The Power of Perception (#6)

Is it more compassionate to give people what they think they want, or what is actually in their best interest? Is a happy illusion preferable to an actual benefit if that benefit is invisible?

In a busy airport, I recently conducted an unwitting social experiment. I was standing in a long security line that was moving along quickly. In an effort to keep the line moving, I decided to get prepared while I waited. I removed all my liquids and gels from my baggage and put them into a zip-lock bag. I also got out my driver's license and put it in my pocket next to my boarding pass. During the 20-30 seconds I was kneeling to unzip my bag, the line progressed ten or fifteen feet, and so there was a big gap in front of me. I told the man behind me that I was almost finished and was about to stand up and close the gap, and he seemed fine with that. Just then, a TSA inspector kindly but firmly shouted at me to keep the line moving.

When the line brought me closer to the guard's position, I responded to him that I was not actually delaying the line at all, because as soon as I was finished, I moved forward and closed the gap again, and that, in fact, I was helping the line eventually move faster, because I was totally prepared and would not have to fumble around when it was my turn. His response: The TSA agents would rather have me fumble around at the front of the line, creating a slight actual delay only visible to a few people near me, rather than leave a gap in line that creates the illusion of a huge delay to everyone in line. The people in back can't see what's going on, so they might think it's just a terribly slow line.

And I understood exactly what he meant. It's disturbing when a line does not move - people get antsy. For everyone's psychological health, it would have been better to do what he requested, even though the net effect of this action would be to delay the line by an additional 30 seconds or so.

I suppose the most compassionate way to handle it would have been to find a bench somewhere and get prepared before taking my place in line, as I would do at a bank. But for the sake of argument, let's say my options were limited to delaying people without them knowing, or giving them the false impression of a delay.

Consider the following ethical thought experiment:

Say there were a mild toxin in the water supply of a certain city, in such a low concentration that the risk of harm to people by ingesting the water is slight but not zero. This toxin has no taste, so it is imperceptible. The water appears to be clean, fresh, and healthy, even with the toxin present.

Now let's say there were another chemical that could be added that would precipitate the toxin into a harmless oxide, making the water 100% safe to drink. The precipitate would add a bit of turbidity (cloudy appearance) to the water, giving the impression that something might be amiss with the water. (All you chemists out there, please suspend disbelief for a moment.)

As mayor of that city, which option would you choose? Would you oxidize the toxin, making the water appear turbid and possibly unsafe, though completely safe, or would you allow people to continue obliviously ingesting the toxin from crystal clear water with the illusion of safety?

I know what I would do. Can you guess already? My integrity would not allow me to leave the toxin and make myself look good. Even though it might cost me re-election, I would add the oxidizer. It would require a lot of press conferences and other educational efforts, and still the people would not understand, and still they would feel anger and fear about the turbidity in the water. They might mistrust me and think that I was lying to them in my press conferences. However, in this situation the moral imperative seems quite clear.

Or is it? Are there situations where integrity requires choosing the illusion? When the perception of harm is actually more harmful than the actual harm? (Or the perception of good actually carries more benefit than the actual good?) The airline security line may be an example of this. When people see a long line that is not moving, maybe their blood pressure and heart rate increase. Maybe their respiration rate increases and their palms start to sweat as they contemplate missing their flights.

We've all heard of the placebo effect: an inert substance given to someone often actually cures them of a disease because of their expectation that it is a "medicine." Similarly, a "nocebo" is an inert substance that a person believes to be harmful, and because of that expectation, studies show that it often actually harms their health.

What if the turbid (but harmless) water in our example created a nocebo effect on some of the residents? Because of the false perception that they were drinking toxic water, the people might exhibit some ill health effects. Is the harm caused by this nocebo effect greater than the harm that might be caused by the actual toxin? This certainly complicates matters.

Do you care what doctors might say about you when you are unconscious from anesthesia? Is there any harm in it? What if your subconscious were to absorb such messages?

The comedian Paula Poundstone said that when she was a waitress, if someone was rude to her, she would go in the back and secretly touch their eggs! Is there any harm in that if the customer never finds out? What if the waitress's hands are as clean as the cook's?

