a permission slip to defy data
part of the Parenting and Epistemology series
Pay attention to evidence. Measure it against what matters. You put that data to use in service to a mission and a way of being that you believe in. The data itself cannot be that mission or way of being. You ask too much of it and too little of yourself.
Dr. Becky Kennedy, author of Good Inside and this TED talk, reckons with this in one chapter. She recounts a colleague or parent who asks her why in the world she wouldn’t use a given parenting tactic if there’s evidence, documented in a sound study in a reputable journal, that that tactic works. The study shows a high rate of behavior change from kids whose parents use the tactic.
Dr. Becky’s take is bracing in its realism. She says, “there’s evidence and then there’s what matters.” If you can somehow get kids to do a thing you want them to do under the short-term conditions of a certain lab study, that’s interesting. But it may not be useful. Did the move made in the study rely on coercion, on ignorance, on saying things to kids that aren’t true (about themselves or about the world). In other words - did it betray some deeper story or principle that is fundamental in your parenting? If any of these is so, Dr. Becky will not be applying this move.
Hearing her say this made me realize I’ve sat in a muddled place in my leadership between empirical and intuitive thinking and doing. Dr. Becky seems to toggle between them and does so in a principled way.
Maybe what I have is actually a layer cake, with substrates of empiricism and intuition sitting on top of (and ideally) sweetening each other.
There’s pragmatism (do what works) or utilitarianism and there’s deontology (do what’s right, no matter what). With deontology, there are principles that can’t be fooled with or alloyed even if the measurable near term gains are quite good.
When I’m leading, I like to think of myself as a rugged pragmatist. The truth is there is quite a bit of deontology under that pragmatism. There are certain things I believe to be true about other people and how we treat each other that a countervailing study would not dislodge.
When I’m coaching, underneath my personal deontology is another layer of pragmatism. The principles we’re acting on at work - I suggest people choose the ones that are most useful for the work they do. The hard principles are chosen and carried forward because they net better results for everyone in the little civilization of the household (or the team).
Which principles those are for you and your people, among all the honorable, wholesome principles one might choose from, differ. You need not say the other principles are false or worthless. It may simply be that they are not the ones that matter most for the particular kind of thing you want to achieve and the particular kind of person you want to become as you achieve it.
A drag racing team is different from a day care is different from a venture philanthropy firm is different from a state legislative office. They can all operate morally and effectively. The dogmas that drive and underpin their choices may differ, arguably will.
It may be a fool’s errand to rid yourself entirely of those dogmas. They’re lurking somewhere, animating your choices. Better to identify them, then choose those among them that amplify your contribution to the world.
-Eric
