Delusion

6/7/2016

How do you spot, address and avoid falling into the delusion trap?

The problem with being deluded is that, when we’re in a deluded state, we don’t know we’re deluded. The word delusion comes from the same Latin root as deceived. If we knew we were being deceived when we are being deceived, we wouldn’t believe that which deceives us. So delusion can be something about being deceived and about deceiving ourselves too. It carries negative connotations of being firmly convinced of something that doesn’t correspond with reality or truth.

The recent UK referendum on EU membership drew this phenomenon into sharp focus. After the results were announced, people on both sides of the debate commented that they were completely bemused that people on the other side had voted differently. Given that, in each side’s view, the ‘correct’ decision was clear, unambiguous and self-evident, they concluded that the most plausible explanation for the difference was that people on the other side had somehow been deceived.

This begs interesting questions about who was deluded in making such claims and how we could know for sure what the reality and truth were in order to decide. Is there a definitive, unequivocal truth to be unearthed in such circumstances? Or is what appears to us as truth a reflection of how we construe complex and ambiguous ‘facts’ psychologically and culturally to create a coherent narrative that resonates with our beliefs and feelings and provides a sense of meaning for us?

There are two important signals I have found it useful to look out for. If a person states an opinion as fact, I will challenge and invite them to personalise it: e.g. ‘This meeting is boring’ to, ‘I’m feeling bored in this meeting.’ If a person uses a word or phrase like, ‘Clearly’ or, ‘Obviously’, I will challenge them to reframe and personalise it too: e.g. ‘Clearly’ to, ‘It seems clear to me that’. This simple, practical technique can create a very significant shift in awareness, perspective – and choice.

45 Comments

Jan Moore

13/7/2016 01:08:19 pm

Do we really know why people voted the way they did? I'm an English woman living in the USA so I've been watching this from a distance. The media seems to have been pushing the view that the Brexit vote was purely based on immigration but this is a gross oversimplification. The main stream media is responsible for much of the deception and distortion of the truth that goes on in Britain and the US and unfortunately many politicians present their argument to support their own agenda. This makes it almost impossible for people to make informed decisions based on facts. When are awake to the global agenda you are less likely to be deluded because you question everything.

Nick Wright

13/7/2016 01:17:40 pm

Hi Jan and thanks for the note. Yes, the media plays a big role in shaping attitudes and beliefs, often based on a particular angle on an issue or story that appears more interested in creating drama than revealing 'truth'. I've been surprised to hear so many people in the UK comment that those who voted differently to themselves, 'Clearly had no idea what they were voting for.' It would open a very different conversation if we were to pause and ask, 'I wonder what convinced person X to vote so differently to me?' The challenge is, as you say, to be as awake as we can be to different truth claims and the assumptions and agendas that may lay hidden behind them. Not easy! I, like you, try to keep a global agenda in view because I'm aware that changing the frame of reference can change completely what sense we make of that which we see in front of us. All the best. Nick

Barry Jackson

14/7/2016 09:58:56 am

What a fascinating question. Thank you so much for making us think about it. My take on this is a little different. I'm not sure you can ever be certain that you're not deluded but I do think you can tell when you're vulnerable to being deceived (or to self-deception). It's natural to believe you're right, but the key question to ask yourself is, "Am I open to information that might lead me to change my opinion?" If the answer is "yes," you are a lot more objective than most. The next thing you need to do is to put that answer to the test with another question: "When was the last time I changed my mind about something and what prompted me to do so?" You may have answered "yes" to the first question but if you can't think of an example where you actually did so, you are definitely deluding yourself. "

14/7/2016 10:08:37 am

Many thanks, Barry. I think those are great questions! It can also be useful to ask e.g. 'What am I not noticing?', 'Who or what is influencing what I am noticing and how I am feeling about this?', 'What deeply-held beliefs, values, interests, hopes or concerns is this tapping into for me?', 'What might somebody completely different to me (or in a completely different situation to me) be paying attention to in this?' So much depends on our willingness to entertain the possibility that we may be deceived or deluding ourselves - at least at some points - without even knowing it. All the best. Nick

Allison Dolan

14/7/2016 01:24:39 pm

Neuroscience can add some very interesting perspectives to this discussion. At times, the delusion is absolutely impervious to reality.

14/7/2016 01:25:39 pm

Thanks Allison. I'm very curious - how can/does neuroscience show that? All the best. Nick

Robert Dallmann

14/7/2016 01:37:31 pm

LOVE TRUTH!

