Perception is reality: the lessons from Ferguson

Most of us, who have watched the events of Ferguson, Missouri play out on television, have our own perception about what really happened that faithful August 2014 day.  Those who witnessed the event have their own.  In the final analysis the perception of those who witnessed the shooting is much more impactful than ours, a passive one gained by watching television. 

The grand jury sifted through often-inconsistent and contradictory perceptions to arrive at a conclusion, supported by the physical and forensic evidence collected by law enforcement.

Regardless, there is no way we can rationalize away the loss of a human life.  The sorrow and pain of Michael Brown’s family deserve our respect and solidarity.  They are the ultimate victims. 

What Is Perception?

Douglas Adams defines perception as “everything you see or hear or experience in any way that is specific to you…” Psychology defines it as “the conscious recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli that serve as basis for understanding, learning, and knowing or for motivating a particular action or reaction”. 

The illustrious late scientist Albert Einstein defined reality as follows: “… merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one”.

A fact that often escapes our understanding is that perceptions are real, even though not necessarily true or based on sound evidence. 

The Case of Two Realities

In Ferguson, there are two completely different perceptions, hence realities.  You choose the one that fits your experiential lens.  If you are a Black person, you might see the tragedy rooted in a white policeman’s killing of an unharmed teenager, simply because he disregarded the life of a Black person.  If you are a white person, you might see the tragedy rooted in the behavior of a 275-pound Black thuggish kid, high on marijuana, who refused to heed a policeman’s command. 

The Black community bases its perception on its own interaction with white policemen, while the white community will base theirs on their own experience with the police. 

The Rashomon Effect

In 1950 Akira Kurosawa directed the film Rashomon.  Ryunosuke Akatagwa based the film on two stories.  The plot is known for a ploy device, which involved four characters providing alternative versions of the same incident -- a disturbing story of rape and murder.  All four depicted the story very differently.

The film received many awards.  But I must admit that, when I saw it as a youngster, that I did not like the film, because I found it confusing and missing the happy ending for which I was hoping.    Later on, during the early 1980’s, as a behavioral science student, I ran into the Rashomon Effect, which dealt with the contradictory interpretations of the same event by different people.  Its author Valerie Alia advanced this principle in her book Media Ethics and Social Change.

Alia’s notion intrigued me so much that I decided to learn more about it.  I remember being troubled by the statement that perceptions are “facts” that people use to make decisions, never mind that the “facts” might be wrong.  This important revelation proved to be an important insight when carrying out my work as a consultant and leader. 

The truth?

They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  The same can be said about perception.  For the Black community, shaped by their interaction with what they might perceive as an insensitive or racist law enforcement person, the view that the life of a Black youth is not as valued as that of a white youth, the “truth” is clear -- Officer Wilson is guilty of murder.  For the white community, not touched by or unaware of police brutality and its perceived disregard for human life, it is a case of Officer Wilson defending himself from impending threat on his life.

Both scenarios are “real”.   

The Aftermath

Television loves this kind of drama.  It gets people worked up on both sides of the issue.  It also makes for increased viewership and advertising.  Leaders, on both sides, wade in, some for their own insatiable need for publicity and the limelight, pushing their own views and viewpoints.  Soon Ferguson and many Ferguson wannabes nationwide become magnets to malcontents and anarchists bent on creating havoc and attack the police.  Again, more television footage, more viewers to attract.

Looting and property destruction are rationalized as part of the rage that people experience when they feel that the system is unjust.  Law enforcements attempts at quelling the strife are seen as “over the top” shows of force.    The net effect is that innocent bystanders watch helplessly the destruction of their stores, offices, warehouses, cars, and so on. 

What is your perception about what went on in Ferguson that fateful August day?

One of the many things I dislike about politics ...

As a lay observer of politics, I am amazed by the sophomoric mistakes our leaders make.  After reading this blog, you might conclude that I am naïve, and you might be right at that.   

As a student of behavioral science, I learned decades ago that there are two important components to group decision-making.  One deals with content, and the other with process.  You might say two sides to the same coin.  Separating one from the other or ignoring it can be foolhardy.

The debate of the past four years on health care, and for the past two years on immigration, illustrates the problem for me. 

