The Focusing Illusion
Many of the discussions in the comments section of this site fall into a very familiar pattern. Take, for instance, one issue that we here at the Ruth Institute support: lifelong marriage. Lifelong marriage means that we are not particularly fond of divorce. (I’m sure my opinion as a Jew differs from that of Dr. J who is Catholic, but I think we can agree that divorce is, generally speaking, a bad thing).
And these discussions are usually not very productive because they are addled with illusion.
So, we don’t like divorce. How does this play out so predictably in the comments? And how are the comments beset by illusion?
Here’s what typically happens, starting with the initial post:
Post: Divorce has such-and-such bad results.
Annoying Commentator: So many people are in bad marriages. You want to deny them the only thing that will bring them happiness. You fiend!
(Gasps of outrage and pity from the peanut gallery because I’m so insensitive as to disapprove of that reliable guarantor of happiness– divorce).
Person who wrote the post (usually me): You don’t understand. This is what some psychological research says…
Commentator: Some boring repetition of the irrelevant point she already tried to make but this time in yet more outraged terms. Perhaps she throws in boilerplate leftist accusations of racism, sexism, and/or homophobia to spice things up.
As you can probably guess, this kind of thing gets nowhere.
So, that’s the repetitive pattern in the comments. What is the illusion?
That illusion is the “focusing illusion,” also known as anchoring. Wikipedia describes it as follows:
The focusing effect (or focusing illusion) is a cognitive bias that occurs when people place too much importance on one aspect of an event, causing an error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.
People focus on notable differences, excluding those that are less conspicuous, when making predictions about happiness or convenience. For example, when people were asked how much happier they believe Californians are compared to Midwesterners, Californians and Midwesterners both said Californians must be considerably happier, when, in fact, there was no difference between the actual happiness rating of Californians and Midwesterners. The bias lies in that most people asked focused on and overweighed the sunny weather and ostensible easy-going lifestyle of California and devalued and underrated other aspects of life and determinants of happiness, such as low crime rates and safety from natural disasters like earthquakes (both of which large parts of California lack).
The way this cognitive bias shades these discussions should be obvious.
We’re discussing marriage. Marriage is not always happy. But happiness is a complex subject. But by discussing unhappy marriages, we’re focusing on them. The big picture is left out of the discussion. But life is lived in the big picture not in isolated bits.
Our commentators focus on the bad marriage, and they imagine a woman victimized by, say, a life of bad sex, a sloppy husband, who makes bad jokes and tells boring stories, while the poor wife is left to pine away for a better mate (be that mate male or female).
But whoever it is who actually has that bad marriage has a whole entire life. Maybe the actual person in the bad marriage is not so focused on her troubles. Maybe she is focused on getting the kids to baseball practice, or watching them in the school play, her relationships with her other relatives and friends, or attending night school or whatever. In other words, maybe her marriage is a bit disappointing. But maybe she’s focusing on things more productive than griping. And maybe her marriage will take a turn for the better in the long run if she stays with it.
This cognitive bias also comes into play when people make statements such as “If only I were allowed to marry the person of my choosing life would be paradise.” (This does not just apply to gay marriage. It could also apply to a person focused on marrying a particular very desirable partner of any kind). Such thinking is an exercise in futility.
So, let’s let our commentators focus on the negative. And let the wiser people focus on the big picture.
Lastly, for those of you who are skeptical due to my quoting of Wikipedia (insert usual caveats about Wikipedia here) would you accept a scholarly article by a Nobel Prize winner? Read it and find out if you would be happier if you were rich.
Loading ...
“Our commentators focus on the bad marriage, and they imagine a woman victimized by, say, a life of bad sex, a sloppy husband, who makes bad jokes and tells boring stories, while the poor wife is left to pine away for a better mate (be that mate male or female).”
Wow, is that incredibly intellectually dishonest. I do believe that I have discussed much more serious reasons for divorce (physical or emotional abuse, infidelity, constant conflict, etc.) and why it is a good choice for people in those and other situations. But I see that my comment never made it up here. Hmmm….