2 Thessalonians 2:10-12

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; BECAUSE THEY RECEIVED NOT THE LOVE OF THE TRUTH, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause GOD SHALL SEND them STRONG DELUSION, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

14/7/2016 01:56:02 pm

Hi Robert - and YES to love Truth! I guess the challenge often lays in how to discern 'truth' in complex situations, especially where we can become deceived by our own blind spots, psychological defence mechanisms, cultural assumptions etc.

I remember once sitting in a seminar by Peter Cotterell, then Principal of London Bible College. He posed the question: 'Which of you are convinced that, when you read the Bible, you have absolute 100% correct understanding of what God is saying at every point through it?' Nobody put their hands up.

Peter posed his next question: 'Given the possibility that you may have less than 100% correct understanding, how many of you know where the specific faults in your theology lay? Where have you got it wrong?' Again, no hands.

Peter continued: 'If we knew where we were were wrong, we would take steps to address it. Given that we don't know where we may be wrong: this calls for a great deal of humility'.

So - yes to a commitment to the Truth who is, himself, Christ. Yes to an openness to the Spirit who promises to lead us into truth. Yes too to the possibility that, at points where I feel most convinced, I may yet be partly or wholly wrong.

All the best. Nick

14/7/2016 03:04:34 pm

I would ask a more basic and fundamental question

* How many of you believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God?

Hopefully, most Christians would agree to this (sadly, many who do not).

Once that is established, then we must place ourselves in the position of...

"Every time I disagree with the Bible... I AM WRONG."

This mindset is required to be developed in order to avoid the self-delusion you noted. Far too often we eisegetically conform the Bible to our own doctrines as opposed to exegetically conforming to the Word of God.

Lastly, once the SUPREME AUTHORITY of the Scriptures is established... we MUST believe that God WANTS us to possess TRUTH!

John 16:13 - "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth..."

It is an unbiblical, post-modern idea that we CANNOT really know TRUTH. We have the Bible (absolute truth) and we have the Spirit of Truth... we CAN know TRUTH... and we CAN be CORRECTED when we are wrong.

I have absolute confidence in the TRUTH I understand... while at the same time, KNOWING that if I am wrong... God WILL correct me (if I love the TRUTH).

Carol Bleyle

14/7/2016 02:58:07 pm

Nick, this is a great topic to chew on. Your strategy of personalizing blanket statements makes tons of sense. And in larger issues, such as with the UK's referendum, I think it makes sense to acknowledge that even when facts are in evidence, different people will have different priorities which make those facts more or less relevant to a coming decision.

14/7/2016 03:02:19 pm

Thanks Carol. I think it's also true that what we perceive as 'facts' are often representations of how a particular set of data, narrative or experiences can be selected and construed. All the best. Nick

Aramide Akisanya

14/7/2016 04:57:10 pm

Nick, I believe that different things matter to different people based on background, social status and current needs. Cases of delusion do not actually exist as an ideology is "truth" to the believer. Whoever wants to sell an idea that he/she believes is superior to that of others must first be able to empathize and also seek to understand the mindset of those with opposing views.

14/7/2016 05:04:47 pm

Hi Aramide and thanks for the note. Yes, I believe that our background, social status, current needs etc. act, in effect, as filters for what we perceive and what sense we make of it. I think you pose an interesting challenge: 'cases of delusion do not actually exist as an ideology is 'truth' to the believer.' It best interesting questions about the nature of reality and truth and what can be known. If a person (or group) is unwilling and unable to see outside of its own viewpoint and, what's more, is blind to clear evidence that contradicts it, would you agree that could be conceived of as delusion? I agree that empathy is more likely to enable us to see different perspectives and create the relational conditions for working with people and groups with different views. All the best. Nick

14/7/2016 08:01:56 pm

I always enjoy reading your articles Nick, I learn so much. I see an opportunity for OD practitioners here, in which individuals/groups can be guided to identify their blind spots, and come to an appreciation of the the fact that there are different "truths" driven by several factors. Ultimately what matters is the health and performance of the organization rather than individual/group interests. When all are willing to put their differences aside and work together to build the organization, there are immense benefits to be derived by everyone on the long run.