Healthcare Debate

Polls suggest that most people agree that the system needed overhauling.  The annual cost increases were not sustainable.  Few seem to argue that lifting certain conditions regarding limits on coverage, excluding pre-existing conditions, and including dependent children to age 26, were not desirable changes to be made. 

We were told that 37 million compatriots lacked insurance because they just could not afford it.  Most, if not all of us who can afford it, do not mind contributing more to help our brethren gain coverage.   It is part of the American tradition to be generous toward those who are less fortunate than we are. 

In my view, there seems to be consensus on the policy to make health insurance more affordable and more accessible to every one.  So what is the main issue?

Ramming the law down the opposition’s throat was a huge mistake.  The arrogance of the majority to impose its will on the minority was shortsighted.  Experience has taught us that major legislation is more readily accepted when more people are involved in its formulation.  Involvement, we have learned, leads to participation, and participation leads to increased “ownership”.  People tend to like more what they help construct.  Ignoring this time-tested notion is, in my view, the single most important cause of gridlock. 

There are, of course, other legitimate philosophical differences that separate the two sides.  By poisoning the well, it makes it harder to reconcile them.

So far, what we have witnessed is a failure of process, not necessarily a failure of policy.  Proponents, when defending the law, point out all the benefits of the law (content).  Opponents, when attacking it, point out all the failures of process. 

So, where are we now?  41 million people are now uninsured.  The cost continues to rise, and so does the deductible in some cases.  Several screw-ups in the law are not yet fixed.  Parties are deadlocked in a so-called Mexican standoff, not willing to budge to mend what is obviously wrong with the law.  Why?  Anger has led some to advocate repealing the law, while in practical terms this would not be so easy.  Court challenges continue to raise fears that the law might be struck down on constitutional grounds. 

Four years later, like Nero before them, Rome is burning while the politicians continue playing the fiddle.

Immigration

Polls show that most people are against the executive action taken by our president.  Yet, not many people advocate that we should deport 12 million people.  They say that it would not be good for our country, our economy, and our conscience.  Few advocate that we break up families, or separate children from their parents.  So what is going on? 

Again, we seem to agree on policy, but disagree on process.  Ramming things down the opposition’s throats creates resentment and unleashes getting-even sentiments.  Win-lose approaches have a way of turning later into lose-lose outcomes. 

Allowing 5 million people (who have been in the country 10 or more years) to come out of the shadows without a clear path to permanent status is a halfway measure, in my view. 

In essence, we are creating a two-tier population, the alphas and the betas.  The former have all the rights, and the latter just a few.  What about those additional 7 millions who have been in the country for less than 10 years?  Why is it OK for them to stay in the shadows?  Why create yet a third-tier?  Let’s call them the gamma people.  You know, those with no rights to speak of, subject to deportation at any time, to be separated from their loved ones.    Should we wait another 5 years before we allow them to come out of the shadows? 

The big elephant in the room has been and continues to be the lack of border security.  A country that does not control its border is not a master of its own destiny, it has been said.  No border can be 100% secure.  It is almost impossible to accomplish that.  Under Soviet rule, people managed to sneak across the highly fortified borders, often risking their lives.   Most people want the border to be more secure.  How could you judge that?  By the amount of leakage!  Thousands and thousands of undocumented people crossing each year equals a leaky border, not a secure one. 

A much better approach by the president would have been to ask the newly elected leadership in Congress to come up with their recommendations for solving the problem. Not by forcing down the throat of the House of Representatives what the Senate Democrats (with some help by Republicans) might have agreed to last year.

Many perceive that the President wanted to stick it to the Republicans after they won control of Congress, that he refused to accept the verdict of the American people, and that he wanted to send a message that he was still someone with whom Republicans had to deal: a sort of macho thing.  Never mind that he could have passed comprehensive legislation during his first two years, when Democrats had control of Congress.  I am afraid that he might have unleashed the proverbial desire to get even, to the detriment of us all.

In Closing

Representative Pelosi, during a press conference following President Obama’s announcement, reminded us that it was President Lincoln, a Republican, who abolished slavery by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, not the Congress of the United States. 

I think most, if not all of us, will agree that it was the right thing for President Lincoln to do.   I think that most, if not all of us, will agree, that the price the nation paid was huge: 450,000 Americans died fighting in the Civil War. 