Would you rather have a computer hacker imperceptibly steal $5 per month from your bank account for the rest of your life, or would you rather have a dishonest cashier swipe $100 cash from you just once? Most people would say that they'd prefer the latter, because it amounts to less money, but in reality I think most people would prefer the former because its effect would not be noticed. We'll all survive a small theft like that - the real harm is the emotional stress that such a theft creates, the feelings of violation and powerlessness. These feelings aren't in the picture unless we know about the theft.

Most of us wouldn't choose the happy illusion, because of our pride and our idealistic affinity for truth and honesty. But that isn't reason enough to dismiss it. The power of perception is too important to ignore. The consequences of an illusion (or lack thereof) must be treated as real consequences and factored into the analysis. In many cases, ignorance may be more than just bliss.

What's in a Decision? (#1)

The last thing my ex-girlfriend said to me when we broke up was, "You need to find someone who can help you make decisions." Decisions have often been scary and stressful for me. I have a book called "Blink," which I will get around to reading soon - about the power of split-second decision-making and how we usually know all we need to know about a decision very quickly. My choir director says he knows whether someone will pass the audition before they even sing a note - because of how they carry themselves as they walk in. For me, decisions seem to be at the core of my life's difficulties. Why?

I talked to my ex-girlfriend about a month later, and she complained that I make even small decisions seem to carry so much weight. Why do I do this? There are many seemingly small decisions that are full of synchronicities and coincidences. I can relate to the movie "Run, Lola, Run," where a split second difference in Lola's position on the street makes a huge difference in the eventual lives of those she passes by.

I suppose the small choices in our lives resemble the "butterfly effect" of nonlinear dynamics (sometimes referred to as "chaos" theory, a misunderstood term for something that is fully deterministic, simple, understandable and analyzable). The butterfly effect means that a tiny change in some initial condition (such as the flap of a butterfly's wings) can trigger the difference between rain or shine a week or two later, or may even trigger a hurricane. Many people misunderstand the butterfly effect, thinking the tiny creature somehow creates the energy for the storm. The word "trigger" is helpful - the energy in the bullet does not come from the trigger, but rather from the combustion of the gunpowder.

Imagine a golf ball rolling along the knife edge of a ridge: it could roll down one side of the ridge or the other. A butterfly flaps its wings and creates a puff of air so gentle and delicate as to nudge the ball toward one side of the ridge. The energy for rolling the ball came from gravity - the ball's weight - but the influence came from the butterfly. Obviously the hurricane's energy comes from gigantic forces within earth's weather system, but some small influence can change the outcome of that energy in a big way.

Our whole lives are like the golf ball rolling along the ridge. We are always at major turning points. No decision is insignificant.

One day many years ago as I was walking, a hunch told me to walk the "long way" around the block. It didn't make much sense to my mind, but I obeyed the hunch. As I walked the long way, I saw a friend of mine sitting on some steps looking downtrodden and dejected. He was in a huge emotional crisis, and I was able to sleep at his house that night, so he wasn't alone, and comfort him. Years later, he said that I saved his life that night, literally. Who knows what would have happened if I had ignored my hunch and walked the short way around the block.

Recently I decided to give up sweets for Lent. I'm not Catholic, and I don't attend church regularly, but I decided to try it as a personal exercise. Two days before Easter, I was invited to go out for ice cream with some friends. I declined, citing my commitment, and instead went with another friend to hear a band at a local pub. The music ended up being too loud for all of us, but I met a sweet young woman that I have gone out on a subsequent date with. It was actually difficult for me to turn down ice cream that night, but the choice ended up working out well.

I'm sure we all have stories like the two I just told (and I have many more). The decisions we make have huge unintended consequences, and some of them are far-reaching and positive. My fear is that if each small decision carries such weighty consequences, then the implications of bigger decisions are overwhelming. If I put such energy into a decision about where to go on a Friday night, because I may meet my future wife, then bigger decisions such as whether to take a new job or buy a home seem like crippling impossibilities.

I think I may see the way out of my dilemma. I am back to the golf ball rolling along the ridge. Every moment of our lives, every tiny decision we make, we are riding that knife edge of nonlinear dynamics, rain or shine, life or death. I could walk the "wrong way" around the block and be hit by a bus. As soon as I see the huge mystery of it, I know that I can't know enough about any decision, no matter how small. It is impossible for me to know what results a choice will bring. By trying to foresee everything, to control everything, I've been trying to play God. All I can do is laugh, let it go, and do what I feel good about in each moment. I let the mystery of life unfold in front of me.