Author: Don McMinn

The Blind Men and an Elephant is a parable from India about a group of blind men who are asked to describe an elephant based on touching it, but they’re only allowed to touch one part of the elephant (trunk, leg, ear). Because they describe the elephant based on their partial experience, their descriptions are vastly different (the person who touches the leg thinks the object is a mid-sized tree) and seemingly conflicting. In some versions of the story the men suspect that the others are being dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to project their partial experiences as the whole truth and discount other people’s partial experiences. 

Indeed, sometimes it’s hard to see all aspects of a complicated situation. 

For instance, during the coronavirus pandemic:

• • A friend of mine, a physician who works in the ICU, was on the front lines of the healthcare challenges. Every day he witnessed the pain, suffering, and death caused by the virus. Unsurprisingly, he was cautious about reopening society too quickly. 
  • Another friend, who owns a small business, has told me, “If the economy doesn’t open up in the next several weeks, my business will go under, my employees will lose their jobs, and I will lose everything.” He favored a quicker resumption of our normal lifestyle. 
  • A man in my church spent his entire career as an engineer at a major HVAC manufacturing company. He holds several patents in the industry. He advised us to not open the church for corporate worship (or any building with a controlled air system) until the pandemic is completely over because the circulation system will keep the virus in the air and the air filters won’t capture the molecules. 

Who’s right?

Most issues, situations, and challenges are multifactorial, which renders simple, one-dimensional explanations incomplete. Additionally, our personal background, experiences, and circumstances influence how we perceive a situation and affects our opinion.

On January 28, 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger broke apart 73 seconds into its flight, killing all seven crew members aboard. The Rogers Commission, a special commission appointed to investigate the accident, reported that a faulty O-ring had caused the implosion. But there was more to the story. The commission found NASA’s organizational culture and decision-making processes had contributed to the accident, with the agency violating its own safety rules. Since 1977 NASA managers had known that the design of the solid rocket boosters contained a potentially catastrophic flaw in the O-rings, but they had failed to properly address this problem. NASA managers also disregarded warnings from engineers about the dangers of launching in the low temperatures of that morning, and failed to adequately report these technical concerns to their superiors. 

The seemingly straightforward explanation—a faulty O-ring caused the Space Shuttle Challenger to implode—was part of the truth but not all the truth.

It takes a lot of effort to balance our narrow perspectives. Here are some suggestions.

• Be skeptical of simple, unidimensional explanations.
• Seek out multiple perspectives and approaches. 
• Respect the opinions and observations of others unless they are proven to be false. 
• Have less confidence in your own observations and conclusions. 

Economist John Stuart Mill said, “He who knows only his side of the case knows little of that.” Proactively pursue the myriad and often seemingly contradictory aspects of a multidimensional situation. 

I recently had two experiences that reminded me of Ockham’s Razor.

• • My refrigerator’s ice-maker stopped working and ice cubes dwindled to a dozen a day. Mary and I considered buying a new refrigerator (the one we have is 20+ years old). Another option was to replace just the ice-maker; I had done that about six years ago and could do it again. Fortunately, before I made a major move, I realized a simple solution. The previous winter I had turned down the thermostat on the freezer. Adjusting it to a colder setting solved the problem. 
  • My lawn sprinkler system wasn’t working. I replaced the timer, but it still didn’t work, so I scheduled a repairman to fix it. I mentioned the problem to a friend, who suggested I check to see if the water valve to the system was turned off. It was. So with one twist of the valve the problem was solved.

Ockham’s Razor is the problem-solving principle attributed to philosopher and theologian William of Ockham (c.1287–1347). It is sometimes paraphrased as: the simplest solution is most likely the right one. Ockham’s Razor says that when presented with competing theories, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.

For instance, when considering the following problem, which solution is most likely to be correct? Problem: a fence post is broken. Possible solutions: 1. An albino cow, looking for its long-lost sibling, crashed through the fence in despair. Or 2. An old nail rusted through the fence post and broke.

