2.4 – Big Bad Biases
We began this unit by discussing assumptions and differences that we carry into our class. In “First Contact as Spiritual Performance,” Lutz makes an assumption about his readers (Lutz, “First Contact” 32). He asks us to begin with the assumption that comprehending the performances of the Indigenous participants is “one of the most obvious difficulties.” He explains that this is so because “one must of necessity enter a world that is distant in time and alien in culture, attempting to perceive indigenous performance through their eyes as well as those of the Europeans.” Here, Lutz is assuming either that his readers belong to the European tradition, or he is assuming that it is more difficult for a European to understand Indigenous performances – than the other way around. What do you make of this reading? Am I being fair when I point to this assumption? If so, is Lutz being fair when he makes this assumption?
Contact stories, by definition, are problems concerning definition. For example, if I meet someone raised in English royalty, he probably wouldn’t think it was much of a compliment if I were to tell him his outfit looked “sick.” It means one thing to me (good) and another to him (bad). When framed in the context of contact stories, a singular instance of definition that does not correlate between each side is like a beam of light shone through a prism; it breaks into fragments that we can both see and not see.
The problems and issues that can arise from misunderstood definitions are exactly what Lutz refers to through Marshal Salhins’ and Gananath Obeyesekere’s inability to determine a definition for “reasonable behaviour”.
A key element to understanding Lutz’ assertion — that it is harder for a European to understand Indigenous performances than vice versa — is that of the conjunction fallacy. Take, for example, this study:
Consider a regular six-sided die with four green faces and two red faces. The die will be rolled 20 times and the sequence of greens (G) and reds (R) will be recorded. You are asked to select one sequence from a set of three and you will win $25 if the sequence you chose appears on successive rolls of the die. Please check the sequence of greens and reds on which you prefer to bet.
1. RGRRR
2. GRGRRR
3. GRRRRR
125 undergraduates at UBC and Stanford University played this gamble with real payoffs. 65% of subjects chose sequence (2) (Tversky and Kahneman 1983). Sequence (2) is most representative of the die, since the die is mostly green and sequence (2) contains the greatest proportion of green faces. However, sequence (1) dominates sequence (2) because (1) is strictly included in (2), to get (2) you must roll (1) preceded by a green face.
The inability to see what is directly in front of you is referred to earlier in the same study as the hindsight bias. I believe the combination of these two examples reveal the conclusions to both sides of our argument. Like the conjunction fallacy, Europeans are unable to effectively analyze the traditions of Indigenous peoples.
However, this is not to say that I agree completely with the statement since the other side of the argument then represents the hindsight bias. While it is true that we can learn from history, it is also true that we, “after learning the eventual outcome, give a much higher estimate for the predictability of that outcome than subjects who predict the outcome without advance knowledge.” That is to say, since Indigenous people have been (forcibly) accustomed to Western traditions it is “logical” to assume that they are more likely to understand such traditions.
Most importantly, the study concludes — after revealing a convincing example — that one “cannot simply instruct [others] to avoid hindsight bias,” as the awareness of its presence has no significant effect. How then, with this knowledge, can we assure that similar errors are not made in regards to the assumption of Indigenous futures? Since the outcome of European-Indigenous relations has been the domination of European culture over Indigenous, does that mean we are doomed to repeat the past?
Perhaps, something called repetition compulsion can offer some insight. In the previous link, Kristi A. DeName suggests “that many of us develop patterns over the years, whether positive or negative, that become ingrained” and cause us to act in certain ways, whether we like them or not.
Certainly, there are some interesting considerations in regards to the question of whether it is harder for Europeans to understand Indigenous performances. With the knowledge of repetition compulsion, as well as the contact stories retold by Lutz, would you say you’re more likely to be able to avoid hindsight bias?
Hi Nick,
Really cool thoughts! It’s refreshing to read your logical approach to this question.
You say that “Europeans are unable to effectively analyze the traditions of Indigenous peoples.” I’m curious – do you think Indigenous peoples started on that same level, at first contact, equally unable to analyze the traditions of Europeans? In other words, is it purely because Indigenous peoples have been bombarded by European traditions that they are “accustomed” to them, something we see as logical because of our knowledge of said bombardment?
I think my very first thoughts in answering this assumption question in my own blog post were a great example of both repetition compulsion and hindsight bias. I thought it would make sense that Indigenous people could better understand European performances because of the dominance of European traditions since those early days. That’s just another case of me thinking that I understand what is happening, when it would be much more realistic and logical to assume that I do not understand what kind of understanding Indigenous peoples have of European traditions. Basically, I can’t claim to know what Indigenous peoples do or do not know. Thanks for these unique tools to bring me through that thought process!
