Judging the Elephant in the Room

The whole is always greater than the sum of its parts

Photo by James Hammond

“When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself.”

— Wayne Dyer

Once upon a time in a distant land, a small village lay along a bustling trade route. Every day, five blind men gathered in the town square, eagerly listening as travelling merchants shared stories of faraway lands and strange creatures they had encountered.

One of the animals that particularly interested these men was the magnificent elephant. They were told it was a gigantic beast too strange to describe; in fact, there was nothing like it. The men talked constantly about what the elephant might look like.

One day, a group of merchants was leading a troop of elephants to a distant market, loaded with goods for sale. Excited by the rare opportunity, the men eagerly lined up, eager to finally touch and interact with these majestic creatures.

The first man stepped toward the elephant but was quickly stopped when he accidentally brushed against its side. He exclaimed, “What a sturdy beast! It’s like a giant wall!” The second man moved closer, reaching out to touch one of the elephant’s tusks. He said confidently, “Surely you don’t think this animal is flat like a wall." Quite the opposite; it’s shaped like a giant spear!” The third man approached cautiously, grabbing the elephant’s trunk. Confused, he remarked, “This must be a giant snake!” and quickly jumped back in surprise.

The fourth man placed his arms around the elephant’s leg and exclaimed, “Crazy, all of you! This animal is just like a tree.” Finally, the last man stepped forward and grabbed the elephant’s tail, declaring, “You’re all fools! This beast is clearly shaped like a rope!”

The merchants and their elephants continued on their journey as the men sat together at their usual meeting spot, arguing late into the day. The entire town could hear their voices as they hurled insults at each other, each convinced of their own interpretations, convinced that the others were wrong.

This story is based on an old parable called the Blind Men and the Elephant, a famous ancient Indian story that illustrates the limitations of individuals’ partial and biased views and the dangers of judging something by its parts rather than the whole.

The moral of the story is that if the men had cooperated, restrained their egos, and collaborated rather than trying to prove their own convictions, they would have understood that an Elephant is the sum of its parts.

It’s a parable that puts our human condition, the craving for certainty and the resulting reductionism, along with dogmatism, on display, as we so commonly see in others. From an inner perspective, it can be easily observed by those who are courageous enough to look for it. We will then realize how our fallacies can become our staunch beliefs, to our own peril.

Logical fallacies, or the flawed patterns of reasoning, come in many forms. For example, from time to time, you may have used some of these informal fallacies to win an argument and prove your opinion is the right one.

- Ad hominem: attacking a person’s character rather than addressing the argument

- Red herring: introducing an unrelated point in an argument to shift the conversation

- Straw man: exaggerating or simplifying your opponent’s argument to make it easier for you to win

And a couple of my favourites:

- False dilemma: presenting a situation with only two solutions when there may be more alternatives

- Slippery slope: Arguing that a minor initial reaction will inevitably trigger a chain of unfortunate events.

The slippery slope reminds me of an old English folk tale called “Chicken Little,” in which a young chicken named Henny Penny is walking in a forest when an acorn falls from the trees. She panics and exclaims, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!” I have to admit, on occasion, I have been a Henny Penny while trying to prove my point.

If we look closely, many, if not most, of the problems we face in our society stem from fallacious judgments. Judgement is the innate instinct we all possess for good reason, since we need to know whether what lies ahead on the path is a snake or a stick, whether there is a threat, or whether it’s safe. And because the world is inherently dangerous, it might be wise to assume it’s a snake or pay the consequences for poor judgement.

When judgment is closed, stiff, and harsh, it manifests as racism, bigotry, and, at a minimum, prejudice. All the beliefs and resulting feelings that divide us, and that also give us a false sense of certainty, rest on a flawed foundation of fallacies and irrational reasoning.

Even scientists, who use the scientific method, which was designed to eliminate pre-judgment and bias, have always had their share of dogmatism, clinging to certain paradigms even when new evidence refutes them. They exercise control over their concepts, not allowing new ideas in, much like we have seen with religions over the centuries.

Judgements are the elephant in the room that many of us overlook, either because we share the same blind spots or because we avoid pointing them out, since doing so will almost certainly bring on tension. Not only the judgements of others, but more importantly, our own. Judgements need to be challenged [respectfully] so that, as individuals and as a people, we can build more and fight less.

We can start addressing this necessary yet overused character trait by acknowledging that most things are not simple and that only the simple-minded would believe otherwise. It’s the same people who fight tooth and nail to hold onto their beliefs, even if it means eliminating everything that opposes them. This might sound judgmental, because it is. As you can see, I’m human and working through my character flaw in real time, proving that awareness and acknowledgment will lead us away from hubris and into a state of humility that will keep us small enough to see the big picture.

But we can go even further, to the root of the problem. Why do we judge when it isn’t necessary, when no real threat exists, when we stereotype groups of people, convict others of being wrong before hearing the evidence, and deem who is good and who is bad, who is right and who is wrong?

Because it makes us feel something rather than nothing.

This is why gossip can be more appealing than gathering facts, which are often bland and boring, sort of like dry toast, a not-so-well-known idiom for a situation or person that is dull and unconvincing, a lost wanderer in the grey zone who can’t seem to pick between black or white. That’s why we won’t seriously consider the other’s point of view, since that would take all the flavour out of our perspective, leaving us with the feeling of dry toast…ugh.