I found Pelosi’s argument based on moral equivalency deplorable.  Slavery and illegal immigration are not the same, in my view. 

Defense Mechanisms

Years ago I learned that people resort to a number of strategies to “defend” themselves from findings they do not want to hear.  This phenomenon is especially true when the findings are “hot” or extremely threatening.   As a consultant, I encountered this issue often when I had to present findings to clients that were negative, unflattering, and contrary to preconceived notions. 

Experience has taught me that hot data is akin to a hot potato.  Nobody wants to handle it, preferring to flip it to someone else, or just to let it plop to the ground.   Soon I learned that it was a waste of time as well as a risky undertaking to present controversial (hot) findings to an audience unwilling to hear it, let alone act on it.   My late friend and colleague Pat Williams, a highly respected professor and consultant, mentored me through this conundrum.

If your data were hot, he would say, you must cool them down so that people do not burn their proverbial hands.  Conversely, if the data were cold, you need to warm them up to prevent boring your audience.  How to accomplish this is a subject for another time, and perhaps another blog.   This advice and the skill set to carry it out served me well throughout my long career as a consultant and executive. 

The recent Mid-Term Elections reminded me that this notion of defensiveness is very much in play in politics as well.  

I love watching, listening, and observing the post election behavior of both winners and losers.  They give us critical incidents from which we can draw important teaching moments. 

Observing Winners

There is little that we can learn from the speeches that winners make.  They are in a celebratory mood and they want to show us how magnanimous they are in victory.  They say flattering things about their opponent, whom the day before they vilified as either incompetent, crooked, in the pockets of special interests, extremist, mean spirited, or dirty tricks artist.  They say things that they know people want to hear.  They tell jokes, thank everyone, raise their fingers in victory, and try to project their affable side.

Observing Losers

That is another story.  Their behavior is uncommonly defensive.  For some, so much so that they employ all the defense mechanisms that group dynamics theory teaches us.

Let me share some examples of those behaviors that illustrate the degree and type of defensiveness I saw.  I have seen it after other elections.  

1.    Attack the data.   If losers do not like the election results, then they minimize their validity.  Some losers did just that by pointing out that it reflected the vote of only 1/3 of the electorate, and that 2/3 had not voted this session.  Meaning?  The data do not really reflect how the electorate feels about the issues.  Never mind that not voting is also a vote, in the sense that people show their displeasure by withholding it or by throwing it away.  This defense mechanism is intended to impeach the hard fact that the election was lost.

2.    Attack the opponent.  If losers cannot accept losing to particular adversaries, by all means, they attack their unethical campaign.  They will point out that some unscrupulous billionaire bankrolled them, that they resorted to mud slinging and distortions, that they had made egregious gaffes, or that they had unfair advantages.  Never mind that the losers engaged in the same scandalous behaviors for which they now accuse their opponents.  This defense mechanism is intended to impeach the worthiness of the victor.

3.    Rationalize the results.  If losers find the results unappetizing, they will enumerate all the reasons why the deck was stocked to begin with, that they did not have a chance to win, anyway, and that it was what to be expected from a particular State (blue, red or purple).  In other words, the loss was outside a person or party’s control.   They turn to pundits and so-called political strategists to wrap logic around it by  impeaching the election process.

4.    Feel sorry for yourself.  Losers often minimize the importance of the loss.  They spin it in a way that moves fault elsewhere.  They promise to learn from it and to not repeat the same mistakes, that they will get them next time, and that all is not lost.  They say that misery loves company, and sure enough many will join the circle to share tears about an unfair world.  This defense mechanism serves the need to be consoled and to feel loved and appreciated.

5.    Slicing and dicing the results.   This is a usual strategy to find the culprit.  Who is to be blamed for the vote?  Here losers will point out that one group or another is responsible.  The usual suspects? Old versus young.  Women versus men.  Black or brown versus white.  Urban versus suburban or rural.  Red versus blue or purple.  Gay versus straight.  Rich versus poor. And so on.  This mechanism isolates the usual suspects to whom one can attach blame.

People of all different political persuasions use defense mechanisms.  They illustrate that the stakes are high and our ego so fragile that we are unwilling to admit our mistakes, incapable to accept responsibility, and unable to move rapidly toward the problem solving phase.

Your thoughts?