"Ride to Helm's Deep! Go not to the Fords of Isen, and do not tarry in the plain!
Shadowfax must bear me now on a swift errands...Await me at Helm's Gate! Farewell!"
"What does that mean?" Said one of the guard to Hama
"That Gandalf Greyhame has need of haste," Answered Hama, " Ever he goes and comes unlooked for."
"Wormtongue, were he here, would not find it hard to explain." Said the other.
"True enough," Said Hama, "But for myself I will wait until I see Gandalf again."
"Maybe you will wait long." Said the other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This chapter is called "Helm's Deep," and it recounts the riding of the Rohirrim to Helm's Deep, an ancient fortress. This chapter also recounts the entire battle, which is much shorter in the text than as portrayed in the films. It lasts from a little after dusk right until dawn.
When they first leave Edoras, however, they are not headed towards Helm's Deep. They were going to Isen (the river which forms the border of Rohan and Isengard), in hopes of reinforcing a Rohirrim stronghold there. Ideally, they can hold Saruman's armies from even crossing the river. The leader of this stronghold is named Erkenbrand.
On their way there, they are intercepted by a fleeing Rohirrim, who says the crossing fell and that the river is being overrun by Saruman's armies. "Erkenbrand has drawn off those men he could gather towards his fastness in Helm's Deep." It is at that point Gandalf gives the command this post begins with. But who is this doubter, the one who prefers the words of Wormtongue (Whose very name should instill doubt in anything he says)?
First, let us begin with who is Hama, the one who shows trust in Gandalf? In last week's post we focused our talk on the demand that our companions set aside their weapons. Hama was the guard on duty enforcing that rule. However, when it comes to Gandalf's staff, he waivers.
The guard still hesitated. 'Your staff. Forgive me,
but that too must be left at the doors.'
'Foolishness!' said Gandalf. 'Prudence is one thing,
but discourtesy is another. I am old.
If I may not lean on my stick as I go, then I will sit out here...'
'The staff in the hand of a wizard may be more than a prop for
age,' said Hama. He looked hard at the ash-staff on which
Gandalf leaned. 'Yet in doubt a man of worth will trust to his own
wisdom. I believe you are friends and folk worthy of
honor, who have no evil purpose. You may go in.'
It is Gandalf's staff which allows him to defeat Wormtongue (A servant of Saruman, who had infiltrated the King's court, posing as an advisor) and break the spell that had been placed on Theoden. It's unclear what would have happened if Hama had insisted - but he did not. Hama trusted Gandalf.
And we know Gandalf, so we know Hama is right to trust him. This nameless guard seems foolish. But let's try to see things from his point of view. He is very familiar with Wormtongue, who always has an explanation. Gandalf often acts without explaining. Hama trusted his gut, but this guard needs more than that. Can we blame him? He saw an advisor he trusted completely defeated by this dangerous wizard. A wizard whom, the last time he came by, left on bad terms with his beloved king. Now, suddenly, the king listens to him. Is it so surprising that this guard remains suspicious - as if Theoden has been put under a spell?
It is difficult for this man to put his trust in Gandalf - he would rather take Wormtongue's explanations. He can understand logical explanations, and that's what he wants. He doesn't need to believe in Wormtongue. Wormtongue explains his actions, and these explanations make sense in the guard's head.
Unfortunately, the brain is a notoriously awful tool (and sometimes actively sabotages you). And logic doesn't always work either. There are limits. For example, in the previous chapter, when he is still under Saruman's spell, Theoden says to Gandalf, "You have ever been a herald of woe. Troubles follow you like crows." Since trouble follows Gandalf, Theoden reasons that he must bring it. But this is rather like saying police departments are larger where there is more crime, therefore police departments cause crime. Trouble follows Gandalf because he is faster than it, and he comes before it arrives to give warning. But we can see the logic in wrong conclusion. It is wrong, but it isn't illogical.
