A short lesson in how we construct reality

In this age of hyper-technology, we have myriad ways to construct our own realities, and as many or more ways to forget we don't necessarily construct it accurately. From Oregon comes a story of a couple trying to get home to Nevada through the cold and snowy mountains in the south central part of the state. The area is known for its wild roadless areas and rugged terrain.

To guide them on this trip, they relied on the GPS system in their Toyota Sequoia. They began to have serious doubts about the visibly deteriorating condition of their route, which turned into a 30 mile trek up an unmaintained road to nowhere, and eventually tried to turn around. They apparently trusted the technology, or more importantly, their understanding of the technology, over their own experience of the outside world. They became hopelessly stuck in the deepening snow and spent three days marooned before they were able to contact outside help, via the same GPS system that they had allowed to lead them into the wilderness.

The most reasonable (although somewhat rear-end-covering) comment in the story came from a spokesperson for Garmin, the maker of the GPS:

"drivers must always remember that GPS [systems] provide route suggestions. They do not cause drivers to make driving decisions."

That seems like a stellar reminder not just about technology, but also about most of the rest of the things, people and events in our lives: they do not cause us to make our decisions.

If we could just remember that notion at times of stress, moments of decision-making, interpersonal interactions, etc, we might make somewhat different decisions. When we believe we "have no choice", we are usually imagining that someone has "made" us decide a particular way, without remembering how we constructed the current reality.

We also make better decisions with more information, and by checking the accuracy of the information we think we have. If the Nevada couple had compared their GPS position to a paper map, for example, to get the "bigger picture", they might have seen that they had misinterpreted a turn, or that their selection for the "shortest route" did not allow for differences in road condition or seasonality.

In short, the more we remember how we constructed the information on which we based our decisions, and the more we verify and compare that information (especially when making decisions that could lead to our death by exposure), the less likely we are to end up stuck in the snow, literally or figuratively.

A Few Words on Science and its Critics

When we talk about cognitive accuracy, we mean something fairly specific: we contend that science gives us a way to construct an external or global reference point with a high probability of agreement, both with the external world and among members of a given communication. Sometimes this approach meets with resistance in the form of various arguments about the inadequacy of science. David DiSalvo has posted a cogent and articulate statement that addresses the resistance of the -ists and isms. He notes that we cannot escape our biases, but if we expose them to the light whenever we can, and accept, even embrace, the likelihood of our mistakes, we can reduce their number and severity. Only science takes that approach.

In a nutshell, DiSalvo notes:

Science is one of the best tools we have to reach beyond our limited capacity. It’s not a flawless tool by any means, and it can’t right all the wrongs that beset our brains. But when compared to several other modes of inquiry, it’s one of the best we have.

and:

If supernaturalism or postmodernism were reliable tools for expanding understanding and improving our lot, we’d have every reason to value them as much or more than science—but the truth is, they’re not. In fact, the absolutism endemic to both makes them philosophical cul-de-sacs.