Allies and adversaries
PERSONAL BIAS guides what we focus on and pay attention to in scanning the news. It is the overflow of data along with fake news that forces us to narrow down the selection process. This categorical approach simplifies the scan into two boxes — relevant and irrelevant. It’s different contents for different people.
Media outlets themselves select personalities, events, and issues to cover according to their declared editorial policy (or bias) and target audience. Thus, an administration network is more than likely to interview supporters of the political establishment. This rule applies to government stations who choose their interviewees with care. Boredom does not figure as a consideration. Neither do ratings.
The mind has its own algorithm, much like online stores tracking patterns of purchases and browses. People one meets are categorized as allies or adversaries, likable or hateful, interesting, or dull. This allocates the time available for spending time with them. Still, a hateful object needed for a favor can be allocated more time and a stronger stomach.
Without the proper classification defined, it would be difficult to narrow down an online search. And the groupings are becoming more specific, as in a restaurant guide (Pub with roasted pork) or job openings (with work from home option).
Categories can lead to stereotypes when it comes to evaluating people. It can also be the basis for extreme prejudice like homophobia or racism. When one categorizes a person, he is no longer an individual with his own set of beliefs and convictions. He becomes a part of a stereotype. He is marked for undeserved hostile (or friendly) treatment.
Colleagues at work are no longer individuals. They are classified as either allies or adversaries, or merely part of the scenery. A presentation differs in tone and detail depending on which group is being addressed. For identified adversaries, objections are addressed before they are raised — I’m sure Mr. X raising his hand over there has his usual objections. (Are you ready for his diatribe?)
A colleague tagged as an adversary will seem to offer neither useful insights nor support. Any proposal coming from this person is dismissed without further thought. The classification trap makes us focus on the person making a proposal rather than the proposal itself.
The way to avoid automatic bias is to withhold preconceived ideas about people. This is not as easy as it sounds. With a pattern of behavior and a track record of opinions, a person can easily fall into a category — One whose views are worth listening to, and another whose thoughts are always considered loopy.
Political allies and adversaries are even more complicated. They shift with elections and the emergence of new leadership. And they can split and fuse again depending on political expedience and hidden agendas. Previous allies within a party can turn into adversaries after a budget hearing and televised death threats from past leaders. Declarations of loyalty can come from the unlikely allies — “I will support him even if I’m the only one left.” And these may be prophetic words.
To add to the confusion on categories, there is the emergence of social media with trolls and influencers selling opinions, alliances, and specific stands on issues to the highest bidder. This is much like hiring contractors that can build, renovate, and even demolish physical structures.
Categories raise obstacles to true understanding, dividing people into groups — allies, adversaries, and those who don’t matter. In life, there are surely more categories. Oversimplification deprives us of the complexities of an individual when we reduce him to a neat category.
Can we dispense with mental categories, accepting people without rushing to judgment? This is a step towards objectivity. It is one way to move a person from “unacceptable” to “sometimes-he-makes-sense.”
Classifications blurs context. Not all the ideas of those considered as friends and supporters can be accepted at face value. “Yes men” can be dangerous in creating the illusion of consensus. The echo chambers from cheerleaders and supporters do not always offer the best options.
It is sometimes best to remove categories altogether. True insight can come from the most unlikely sources like adversaries who turn into allies… or the other way around.
Tony Samson is chairman and CEO of TOUCH xda
