Newsroom

Connect with us to receive information on courses, news and events. Privacy Policy.

picture of Dr Paul Harrison

Dr Paul Harrison

Paul Harrison is a senior lecturer at Deakin Business School. His research is focused on emotional and rational behaviour, and how our biology and the environment interact to influence the way we make decisions. His work has been published in a wide range of international journals and conference proceedings, and has informed policy and business practice in Australia and internationally.

Originally published in Deakin Speaking.

Working on the ABC Radio National program, Talking Shop, has reminded me how important it is to not just look for evidence that supports your position. Knowing that you are broadcasting to a diverse, highly intelligent, and sometimes strongly opinioned audience, is a good reminder to be confident in your arguments, and also in your opinions.

Doing the show has reinforced the idea that we do need to be vigilant about the confirmation bias, which is the very human tendency to focus on data and information that confirms our currently held beliefs, and ignore (or dismiss) data that challenges it.

So, I try to work from four guiding principles when examining an issue. It is actually a useful guide when we are developing an opinion, and although I don’t plan to hand it over to taxi drivers, whenever I do get into a “discussion” with somebody with a strong opinion, I do tend to (carefully) ask them whether they have used something resembling these criteria to form their opinion. More often than not, it puts a bit of a “downer” on the discussion, because I am not arguing their points, per se, but arguing about their method, which is often flawed.

So, the four criteria/questions (which would also be useful if they were observed when making more strident Facebook posts) are:

A few weeks ago, I asked this of a colleague who was proffering an opinion about the state of Australian “youth”, and their inability to work hard, and look for a job. Rather than trying to argue against his opinion, I challenged him to provide the evidence that led to his opinion. Unfortunately, he wasn’t able to provide any external evidence, other than anecdote, and I argued that I try to be careful about forming an opinion, until I am satisfied that I have done all that I can to follow those four criteria.

He said he was too tired and too busy to do this. The chat came to a grinding halt.

Many dangerous and destructive opinions come out not of challenging yourself and your peers to work harder to overcome our inherent biases. These biases, for the most part are very useful, because they help us to make quick, intuitive decisions, but if the cause or issue is important, I think it is perfectly reasonable to constantly question how people have come to those opinions that can cause the most harm.

I recognize that I have just as many flaws as the next guy in my processing of information. However, if I am going to present an opinion, or talk about research to the RN audience, or my friends or my taxi driver, I try to remind myself that I need to be able defend my perspective using the four critera, while always being ready to modify or change it if new or more evidence suggests otherwise.

But don’t take my word for it. I wouldn’t trust me.