Trusting our gut is an important skill in society. We admire those who do it. Trusting your gut, essentially, means doing what feels right. Unfortunately, we have all sorts of cognitive biases that shape our decisions. What feels right may not, in fact, be right.
The two biases I want to highlight here are belief bias and confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the one people are probably more familiar with - it's the tendency of people to get their information from sources that will only confirm their point anyway. This leads to situations where you think you've heard the information from a dozen sources, but in reality they are not so diverse.
For example, a few years ago in Alaska my then-girlfriend's mother was telling me how Obamacare was going to destroy America. I remember her saying, "Everyone I know agrees." I asked her where these friends of hers were getting their information. She said Fox. I told her, "Well, then you really only have one source. Everyone is just repeating that information, but that doesn't make them individual sources.". She admitted that that made sense. I don't think I convinced her to rethink her position, but that wasn't the point. The point was to recognize, if everyone listens to one news source, you don't suddenly have a dozen additional sources. You still only have one.
The internet, of course, makes confirmation bias even easier. You can easily pick and choose your news. I find myself falling into a trap where, when someone posts a study with a conclusion I disagree with, I find a study that backs up my own opinion. "Ah!" I think arrogantly, "Now we have two studies - now we can really debate!" In fact, this doesn't add anything productive to the conversation. I didn't read their study, and nor will they read mine. I will say theirs is wrong and they will say mine is wrong, based only on the conclusion, regardless of the methodology. Which brings us to the next bias...
Belief bias is the bias that causes you to dismiss whole arguments based on their conclusion. If you disagree with the conclusion, you will assume the study is wrong. Do you think religion is the main cause of war throughout history? You will immediately dismiss this academic encyclopedia proving otherwise. Do you think violent video games don't contribute to violence in our culture? You'll want to ignore this compelling argument showing that they do. It doesn't matter what the facts say - our gut (which is to say: our biases) disagrees. This is like someone insisting the Sun revolves around the Earth, because that's what they see literally every day. Science doesn't matter, it goes against their experience (which is what shaped their biases).
If biases are based on experiences, then changing the bias of another person is nearly impossible. If twenty years of living has shown them only untrustworthy Mexicans (or the perception that they are untrustworthy through media such as news and TV and movies), logic and reason will not suddenly show them the way. They will need to have a lot (a lot) of experiences showing them otherwise. Unlike Gandalf in our text, we have no magic staff.
For example, I grew up in a town where I never saw a homeless person. I saw them in the city, but we always avoided them on walks. In school I learned to give them money and pity them, but I also learned (through my own experience as well as media) that they were dirty and dangerous and would probably only buy drugs with that money anyway. Since then, I've learned the situation is way more complicated. But while I intellectually understand things better, when I see homeless people on the street, my gut reaction is to avoid them. Even though I know better.
So what can we do? We can't change the minds of others, and providing them new experiences, while certainly a positive move, takes a lot of time and effort. But we can be more aware of our own biases, and look at them critically. I still get that gut reaction to want to avoid homeless people, but I am less likely to follow it blindly. Is that person sitting on the ground, or pacing on the sidewalk? I can walk by them. Is that person shouting at cars or shadowboxing? Yeah - I'm justified in my desire to avoid them.
We are often Hama, speaking to that nameless 'other', fruitlessly trying to convince them of a gut feeling we have but cannot share. We instinctively trust something, but they do not (and perhaps with logical reasons). "But don't you know you're listening to someone named Wormtongue! Are you blind?" You can wait for them to come around to our point of view, but "maybe you will wait long."
And so, rather than place our hope that others will come around to our way of thinking, we should put the yoke upon ourselves, and look critically at our own biases. Maybe then we can understand their struggle better. After all - how can we ask them to question their own biases if we are not willing to do the same. No doubt they hear some of our beliefs, and hear us only shouting "Wormtongue," and wonder at our blindness.
