Group Think

You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. ~Psalm 32:5

Birders joke about evidence for a positive identification being nothing more than multiple birders agreeing on it. Granted, that is technically part of the process, but only when it is answering objections to rule out other species. It works when there is a skeptic in the group. It fails when wishful thinking infects the entire group. In practice, it is much more subtle, much more gray than black and white.

On Monday, a group of us went to a location with the specific intention of finding the reported Little Gull. Given the similarity to the uncommon, but expected Bonaparte’s Gull, the one bird that was just enough different to warrant close examination quickly became a candidate. We spent a good deal of time on this particular bird, trying to find the features that would confirm our hopes. When it stretched a wing, showing dark underneath, that sealed the deal for us. Truth be told, it was more “OK, I guess that’s our bird” more than a slam dunk. Still, it went on our list as Little Gull...until the proper amount of doubt sneaked in after we got home. Thankfully, we had photos, so closer examination showed a lack of field marks we should have looked for, and actually led to identification as the more likely Laughing Gull.

At least it wasn’t a mushroom or something else toxic, like far too much public conversation these days. Silos and confirmation bias will always lead us to less accurate and less desirable conclusions. Granted, part of the reason for the exaggerated divisiveness we see has to do with not agreeing on process, details, and even the facts. Still, there is common ground, or at least principles that we might strive to share. The current controversy in women’s boxing is an example of how the louder voices in a group you feel loyalty to can lead to unethical decisions by using some moral centers over others. A belief that only two genders should be recognized is an example of what moral foundation theory would call the sanctity/degradation moral center. That position then influences the decision about fairness (another moral center) and who is being harmed (another moral center). Accusing a person raised as a woman and who has always identified as a woman, of cheating because she has a condition that gives her some physical aspects of being male is attributing motives to her without evidence, unfairly harms her, the person accused of being unfair and harmful.

Moral decision making is not as simple as we might like. We need to remember that anytime answers are not easy, our minds naturally fill in the blanks with simple stories that we want to believe. That is how magic works. We see what looks like a rabbit coming from an empty hat and fill in the gaps from there. We are all susceptible to being sheep, so from time to time we should take stock of what sheepfold we are in and how the shepherd is.

Prayer: Good Shepherd, once again we need to be forced to lie down and share a table with those we consider enemies. Amen.