The medical community has its own version of Ockham’s Razor. Zebra is the code word for arriving at an exotic medical diagnosis when a more commonplace explanation is more likely. It is shorthand for an aphorism coined in the late 1940s by Theodore Woodward, professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, who instructed his medical interns, “When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses not zebras.”

The next time you’re confronted with a problem, first consider the simplest solution before progressing toward more complex solutions. 

Sir Ernest Henry Shackleton was a polar explorer who led four expeditions exploring Antarctica. He is best known for his 1914-1916 attempt to traverse the Antarctic which, although unsuccessful, became famous as a story of remarkable perseverance and survival.

There are many books about the Endurance Expedition (Endurance is the name of the ship), and they all portray Shackleton as an exemplary leader. But I recently watched a documentary that caused me to think differently. [Shackleton’s Captain on Amazon Prime. The film focuses on the ship’s captain, Frank Worsley, who was the second in command under Shackleton.]

On October 26, 1914, the Endurance left Buenos Aires, headed for Antarctica. Eleven days later it arrived at South Georgia Island, a Norwegian whaling station. The whalers there reported that the early summer was colder than usual and the ice conditions to the south were the worst they had ever seen. They strongly advised Shackleton not to go, but he ignored their advice and ordered the ship to continue on the journey. Days later they encountered pack ice a thousand miles farther north than expected. It was ludicrous to continue, but despite the pleas of the ship’s captain, he insisted that they continue south.

It was a terrible mistake. Within days the ship became trapped in ice. As one crew member said, “We felt like an almond stuck in the middle of a chocolate bar.” The ice eventually crushed the ship and the 28 members of the expedition had to abandon ship and set up camp on floating ice. For the next two years they struggled to survive unthinkable challenges. Remarkably, the entire crew made it back safely. 

But why did Shackleton risk the lives of his men?

Historians note that before the expedition, Shackleton had trouble at home—he was having an affair with an American actress and his brother was convicted of fraud that might incriminate Ernest—so he needed to create a new narrative about his life. Furthermore, it would have been a blow to his ego to abandon or even postpone the trip.

He was also profoundly self-promoting. Before the ship set sail, he had each crew member sign over all rights to their journals and diaries. He made sure all publicity promoted him as the hero. However, the real hero of the expedition was Frank Worsley, the captain. (Shackleton was inexperienced at sea, having never even been in a medium-sized boat.) But few people know of the valiant work of Worsley. 

It’s commendable for a leader to lead well in the midst of a crisis (think Churchill during WW2), but if the crisis was avoidable and caused by the leader, there’s no glory in that. 

Amos (Tversky) liked to say that if you are asked to do anything—go to a party, give a speech, lift a finger—you should never answer right away, even if you are sure that you want to do it. “Wait a day,” Amos said, “and you’ll be amazed how many of those invitations you would have accepted yesterday, you’ll refuse after you have had a day to think it over.” [The Undoing Project, Michael Lewis, page 196]

Often, decisions  must be made quickly.

• • • Some decisions are trivial and inconsequential. When ordering at a restaurant, just choose. 
    • Some decisions must be made quickly. If your car needs a battery, buy one.
    • With some decisions, the right choice is obvious so there’s no benefit in delaying. Change your route to avoid stalled traffic.

But most decisions can be delayed, and doing so may produce a better and more confident choice.

Postponing even for 24-48 hours is enough time to help avoid impulsive and rash decisions. Often, our emotions inordinately affect our decisions and cause us to make bad choices that we later regret. But emotions are short-lived; delay decisions and emotions will subside. For instance, if you’re overly excited about something, or charmed by someone, or fearful, or feel intimidated or coerced—wait a few hours and the emotions will dissipate and you can make a more rational decision.   

This principle should also inform how we ask others to make decisions. When asking people to make an important decision, don’t ask for an immediate response; give them ample time to study the implications and think through options. It’s respectful to say, “I need you to make a decision about an issue. Let me share, right now, all the facts I know, and then take time to think about it and let me know when you’re comfortable making the decision.”

For sure, push the pause button when making important decisions about your time, money, future, reputation, and values.