Trusting our gut is an important skill in society. We admire those who do it. Trusting your gut, essentially, means doing what feels right. Unfortunately, we have all sorts of cognitive biases that shape our decisions. What feels right may not, in fact, be right.
The two biases I want to highlight here are belief bias and confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the one people are probably more familiar with - it's the tendency of people to get their information from sources that will only confirm their point anyway. This leads to situations where you think you've heard the information from a dozen sources, but in reality they are not so diverse.
For example, a few years ago in Alaska my then-girlfriend's mother was telling me how Obamacare was going to destroy America. I remember her saying, "Everyone I know agrees." I asked her where these friends of hers were getting their information. She said Fox. I told her, "Well, then you really only have one source. Everyone is just repeating that information, but that doesn't make them individual sources.". She admitted that that made sense. I don't think I convinced her to rethink her position, but that wasn't the point. The point was to recognize, if everyone listens to one news source, you don't suddenly have a dozen additional sources. You still only have one.
The internet, of course, makes confirmation bias even easier. You can easily pick and choose your news. I find myself falling into a trap where, when someone posts a study with a conclusion I disagree with, I find a study that backs up my own opinion. "Ah!" I think arrogantly, "Now we have two studies - now we can really debate!" In fact, this doesn't add anything productive to the conversation. I didn't read their study, and nor will they read mine. I will say theirs is wrong and they will say mine is wrong, based only on the conclusion, regardless of the methodology. Which brings us to the next bias...
Belief bias is the bias that causes you to dismiss whole arguments based on their conclusion. If you disagree with the conclusion, you will assume the study is wrong. Do you think religion is the main cause of war throughout history? You will immediately dismiss this academic encyclopedia proving otherwise. Do you think violent video games don't contribute to violence in our culture? You'll want to ignore this compelling argument showing that they do. It doesn't matter what the facts say - our gut (which is to say: our biases) disagrees. This is like someone insisting the Sun revolves around the Earth, because that's what they see literally every day. Science doesn't matter, it goes against their experience (which is what shaped their biases).
If biases are based on experiences, then changing the bias of another person is nearly impossible. If twenty years of living has shown them only untrustworthy Mexicans (or the perception that they are untrustworthy through media such as news and TV and movies), logic and reason will not suddenly show them the way. They will need to have a lot (a lot) of experiences showing them otherwise. Unlike Gandalf in our text, we have no magic staff.
For example, I grew up in a town where I never saw a homeless person. I saw them in the city, but we always avoided them on walks. In school I learned to give them money and pity them, but I also learned (through my own experience as well as media) that they were dirty and dangerous and would probably only buy drugs with that money anyway. Since then, I've learned the situation is way more complicated. But while I intellectually understand things better, when I see homeless people on the street, my gut reaction is to avoid them. Even though I know better.
So what can we do? We can't change the minds of others, and providing them new experiences, while certainly a positive move, takes a lot of time and effort. But we can be more aware of our own biases, and look at them critically. I still get that gut reaction to want to avoid homeless people, but I am less likely to follow it blindly. Is that person sitting on the ground, or pacing on the sidewalk? I can walk by them. Is that person shouting at cars or shadowboxing? Yeah - I'm justified in my desire to avoid them.
We are often Hama, speaking to that nameless 'other', fruitlessly trying to convince them of a gut feeling we have but cannot share. We instinctively trust something, but they do not (and perhaps with logical reasons). "But don't you know you're listening to someone named Wormtongue! Are you blind?" You can wait for them to come around to our point of view, but "maybe you will wait long."
And so, rather than place our hope that others will come around to our way of thinking, we should put the yoke upon ourselves, and look critically at our own biases. Maybe then we can understand their struggle better. After all - how can we ask them to question their own biases if we are not willing to do the same. No doubt they hear some of our beliefs, and hear us only shouting "Wormtongue," and wonder at our blindness.
No comments:
Post a Comment