Kaitie
Nailed it, Kaitie. That was a good summation. My argument was that the perspective of Indigenous peoples in regards to European traditions is — as an evaluative argument — better than vice versa because of their historically bombarded culture. However, there is a distinction between that evaluative claim and a claim to understanding what Indigenous peoples do and do not know.
I see now that the imposition of their assumed knowledge can be seen similarly to the cultural oppression of European history. Sincerely, thank you for bringing that to my attention. Even though the argument is logically sound from my perspective, I have to acknowledge that, without the input and understanding of many different Indigenous perspectives, my argument is not whole, considerably biased, and distinctly Western. I think I would have had better luck.
Thanks
🙂
Neato in the way you’ve applied these studies to the prompt!
I’m in partial agreement with the conjunction fallacy being applicable to Lutz’s (potential) insinuation that Europeans find it harder to interpret Indigenous stories than vice versa. Within the frame you’ve given of context and definitions, I do think it works, but there’s also the fact that you can’t know what you haven’t learned. That’s not a very eloquent way that I’ve put it, but if Europeans (or any Western society) hasn’t been exposed to Indigenous stories, symbols, tropes etc., then they can’t really be expected to be able to pick up on them, even if they have been there all along.
Someone else in the class (can’t remember who) mentioned on their blog that since Europeans came and assimilated the native people of this land, the natives were essentially forced to learn European culture, and so they would understand that frame of reference, but the immigrants were never in that situation and, as far as I know, there hasn’t been a mandate that they have to learn it, At this point, European/Western references are predominant in Canada, and are almost necessary in order to understand any kind of media, whereas the same urgency to understand Indigenous ones isn’t there. (I hope I understood the fallacy properly so I don’t sound completely off base here…)
As for repetition compulsion, I do think that that could play a huge role in preventing hindsight bias, as long as we catch ourselves in time!
Hi Nick,
I really like your opening prism metaphor! well put!
Later on in your blog you say that “Europeans are unable to effectively analyze the traditions of indigenous people”. I was wondering if you make this claim based of the past or the base of common knowledge? I personally don’t agree, I believe that ignorance is a big role in this relationship. Do you think Europeans would never be able to understand First Nation’s stories? Or maybe with history lessons could they maybe learn to appreciate indigenous art?
I also wanted to draw attention to this other sentence, “that is to say, since Indigenous people have been (forcibly) accustomed to Western traditions it is “logical” to assume that they are more likely to understand such traditions”
I found this very interesting and was just wondering if you would be able to give me some more insight. Are you saying that with the focal education into western culture it is easier for indigenous people to understand European stories? I was just wondering why this seems logical. It is interesting to me because as a right brain person I am without logic. I feel like it is a very complicated relationship, but I myself don’t have much logic to back that up.
Great insight Nick!
Tai
Hey Tai, pulling quotes and asking for explanations is a great way to use this exercise. It’s definitely showed me where I need to be more clear and precise.
In the first pulled quote, I think I was incorrect to say “unable” when “unwilling” would have been a much more pertinent choice. If European settlers tried to understand Indigenous culture, I too think they could. This, I believe, is where I can answer the other part of your question. The claim was historically based but I should have included the disclaimer that although Europeans have been unwilling to learn about Indigenous cultures in the past, they are most certainly not unable.
For the second pulled sentence, the logic involved in understanding was probably put best by our classmate Whitney: “you can’t know what you haven’t learned.” It’s exactly as you say, since European settlers haven’t received education on Indigenous culture, they are — currently — unable to understand. However, that is not to say that if education were to be implemented they would still be unable to understand. On the contrary, it is simply that the information and experience one has is the basis off which she understands.
Let me know if that doesn’t clear it up. Thanks Tai!
🙂
I disagree, agree, and then disagree again, Whitney. The first thing I disagree with is your claim to not being “very eloquent” in your phrasing; “you can’t know what you haven’t learned” is probably the single best and most simple way this entire unit can be summed up. Seriously, Erika should consider it as the unit title. So, from there, I agree. The lack of exposure to Indigenous culture results in an ignorant Western one.
However, the intent of my point was in correlation with yours. The conjunction fallacy actually states the opposite of what you’ve said. It correlates with the hindsight bias; much like the misplaced guessing of the die — it is only with the perspective that “RGRRR” is contained within “GRGRRR” that most subjects understand the logically better choice — uneducated European settlers will too make the same mistake and, if left uneducated and at the mercy of the conjunction fallacy, will continue to make those mistakes.
🙂