Of certainties and doubts
"I only know that I know nothing" is the famous and misquoted phrase of Socrates, the Greek who lived over 2000 years ago, so as to avoid confusion. The Athenian claimed that it is only through doubt and ignorance that we can be certain; the awareness of one's own ignorance was, therefore, the ultimate virtue. Clearly, this idea did not catch on. It seems to be in certainty, in the illusion of knowing-knowing and in the claim to judge others wrong that one finds a sense of security and confidence.
In fact, is not the escape from doubt and ignorance one of the reasons for the existence of science? Science, unlike philosophy or art, exists to transform questions into answers. In science, an unanswered question is a failed task. It is true that the answers found must generate new questions, but the feeling left by the answers that are often found, or in many people, especially non-scientists, is that of the cessation of the need to ask again. A convinced and conclusive answer kills uncertainty, doubt and insecurity which, in the right dose, are the guarantee of tolerance and acceptance. Socrates was absolutely sure of his intellectual humility, which implies some insecurity.
The examples are scattered everywhere. It is well known, and ignored to the same extent by regulars, that social networks and online newspaper comment boxes are a den of certainties and accusations of others' errors of reasoning. The same can be seen in conversations over coffee, among friends, family or in workplaces. Today's conversations are like that.
I remember reading a study(1) that categorised two types of people with regard to the intersection between adaptability and need for control. One of the examples the authors used was related to the use of salt, "at the table". People who asked for the salt before tasting the food were considered more rigid in relation to their prejudices, their opinions. They were also considered by others as safer and more confident. However, they were the ones who were more prone to authoritarianism, arrogance and intolerance. As they were "sure" that it was necessary, they asked for salt without needing to know if there was a real need. The second type of people, those who eventually salt the plate after a test, were seen as having a greater capacity for adaptation and improvisation. The former "mould" the world to suit their needs while the latter "mould" themselves more easily according to the conditions that the world presents to them. It remains to be seen which of these types of people can contribute the most to changing the world we live in. I know where I place my chips, because I believe that the solution will not be in control.
In the world of work, I believe that the combination of these phenomena with hierarchical stratification and the power games inherent to it, lead to so many professional contexts becoming spaces that degrade our well-being or even our health, physical and mental. The truth is more on the higher floors and those who live there become experts in pointing out the mistakes of those who live below. All this seems to be fed by the fear of being deceived or the presumption that others are not mature and intelligent enough to think for themselves. The result is seen in dependency, seen in unaccountability. In short, those who are above always know the right amount of salt, for themselves and for others; the conviction is so strong that they can even pour salt on wounds that this way of being helps to create
In the business world, in most organisational cultures, tolerance to doubt, uncertainty and error are even more proscribed than in science and academia. Instead, the prevailing paradigm is one of control, of obsession with planning and prediction. In the past, these exercises were called divination or magical thinking. This is what science came to combat, it is said. Historically, and today more than ever, business seems to feed on a partial and utilitarian reading of science, which is not as bad as the also recurrent practice of resorting to pseudoscience. Basically, those who are absolutely certain, convinced and secure will do anything to maintain their certainties and the rewards that result from them.
I have observed the growing adherence to an ideological movement that seems to recover new age style ideas, which makes more visible ideas of flexibility, acceptance and tolerance. On principle, the path seems very interesting. But the lack of tolerance to the unknown, in this globalised and real-time informed world, is so pervasive that it turns this supposed flexibility into rigidity. That is why there is also a danger in those who claim to be tolerant, accepting and flexible. When they become too comfortable, when they become unshakeable in relation to their flexibility or try to impose it on others, they are as rigid as those who are sure of everything.
A few days ago I had a conversation about vaccination, a divisive subject. Although I am in favour and have vaccinated all my children, in the middle of the conversation I said to someone that "one should respect, even if one does not agree" those who did not want to do the same to their children. The reply from the other side was full of certainties, intolerance to my idea and was almost an accusation of my own position: "sorry, but those who don't vaccinate put others at risk and those who let this happen do the same!
My reaction was to give up the discussion. I did not do so because of the forcefulness of the arguments used but because of the intuition that it would be fruitless. I sulked because I realised that the other person did not understand that he was being obtuse in his judgements. To be honest, this reaction of mine was not born out of doubt or uncertainty. It arose from the conviction that accepting the difference in opinions and actions was the right choice. In that moment, I became as "know-it-all" as my interlocutor; I became adamant about my stance of accepting opinions different from my own. I became that which I seek to combat and which I began by criticising at the beginning of this text.
So, it is not enough to taste the food to see if we need to add salt. We have to educate our palate to new flavours and, to do so, we have to try them. We will not achieve this with theories or manifestos. Acceptance and tolerance are practised knowing, above all, that these principles, when taken to extremes, become their opposite.
There is a long road ahead for me. There is a long road ahead for humanity.
Written for Link to Leaders on 5 June 2020; published 9 June 2020.
Unfortunately I do not recall or have been able to find the reference to this study, either in my records or in search engines. If any reader recognises the study from my description here I ask you to please point it out to me.