14/7/2016 08:06:38 pm

Many thanks, Aramide. I really enjoy and appreciate your insightful responses too. :) Yes, there can be very stimulating and useful conversations between OD practitioners that can help share ideas, surface assumptions, shift paradigms etc. For example, you could open a very interesting inquiry around your statement: 'Ultimately what matters is the health and performance of the organization rather than individual/group interests.' It begs so many interesting and potentially revolutionary questions that could be explored further. All the best. Nick

Melissa Lewis

14/7/2016 05:05:58 pm

Take your own thinking, draw a line, understand the thinking of the other side, draw a line, and figure out how to connect the two lines to make a circle.

14/7/2016 05:07:12 pm

Hi Melissa. I really like the sound of that approach. It reminds me of managing polarities. Do you have an example you could share to illustrate what it could look like in practice? All the best. Nick

Dave Smith

14/7/2016 05:08:12 pm

People speak from one of three positions:
- fact
- feeling
- opinion

You can argue against fact, because there needs to be cold, hard evidence to back it up.

Feeling can't be dismissed - if someone feels cold, then they feel cold: telling them how warm it is or how others don't feel the cold doesn't change what they feel.

Opinion is voiced feelings, assumptions, theories; the danger is when it is presented as fact and thus interpreted as truth, when it's simply supposition and people then make decisions based on flawed information.

Like you, I challenge facts if I hear signs they may be presented as opinions, simply to clarify if I am hearing definite truth or something lacking supporting evidence.

14/7/2016 05:12:34 pm

Thanks Dave. I think another useful approach can be curiosity: 'How is it that I believe and feel what and how I do?', 'How it is that others believe and feel so differently?' and to be willing to entertain the idea that I may well be blind to something that others are able to see. All the best. Nick

14/7/2016 05:17:50 pm

In terms of Brexit:
- there has been some harsh fallout which has been blamed on the way people voted. The vote didn't cause share prices to tumble: the *reaction* to the vote did. Voters simply gave a show of hands; interpretation and unpredicted effects cannot be attributed to the voters.
- delusions and half-truths exist on both sides. The figure of £350M bandied about simply mentioned what went into the EU, nothing was said about what came back.
- Brexiters concentrated on the benefits of leaving and overlooked the benefits of staying; Remainers spread doom about what benefits would be lost and the cost of extrication but couldn't acknowledge what freedom UK would enjoy through separation. It's as though both sides were blinkered from the other.
- the "free trade" idea is a fallacy: whilst UK may not be tied to EU law, UK will - nonetheless - be trading with EU countries that may have to conform.
- democracy - which some countries lack - gave us the freedom to vote.

14/7/2016 05:24:42 pm

Thanks for sharing such interesting perspectives on Brexit, Dave. I think you have illustrated well how people can become so convinced by their own perspective - especially when it taps into deeply-held beliefs, values, hopes, fears etc - that it can blind them to the possibility of seeing or appreciating any value in a different perspective. On a lighter note, you may enjoy this short video I saw today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daB7np-RtOM :) All the best. Nick

14/7/2016 07:23:28 pm

Hahaha - great! I also followed two further links from there, one possibly considered NSFW:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNsxCU0glHw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r5P1z4OWWo

Fabio Polese

14/7/2016 07:26:35 pm

There are the facts and there are our ideas/believes about the facts. mediating between believes is not a winning strategy as they may be rooted so deep that challenging them may be perceived as a challenge to the person's self. fact, can however be dealt with. what I like doing is collecting as much relevant information as possible and present it to both parties... when they challenge it, I invite them to show me what they base their challenge on.
in the Brexit case, from afar, it seemed as if very little facts where presented and discussed and in lieu, emotions were used to feel the (many) blanks. result? disbelief and not an inch closer to a more unified population.

14/7/2016 07:44:12 pm

Thanks for sharing such interesting insights, Fabio. I think you are right that, if we challenge fundamental beliefs it can evoke all kinds of defensive routines. Collecting and presenting relevant information can be useful in attempt to bring objectivity but it presents its own challenges too since 'relevant' depends on perspective and frame of reference.

The same data or information can be construed in many different ways (as it was by politicians, media, 'experts', campaign groups etc. during the UK EU referendum). Each way points to its own conclusions. We often filter and construe the information according to how far it coincides with our pre-existing beliefs, values, assumptions, interests, passions etc.

Are you familiar with Kenneth Gergen's work on social constructionism? I find his insights fascinating and useful. Here's an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AsKFFX9Ib0 (see from 3mins 20 secs onwards). It challenges the notion of objective facts and information and focuses instead on how what we see as 'objective' is actually socially constructed.

