The ability to think logically and critically is not a natural endowment of our mind. Actually, quite the opposite! For years, cognitive and social psychologists have catalogued various errors our mind makes when it perceives and tries to understand the outside world. Already at the level of seemingly ordinary visual perception, various illusions arise, which result from innate mechanisms of perceiving phenomena, shaped in the course of evolution. They are probably responsible for recognising faces, even where there aren't any, e.g. in clouds, a mug of coffee, tree bark. In addition to perceptual delusions, we also commit other, more complex errors in reasoning about ourselves and others. One of such errors is the basic attribution error. It consists in assigning different causes to your own and other people's failures and successes. If we see someone's success, we often attribute it to situational factors or a stroke of luck. However, when we manage to do something well, we think it is more likely the result of our inner qualities: ability, talent, hard work. In the case of failure, the opposite is true: we treat the failure of others as the result of their inability, stupidity (internal factors). We are more likely to explain our own failures with situational factors (lack of sleep, fatigue).
The mind – a cognitive miser
Similarly, our mind, caring for the economy of processing, very easily categorises other people using a clear group membership system. We assign people to groups very quickly. This mechanism also plays an important role in the perception of individuals belonging to a given group. We see people from a given group as very similar to each other, having the same set of properties. Such categorisations often turn into stereotypical opinions and may apply to members of any community: those we know well and often meet (e.g. women, men, people with disabilities, homeless people, professors), but also those we don't know in person and we have never met (e.g. Indians or Inuit). Interestingly, Susan Fiske and her colleagues, and in Poland Bogdan Wojciszke and his team, show that these opinions can be described in two dimensions: warmth and competence. A group assessed as warm is also perceived as not very competent. Such an assessment applies, for example, to housewives or the elderly. A group assessed as very competent is also perceived as not very warm – members of this group are perceived as less nice, friendly and kind. Such an assessment affects, among others, women who hold managerial positions. These assessments are followed by emotions – none of us likes unpleasant people or unpleasant behaviour – from making fun of and mocking (e.g. stupid blondes) to aggressive behaviour (e.g. towards homeless people). While judging itself seems innocent, the emotions and behaviours it evokes may be dangerous and cause acts of aggression.
Stereotypes as a side effect of the economy of the mind
The mind often works like an automaton. The guiding principle is the principle of economy – quickly and efficiently with a fairly good effect. If we act this way – “on autopilot” – we make a lot of mistakes in judging others, but also in assessing our own behaviour. Students also do this. The first step in limiting the effects of automated responses on our behaviour is recognising them. We should help students capture those moments in which they begin to automatically evaluate others, but also themselves. It's very easy to use stereotypes when considering yourself as well: justify a lower grade in maths with the words: “But I am a humanist”, and avoid reading books with the words “I have a scientific mind”. By using the same techniques as in a two-party discussion, we teach students to have discussions with themselves. Ask a student to consider what arguments they have for really being exclusively linguistically talented? What arguments can they find against this assumption? This last task is even more important. Falsification of hypotheses is a rare skill that is very useful in everyday life. The ability to observe one's own mind is an essential intervention technique for many mental difficulties.
Tools in the fight against mental rigidity
Mindfulness will help in the fight against automated responses and stereotypes – thanks to it we will be able to notice what our mind is doing. We should practice observation with students without judging what our mind is doing. We should show that sometimes the mind floods us with unpleasant thoughts, and sometimes thoughts run lazily through our minds. We should observe and register these thoughts, but not judge them. We should identify those that relate to stereotypes. The first step in dealing with them is to notice that such thoughts appear in your head.
To support the falsification of the hypotheses concerning the choice of professions, we should show students examples of people whose career path selection did not seem obvious. Women aren't good programmers? What about Margaret Hamilton, the programmer on the Apollo Programme? We should show that women are present in industries considered to be masculine, are successful and are satisfied with this choice. We should show men who chose professions considered as female. Just how many great hairdressers, chefs (despite the fact that mum still cooks dinner in children's books and dad reads the newspaper), people with disabilities who run their own businesses and live their lives to the fullest, elderly people who are active despite retirement do we have? We should provide arguments to soften the rigid rules of categorisation.
We teach to approach information critically. Fake news is a scourge of modern times, but also a tool of manipulation. We teach students about the accessibility effect, in which our mind makes conclusions based on information that is readily available in memory. However, what we remember well is not always common in reality. Aeroplane accidents are well remembered, so people are often afraid to fly. Statistics say, however, that driving is more dangerous. The Nobel laureates Kahnemann and Tversky in the book “Thinking, Fast and Slow” provide a great deal of knowledge about these types of mental mechanisms.
Statistical data can be a helpful source for truly learning about reality. Their meaning in understanding the world is shown in an interesting way by prof. Hans Rosling in the book “Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think”. In this fascinating reading, you can find a number of examples on how we use outdated knowledge and what it means in real life for understanding the world.
We should teach students to have discussions with their own minds: carefully observe the thoughts that come to their mind, confront them with hard data, and look for arguments that undermine their meaning. All of these methods will help students better understand the world and themselves.