Today’s Focus: I don’t believe you

Your brain is mean to protect you: that has ramifications.

Often, it can be really hard to change our minds on something, especially if we are determined that something is true.

This can be both good and bad: if you’re convinced, you can win big: Billy Beane and the 2002 Oakland A’s are an interesting example of believing your thesis.

The problem is, your thesis might be wrong, but are you open to hearing about it?

How often have you been in a discussion and before the entire argument has been presented, you find yourself rolling your eyes, wanting to find an escape hatch. Or generally just wanting to not listen to what’s being said?

If you’re anything like me, you’ve probably found yourself in this position once or twice, at least,. The problem is, this can potentially work against us.

The concept in question here is the Semmelweis reflex or “Semmelweis effect“: it is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs, or paradigms.

This knowledge might just be something that is within your organization, or something that’s viewed as more empirical knowledge outside of the four walls of your business, but the problem is, it can work against us.

As leaders, it’s our responsibility to be growth minded and open minded as we listen and consider different points of view and perspectives. It’s important to remember that we do not have all the answers, but that doesn’t always mean that we don’t have some answers.

I saw a reference recently made by Travis McDonough about his former co-founder, Kevin Rimmer. Their company, Kinduct Technologies, was sold several years ago, and I’ve found both to be very kind and generous people. Kevin, for his part, noted to be careful about Founderitis: “A term coined to describe a founding group that thinks they have all the answers.”

How often do we find ourselves listening to someone and wanting to hit fast forward? Now, that doesn’t mean all people get equal play, but you have to make sure you’re not missing something, just because it goes against convention.

The model about Semmelweis comes from the name of Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician who discovered in 1847 that childbed fever mortality rates fell ten-fold when doctors disinfected their hands with a chlorine solution before moving from one patient to another, or, most particularly, after an autopsy. (At one of the two maternity wards at the university hospital where Semmelweis worked, physicians performed autopsies on every deceased patient.) Semmelweis’s procedure saved many lives by stopping the ongoing contamination of patients (mostly pregnant women) with what he termed “cadaverous particles”, twenty years before germ theory was discovered.  Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence, his fellow doctors rejected his hand-washing suggestions, often for non-medical reasons. For instance, some doctors refused to believe that a gentleman’s hands could transmit disease.

How ridiculous, right?

We see all kinds of examples of this type of thinking these days, including even well researched fields like Alzheimer’s.

Just because you hear something that doesn’t align with your previous experiences or perspectives, does not mean that it’s not worth listening to: in fact, sometimes contrarians (as we’ve previously shared) have it right, and the status quo is not the right answer: just ask Michael Burry. Sometimes opportunity takes place in the negative space.

Are you listening for the right opportunities?

What have you missed by dismissing or not listening?

We all have biases… just remember to be aware of your own, too. You don’t want to miss something obvious, after all, just because it’s not popular.