What is reversible thinking? Holding on to beliefs

The brain is often thought of as an organ dedicated to making meticulous rational analyzes of everything that concerns our survival. However, when we start to investigate a concept called reversible thinking, we see that it is not so. To exemplify it, we can use a little game.

I am going to show you four different cards. In each of them, on one side there is a number and on the other there is a letter.

And I also want you to know that I am convinced that on each card with an "E" on one side, there is a "2" on the other.

Now I ask you: How can you know if I am telling the truth? What minimum number of cards do I need to turn over to find out if my statement is correct or false?

Before reading on or going out to find the solution to the problem, take a few minutes to think about it... And remember your answer well.

• Related article: "Are we rational or emotional beings?"

Playing with thought

If you believe that to know if my statement is correct or not, it is necessary to turn over the card that contains the letter "E", so you have responded like the vast majority of people who were asked the question. trouble. On the other side of the card with the letter "E" there may or may not be a number "2". If not, then you can be sure that my claim is false.

But on the other hand, it turns out that if you do find a number "2", that's not enough to assert that my statement is true. Now, you will probably then come to the conclusion that it is also necessary to turn over the card with the “2” to check for an “E” on the back. But that solution is also wrong.

In the event that there is a letter "E" behind the card that has the "2" we will know with certainty that the statement I made at the beginning is correct. But on the other hand, remember that I have not said anything about what should be behind the card that has the "2", being able to find, strictly speaking, any of the many letters that the alphabet. What if we also turn over the card with the letter "N"?

Well, I think it is obvious that this solution does not make any sense. The problem is solved successfully by turning over the cards that have the "E" and the number "5". Can you understand why? No?

But how outrageous. I have to explain everything!

Reversible thinking

Clearly, first you need to see if there is a "2" behind the card marked with an "E". But we must also sniff out what is behind the card that has the "5", because only then will we know without Undoubtedly, in the case of finding an "E" on the other side, that the premise I formulated at the beginning is true.

Let's look at it another way. If behind an “E” there may be a “5” that would spoil the statement, it is fair to think that behind a “5” there may also be an “E” which, for practical purposes, is exactly the same. The possibility of reasoning in one direction and also in the opposite direction It is known by the name of reversible thinking, and it seems to be a property that tends to be scarce among specimens of the human race.

When we believe something what we usually do is look for information that confirms our belief, and we seldom go to the trouble of looking for the cross-proof, just in case we were wrong.

We make swift, fast-paced, almost thoughtless judgments, and as soon as any indication appears that we are right about what we thought, we quickly settle; This is a phenomenon that occurs every day, and as incredible as it may seem, from which it is not exempt practically no one, from the individual with the lowest possible educational level to the one with the highest academic honors.

He does not belive me? I am going to tell you about a series of studies that have revealed the thought process that doctors follow when diagnosing.

• Related article: "Herbert Simon's Theory of Bounded Rationality"

The first hypothesis is the one that wins

Imagine that you are going to see Dr. González. In the office, to the typical question of "What brings you here?", You tell him about a series of annoyances that have been afflicting him for a few days. Naturally in this case, the doctor takes note of the symptoms that you refer to him and begins to think of one or two hypotheses that could explain the problem. Based on this diagnosis, which the doctor considers probable, he performs a brief physical examination and indicates a series of studies.

Well, scientific evidence suggests that in cases like this, doctors cling to their original hypothesis, they dive headfirst to confirm it, and many times lose sight of the need to come up with the counter-test that validates the diagnosis (the equivalent of turning over the card with the number "5").

But the thing is a little more serious still. What has been observed is that physicians (even experts, who have many hours of clinical experience) tend to dismiss data that does not meet their expectations, they undervalue them, or sometimes even completely ignore them. According to the very nature of the brain, any clinical picture that a patient may present cannot be evaluated objectively and absolutely. Beyond his baggage of knowledge, the doctor makes an interpretation of what the patient tells him. he counts, and establishes in his mind a starting point on the basis of which he requests the studies that he considers necessary.

The problem is that many times this original diagnosis functions as a rigid and immovable anchor point. The professional then strives to find data that confirms his previous opinion. In the process, he may even overestimate any minor or irrelevant clue that goes in the same direction as his previous expectations. giving it a high degree of confirmatory value while, at the same time, detracting from any information that is not congruent.

• You may be interested: ""Heuristics": The Mental Shortcuts of Human Thought"

When we hold on to expectations

I am not suggesting to the reader that he should not visit his doctor the next time he has the flu or is in pain. Nor does it pretend to teach you how to do your job. But the truth is that there is practically no issue concerning the human species in which the psychologists have not put their magnifying glass on at some point in history, and the subject of reversible thinking is one from them.

And this is how clinical reasoning often works. The first diagnosis that comes to mind to the doctor determines the way forward, and also contributes to distort the interpretation of the results of the different studies requested from the sufferer patient. Something similar happens with most people, regardless of their occupation, in their day-to-day life and in their personal relationships.

All this irrationality that colors the senses and plays such an important role in everyday decisions is attributable, in part, to the fact that the brain is a cognitive lazy. This means that it is governed according to a principle of mental economy that often leads us to make mistakes in our day-to-day assessments. It is an invisible, unconscious process, through which the complex is simplified, and helps us to create categories mentally so that we can classify our experience and thus not have to start from scratch every time we are faced with a new situation.

It also induces us to take shortcuts in our reasoning and drawing conclusions; all, of course, with the laudable purpose of making things easier for us, but unfortunately with the additional cost of a certain little madness or irrationality in our behavior.

So that, it is convenient to demystify the brain and not consider it a supercomputer designed to perform detailed data analysis according to conventional logic. Whenever he can, he uses resources to get rid of work.