Noise versus Bias
I wish to introduce a fourth perspective on differences to be found in the domain of intentions. This perspective comes from a book recently published by Daniel Kahneman—the Noble-prize winning behavioral economist who has served as an important guide throughout this series of essays on relationship being sustained despite differences. Daniel Kahneman and his two colleagues, Olivier Sibony and Cass Sustein (2021) write about the distinction between bias and noise. This distinction is important to make when considering the impact of differing viewpoints regarding intentions. It seems that these differences might be a good thing!!
Kahneman and his colleagues begin with a story about assessing the success of someone shooting arrows into a target. One desirable outcome would be for all the arrows to hit the target in the same area. When this occurs, we can applaud the consistency of the archer. Another outcome would be for the arrows to arrive all over the target. Typically, we devalue this outcome. The archer has not been consistent in directing arrows toward the target.
Along with his co-authors Kahneman suggests that these assessments of success should be questioned. The first outcome indicates only that there is consistency—not that the arrows have arrived at or near the bullseye. The arrows could cluster at some point at quite a distance from the bullseye. This placement would reveal a BIAS. Conversely, arrows arriving at many places on the target reveal NOISE. Our authors suggest that these are quite different flaws in the performance of the archer—and that both Noise and Bias are to be found frequently in the judgements made by most of us.
When there are very few differences in the intentions being embraced by all members of an organization, community or nation then there is the potential of destructive Bias. We all want to go to war—and later find that warfare came at a great cost. All of us agree that this new community center is a good thing—after all who could ever disagree with helping out “old people.’ Yet, the center is built and no one show up. A little “Noise” might have helped—disagreements regarding engagement in a war or building a new center might have been of great benefit.
When differences of opinion regarding what is important are valued then constructive dialogue can take place. If someone finds safety in being a dissenter, then everyone can feel safe in articulating their own opinions. J.S. Bach’s sons could tell their Dad that it is time to shift attention to the middle-class patron rather than to the rich and religious patrons (Bergquist, 2023a). While Papa Bach might have held on to his own desire to serve the “old” population, he could (like Wallace Davenport in New Orleans) have welcomed his sons’ “new Priorities”. They could, in turn, continue to respect, champion and preserve their own father’s work. When Noise is tolerated then music can emerge in a new form and with a new audience.