When we judge, or hear others voice their judgments, we instinctively feel something. Since we’re feeling something, we feel alive and have a sense of meaning in our lives. We know what we think about something and how we feel about it, and we’re willing to double down if we’re challenged. If we have to, to use an idiom you might be familiar with, “we’ll die on a hill” by heading to the high ground, where we can protect our ideologies by looking down at others.

When facts are communicated without emotion, rationally and cautiously, where is the tension, fear, animosity, grievance, hatred, blame, envy, jealousy, and, of course, the one that gets a reaction out of me if I’m not mentally prepared for it… shame?

These are the movers and shakers that will get us feeling again, and when they’re absent, you might feel like something is missing.

I must admit, exercising righteousness feels good. It seems to carry a lot of energy, illusory as it may be, allowing me to narrow my focus to one subject: typically, the person, idea, place, or thing I am tearing down. For that moment, I will feel empowered.

Being right is highly attractive to the Ego, since it adds another block to the egoic structure, reinforces our sense of self, strengthens our convictions, and moves us closer to our tribe of like-minded believers.

Heck, I enjoy being self-absorbed, caught in an escalating tirade fueled by uprightness, putting my virtue on display and reinforcing the illusion that I know what I’m talking about and can convince others of the same. Who doesn’t love believing their own bull-shit?

Gossip, conspiracies and non-factual opinions that can’t be verified as true or false are cheap; they cost us nothing but some hot air and an audience of one or more. Investing time and energy in researching facts and taking time to form your own opinion after careful consideration of information from different sources requires effort and, therefore, a stake in the outcome.

The alternative is nothing but intellectual laziness, or, to be less judgmental, a lack of motivation, time, and focus to do the work, since many are working two jobs just to keep a roof over their heads, making them susceptible to rumours, gossip, and the nonsensical.

On a side note, this is why I predict AI will not have the resounding impact on enhancing our society that many expect, at least not for the general population. We’re assuming that because AI, or large language models (LLMs), will be far more intelligent and logical than humans, the everyday user will get most of their information from it and base most of their decisions on it.

Fact-checking others’ claims isn’t fun; it takes work, albeit a heck of a lot easier thanks to LLMs, but it takes the fun or the feeling out of the subject. Nobody’s going to get worked up about an answer from ChatGPT, which has been programmed, although not perfectly, to give an unbiased, unopinionated answer to any questions you give it. What many will perceive as a whole lot of dry toast.

Paradoxically, even though we’re in the age of knowledge, where we now have more information than all previous generations, received within milliseconds on a device that fits in our hand, many still prefer to get their information from internet influencers who talk a good talk, but many of whom base their whole shtick on misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, and, for those with a burning desire for fame — straight-up lies.

The rage baiters and grifters can find instant success on social media by manipulating our emotions, eliciting a strong response in one direction or the other. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book… and it still works, since we still have the same emotional framework that our distant ancestors had — one built to react.

All the while, knowledge is at the forefront, but wisdom remains hidden, including, unfortunately, from many who lead societies, who lack wisdom and use information as a weapon of control by manipulating or withholding it from their populations.

Wisdom is to take what we know and, through experience, apply it appropriately to break the pattern of repeating that which doesn’t work. If this is the goal, we would need to interrogate our judgments and belief. Although this can be an arduous and deeply uncomfortable process, I have a couple of ideas on this subject that I practice, but not enough.

“What did you have a strong belief about that you have changed your mind about in the past year?”

If you find yourself coming up empty here, it could be a sign you need to dig a little deeper into your opinions and explore outside that echo chamber, since you’re never too old to be young again.

Another difficult but beneficial exercise I do on occasion is to take on the opposing argument of my own and present it persuasively. This is also called “playing the devil’s advocate,” a beneficial practice that helps you refine your argument or opinion on a subject.

Let’s take a real-world example and cast judgment on one of the easiest targets: the richest man in the world (at the time of this writing), Elon Musk.

Joe Rogan, a well-known podcaster, sees Musk as an inspirational hero advancing human progress through daring engineering feats. His work solving problems in sustainable energy and global warming, expanding global communication through his satellites, and advancing space exploration, to name a few of his accomplishments, has advanced our society.

Kara Swisher, a longtime reporter, views him as a cautionary tale of unchecked power, ego, and performative disruption that often creates more problems than solutions. She criticizes his leadership style, ego-driven decisions, and what she views as chaotic or harmful impacts on companies, society, and discourse.

So who’s right? Can two contrasting opinions be true at the same time?

The answer with just about every subject, assuming we’re not talking about the weather, is yes, quite often, two things can be true at the same time. But let’s put this into practice:

If you could start with a clean slate, how could you describe Elon Musk?

As unbiased as you can, by gathering conflicting opinions, including those you disagree with, and coming up with your interpretation. You might find that through learning, the biases you once held may have shifted, even somewhat, since, as Dr. Suess famously said, “You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself any direction you choose. You’re on your own. And you know what you know”

As I step off my soapbox, I must tell you that I will continue to slip into judgment, which, after I get grounded again, usually by laughing at myself out loud (for a more startling effect), leads me to realize I’m taking myself too seriously. I come to realize that my arrogance is merely a self-defensive projection meant to hide what I’m afraid of. Although discourse is one of my favourite distractions, I realize I’m expending way too much energy on something that isn’t that important to me, since it won’t change my life in the least.

And when I’m feeling humble, which, thankfully, these days is more often than not, I try to mentally walk a mile in someone’s shoes. It can really make an impression on someone who is quick to judge.

---

Kris J. Simpson - Author