Let me know what you think? All the best. Nick

Alubba Fenix

14/7/2016 07:46:26 pm

Beliefs should be firmly felt, but, loosely held. The key is to remain open to new information that would disprove your beliefs. I actually get excited when a person asks a question or offers new information that might cause a paradigm shift. Also, important to understand that absolute knowledge is unattainable, all we can obtain is practical knowledge that allows us to have an effect in the world. So the key question with belief is how does it enable myself or my client to have an effect in the world. Does it serve the desired Outcome, or does it hinder it. If it serves keep it, if not let it go. And always acknowledge that in an infinite universe, there will always be a belief that serves you better. We need to learn to dance at the intersection of knowledge and ignorance.

14/7/2016 07:52:49 pm

Hi Alubba and thanks for sharing such interesting perspectives and ideas. I love your expression: 'we need to learn to dance at the intersection of knowledge and ignorance'. I too tend to feel excited when I experience a new insight or paradigm shift. It feels like a profound discovery. There are times, however, when I can feel less open to new or alternative ideas, especially if they fundamentally clash with beliefs and values that are precious to me. In those times, it is much harder to consider the possibilities in the other. So perhaps the challenge is to hold strongly to our beliefs and convictions, yet with a spirit of humility that helps prevent us becoming hard, dogmatic and closed. All the best. Nick

Victor Leon Ades

14/7/2016 08:08:03 pm

You are right Nick. Like the Quakers say we only carry a small piece of the whole truth. Some people take their beliefs as the real one and only true option and are not open to other´s . By doing so they get disapointed and deny the results not to feel deluded. This is so common in politics and ideologies for example...

14/7/2016 08:12:04 pm

Thanks Victor. I may be right, in which case we are both right. I may also be wrong, in which case we are both wrong. Well, at least on this point! ;) I think your point about denial as a means by which to avoid a sense of delusion is very important. A common example in political circles is the dictator who appoints people who are only willing to tell him or her what he or she wants to hear. The opinions of others only serve to reinforce rather than challenge or illuminate the areas in which the dictator may be deluded. I believe the same phenomenon and dynamic can emerge in all kinds of power relationships. All the best. Nick

Lani Refiti

15/7/2016 08:57:11 am

It's another one of these constructs that is subjective in nature and is there such a thing as unequivocal truth? There is a verse from the Rig Veda "Truth is one..but the wise call it by many names" or essentially the plurality of truth. Going back to your question on how leaders know they're deluded? My take is support & being open to diversity. Surround yourself good people with diverse viewpoints and be open to the divergent ideas.

15/7/2016 09:20:53 am

Hi Lani and thanks for the note. Yes, the idea of delusion as, in some sense, commitment to a belief or stance that is 'out of touch with reality' assumes a definitive reality or truth that is and can be known. That opens up a deeper, wider and fascinating conversation! :) In a leadership context, I think the Arbinger Institute's 'Leadership & Self-Deception' provides an interesting and useful insight into delusion by taking a more psychological than philosophical approach. Are you familiar with it? All the best. Nick

Míriam Silva

15/7/2016 02:21:49 pm

I believe that we as coaches need to develop but every day the significant ability to find the best words to reformulate thoughts and consequently the consciousness of our customers about something. I notice in this sense that the deepening of NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) makes develop more and more this ability. What you presented in this discussion was in fact the practice of NLP.

15/7/2016 03:59:55 pm

Thanks Miriam. Yes, there are certainly insights in NLP that can be useful, particularly mental maps: 'the map is not the territory' etc. All the best. Nick

Amy Murphy

15/7/2016 03:48:15 pm

Hey Nick - I like your practical reframing as quick "learns" (opposed to "wins") when working with clients. It starts to get people used to taking ownership of their own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, and makes room for others to comment an opposing feeling. I often bring in Argyris' Ladder of Inference to remind that everyone has a different pool of data they are selecting from and to stay open to other's pools!

15/7/2016 04:02:54 pm

Thanks Amy. Yes, Argyris' Ladder of Inference can be a useful tool for raising awareness of how assumptions are created and sustained as well as how they impact on perception, decision-making etc. All the best. Nick

E.G.Sebastian (CPC)

15/7/2016 08:48:59 pm

My brain spit out a reply instantly: "We are all 'deluded' - especially if you believe you are not..." :) - but you replied to the chatter in my head, right with your first statement "The problem with being deluded is that, when we’re in a deluded state, we don’t know we’re deluded. "

Your "practical technique" while it might work for you - and could work for many others, we have to realize that the world is full of fanatics who believe they have the "truth," and they'll go through great length to defend "reality" (their reality)...