To summarize: this particular commentator has never championed divorce. Instead, I have merely made the point that it is sometimes the right choice for some people, and that it does not always lead to doomsday scenarios, especially when the parties involved act like adults during the process and afterward, particularly when co-parenting children. But black and white thinking leads to black and white outcomes. I guess it’s just too emotionally mature for you to believe that many people and their children are actually happier after a divorce.
As for choosing to marry the person you love, I guess you’re not much of a romantic, are you Ari? Since when is love “an exercise in futility?”
Heidi wrote:
“I guess you’re not much of a romantic, are you Ari? Since when is love “an exercise in futility?””
Romantic? Heck freaking no! Romanticism is for fools. Didn’t you ever read Madam Bovary? The awful prize of romanticism may not be as tough on the general population as it was on poor Emma Bovary, but I’d rather base my decisions on reality rather than romanticism.
Love, like so many things, is not quite what the romantics say it is. When I say I love my wife, it means that there is little or nothing I would not sacrifice if she needed it. Same goes for my kids. It does not mean I experience any tingly feelings around her. The latter would mean that I love the benefit she confers upon me. The former indicates that I seek to confer benefit upon her. I’d refer you to the applicable passages in the Mishnayos of Ethics of The Fathers. But I doubt that would be particularly persuasive to you.
I never said that love was an exercise in futility. There’s that pesky reading comprehension problem of yours.
When I brought up the “Starter Marriage” post, you commended the author. I said it was irresponsible to recommend divorce wholesale as the author apparently did. If the author’s “starter husband” was cheating on her, burning her with cigarettes, emotionally abusing her or whatever, I doubt she would have had words of praise for her starter marriage. Instead she would have woken up from a nightmare. I’m presuming you don’t think she’s a masochist and misses the pain?
Yes, there are some people who are happier after a divorce. There are also people who are happier after getting electroconvulsive therapy. It doesn’t mean it’s for everyone. And it doesn’t mean that people won’t have bad results.
Heidi,
Scratch part of that comment about electroconvulsive therapy. I’m sure a much higher percentage of people have good results from electroconvulsive therapy than they have from divorce.
Wow. I’m sorry for your wife. I am happy to report that I still get tinglies (most of the time) AND that there is nothing I wouldn’t sacrifice for the woman and children that I love. I commended the author for telling the truth of her story and for letting others know that divorce is not the end of the world. I commended her for making the right choice for her own happiness. I wonder if you conducted a survey, how many people would report being happier pre-divorce versus post-divorce? Something tells me, and I’m not entirely certain as to why, that more women would say they were happier post-divorce, and that more men would say they were happier pre-divorce. That would be some interesting research, and it might help substantiate some of the doomsday scenarios that you insist on perpetuating.
In the end, however, people are going to do what they want to do in a free society. And some will be happier, and others will not. Hopefully, all will learn valuable lessons from their experiences, whether positive or negative. Thank God for America, the land of the free!
Heidi,
There’s a word for doing something that makes you happier but makes others less happy: cruelty.
You finally understand my point.
Heidi,
Perhaps I was inexact. Other words that can describe the same phenomenon include selfishness and callousness.
And trust me, all of the women I know who left their husbands because they thought they would be happier after a divorce (and dragging their families through the mud) wore selfish, cruel and callous. Their husbands were indeed unhappier after their divorces.
I don’t care if they’re happier. As far as I’m concerned, I wouldn’t pee on them if they were on fire.
Forgive me for being unscientific here, and perhaps overly sentimental. But when grown adults stand before God and Man and pledge themselves “til death do us part”, I think the rest of us have a right and an expectation to hold them to the words of their solemn blood oath.
Or, I suppose we could treat them like impetuous little children.
Folks, if you want a first class illustration of the Focusing Illusion please see Heidi’s latest comment. (The one posted at 11:03). The lack of self awareness in this comment, especially considering the subject of the initial post, borders on self parody.