We always start from where we are

Earlier on in this year, I had a really interesting discussion online with Duncan Hothersall about Scottish Independence, and Brexit. I support independence, and Duncan very much doesn't. Scotland is currently about evenly split between supporters and opponents of independence, with a small number of hardcore unionists and nationalists on either side. But many people are in the middle, and weigh up the decision based on the perceived pros and cons.

In itself, this disagreement between Duncan and myself is interesting. We share a similar world-view and similar hopes for the future. We agree in many ways on the kind of future we would like to see. But we disagree on how we want to get there. 

This is of course a common pattern. We often share a purpose with other people, but we disagree on the tactics or maybe even the strategy for how to achieve it, and there is a wealth of literature on how to resolve such disagreements. 

But what I found fascinating was how we both responded to Brexit, and how this same event reinforced our differing opinions on how to move forwards. We both witnessed the same thing, but we drew very different conclusions from it, and in both cases it reinforced our beliefs about the world.

For me, Brexit shows how dysfunctional and isolationist the UK is. Brexit reinforces my desire to see Scotland achieve independence, and to re-engage with Europe. 

But for Duncan, Brexit shows the danger of breaking up unions, and the risks faced by deciding to go it alone. Brexit reinforces Duncan's desire to see Scotland stay in the UK, and to work together with our neighbours.

We both agree on the facts: Brexit. But this same event is interpreted differently based on our pre-existing beliefs. And this totally ties in with Chris Argyris Ladder Of Inference:

The Ladder Of Inference is a model for how we build an understanding of the world from observable phenomena. We might all observe the same things, but we then select what we think is interesting or relevant based on our prior beliefs. We then add meaning to what we observe, make assumptions and draw conclusions, which in turn reinforces our prior beliefs. All of this happens pretty much instantaneously, and happens long before our conscious mind is involved. As far as we as people are concerned, we are simply perceiving objective reality. 

But in fact, our current beliefs about the world completely control what we perceive consciously. And the things that we perceive in turn reinforce our beliefs. 

So, back to Brexit and Scottish Independence. 

Because I start off with a belief that Scottish Independence will be A Good Thing, I perceive things in Brexit that reinforce my belief. I see the isolationism of the UK, the dysfunction, and I become more convinced that Scottish Independence will be A Good Thing.

But Duncan starts off with a belief that Scottish Independence will be A Bad Thing. So he perceives things in Brexit that reinforce that belief. He sees the disaster of leaving a functional union. He sees leaving a union leading to further isolationism. So he becomes more convinced that Scottish Independence will be A Bad Thing.

In both cases, we select data from the observable facts based on prior beliefs, and we then use this data to justify those self-same beliefs. Because we start from different positions, any facts will only serve to keep us in those positions. 

Where does that leave us? When we disagree with someone, we should always remember that we are almost certainly perceiving reality differently. What you think of as facts with clear meaning are in fact very subjective, and will mean something, will be something, completely different to someone else. The only way forwards is to discuss these things openly, honestly and in good faith.  It can be OK to disagree, but we should at least recognise that the other person's beliefs are just as valid as our own, and that this explains why they actually perceive the world differently to us.