minded and willing to question their ideas upon contradictory evidence but I cannot trust those who are prepared to change so readily. If the effort has been made to objectively verify an idea from multiple angles and it still stands tall then it should not, and cannot, be held weakly. If such verification has yet to be made then you can't honestly hold the idea strongly. You can only dishonestly broadcast it knowing full well there is no hard ground for it to stand on yet, and maybe there never will be.

If switching such strong beliefs on a single topic becomes a regular activity then how am I supposed to discern the serious thinker after genuine improvements from the cunning influencer after fame and coin? Only the novice should be allowed such instability in opinion. I expect to see seasoned intellectuals and practitioners thoughtfully and sceptically shift as new evidence rejects some solutions while endorsing others.

I feel a major problem is the lack of motivation to go out and accurately understand and verify a competing view. Yes, it requires time and effort but as I've said before, we need more intellectual interest in ideas outside one's comfort zone and to use more objective verification methods if we are to solve the challenges before us. The business and social world is changing too fast for us to rely on shallow knowledge.