I've learned years ago to just listen and let it be... I can't change everyone... As the great Buddha said "...to the wise man, they [other people] are nothing but straws..." --- But, yes, in coaching we do have to address it (delusions) - in fact it's crucial to address them - and that's where your technique can create awareness in opening the eyes of the client...

15/7/2016 08:56:28 pm

Hi E.G. and thanks for the thoughtful reflections. Your comment about fanatics reminds me of the old expression, 'There are none so blind as those that won't see.'

I think there's a fundamental difference between (a) being deluded, being aware of that possibility and wanting to broaden our perspective and (b) being deluded, being aware - or unaware - of that possibility and having no interest whatsoever in any challenge to our beliefs or stance.

All the best. Nick

Yolanda Gray

15/7/2016 08:57:10 pm

To some extent, E.G. Sebastian, what you said is true--we are all deluded. We have our own bias, beliefs, opinions--educated or not. One of the most powerful areas of life change is when I had a shift in thought or perspective. When I saw that the world was not as I saw it, but how I experienced it--wow, everything got different. This is especially important when dealing with addictions-which has been called the disease of perspective. It keeps addicts in delusion.

As for all the political craziness that is happening out there--my perspective--I choose not to engage in who is right and wrong, although I of course, believe in my views haha. But, they are subject to change and they have over the years.

I only know how to help others in my own world or sphere of influence. It always involves having them look at what they believe and why.

Thank you!

Cath Norris, MA, BA, Dip Couns

17/7/2016 10:39:09 am

Deluded implies seeing only what we choose to see. As a coach I pay attention to and name the story and signals which evidence a contradiction between a clients constructed perception and their secondary or marginalised experiences. Evidencing and exploring both aspects helps clients to identify and differentiate between their constructs, what these are based on and how they conflict with their marginalised needs and experiences. I trust and follow their signals, help to validate and unfold these and what we discover is a more authentic self.

17/7/2016 10:42:16 am

Hi Cath. I LOVE the way you expressed that: 'I pay attention to and name the story and signals which evidence a contradiction between a clients constructed perception and their secondary or marginalised experiences.' Do you have an example from experience that you could share to show what that could look like in practice? Thanks and all the best. Nick

17/7/2016 11:39:44 am

It's lovely to be so warmly appreciated, thanks Nick :))

A client is relating to anxiety as unhelpful. I ask them to describe strongest symptom which is "a hand grabbing and squeezing my heart, stopping me in my tracks". I ask what the symptom is trying to communicate.
"It stops me from continuing to be the way I've been because it is not good for me. It wants me to stop".
We explore the way of being which is being challenged. It's an old behaviour which once wisely served her well but now leaves her feeling hollow and bereft.
The symptom is reframed as an ally

Two constructs are updated, symptoms as unhelpful intrusions and an old out dated way of being.

17/7/2016 11:43:45 am

You are very welcome, Cath. :) Thanks for sharing such a great practical example from personal experience. All the best. Nick

Linda Szetoo

19/7/2016 12:10:26 pm

This is a good post. What is interesting is that people has been taught a certain value, beliefs, etc since they were a child. Challenging people to see that their values may be from the past and may not be from themselves, gives them a lot to chew on and digest. This also let the people realize they have choices to continue the same thinking or to change for something else that aligns with them.

19/7/2016 12:14:11 pm

Hi Linda and thanks for the note. Yes, we certainly inherit beliefs and values from parents, school, peers, media etc. Knowing what values are genuinely our own - if that is even possible - is a profound challenge. You may find this related short piece interesting? http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/whose-thoughts-am-i-thinking Let me know what you think? All the best. Nick

Naomi Suzane

20/7/2016 02:10:24 pm

To build on the great comments made so far:
I have three people in my circle to whom i turn for a "reality check" . Their habit of answering my questions with honest, direct feedback and of holding me accountable to my previous promises enable me to check my percetions against the impact I make on others. Thats' really added to my perspective through the years.

20/7/2016 02:12:22 pm

Hi Naomi and thanks for the note. It sounds like you take personal accountability and reality-checking very seriously. You may find this related short piece interesting? http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/integrity Let me know if that resonates with you. All the best. Nick

Delusion

Leave a Reply.

Nick Wright

Archives

Categories

Delusion

Leave a Reply.

​Nick Wright

​Archives

Categories

Nick Wright

Archives