Failures of imagination are driving us apart

For stronger communities and cohesion, we need to build our imaginations

Photo by Trude Jonsson Stangel on Unsplash

Famously, at least in certain circles, the US Government Commission into the intelligence failures that missed the 9/11 attacks pointed the finger at, among other things, 'failures of imagination'. All the pieces of information and data were available to the US Government agencies, but no-one was able to put it all together and imagine the scenario that actually happened. Similar struggles with imagination are a common thread through many organisational and social issues today. In particular, a lack of imagination lies behind the ongoing hyper-polarisation in modern societies.

This might seem like an odd connection, but it makes sense when we understand the critical role that imagination and creativity play in human knowledge and related processes. The ongoing polarisation in societies is partially driven by a breakdown of shared societal knowledge frameworks or agreement or an epistemic fracturing. Understanding the role of imagination in knowledge can shine a light on some of the causes and identify useful steps to improve the situation, even if they may only be effective at a personal level.

Human knowledge grows with imagination

One important insight from my project here at Humble Knowledge is that the foundational processes and logic of human knowledge differ from what we commonly think. It is traditional to distinguish two types of reasoning: inductive and deductive. However, as I have argued previously,¹ human reasoning about knowledge is better understood as following an abductive logic.

Rather than coming to a carefully reasoned conclusion based on the evidence (whether deductively or inductively), the core logic of human knowledge depends on a leap to a hypothesis, preliminary conclusion or draft theory. We then have to test this initial idea against further data, experiments, information or reality more generally. A good example is the pattern of reasoning in a detective story. The person who solves the case typically doesn’t have access to more or different information, but they land on a theory as to who did it that no-one else thought of.

This dynamic abductive process underpins everything from the scientific methods to a kid dabbling with different sorts of sandwiches. The kid might come up with a great idea that jam would taste great with tuna - and then obviously has to try to find out. This is also the core logic in the diagram I’ve used a few times recently:

There are a couple of features of this logic that are worth noting. Firstly, and obviously, it is not a linear process. This contrasts with both deductive and inductive reasoning, which start from evidence or initial information and head in a fairly straight line to a conclusion.

The second point to note is that it is a fundamentally creative process that requires imagination. There is no obvious, routine or clear way to come up with the hypotheses or ideas that we want to test in building knowledge. Sometimes they are an obvious variation on something we already know, sometimes we can systematically work through the options, but sometimes they need a completely new insight. Scientists often talk about a flash of inspiration that drives a new theory or discovery.

This is a version of a distinctively human experience that we all know. When we are trying to understand or figure something out, there is that 'aha' moment when suddenly it makes sense. Until you can think of or imagine the right answer, or the theory that explains all the information, the evidence or situation looks confusing and messy. But once you have the right answer in mind, things make sense and it can be hard to remember how puzzling it was.

This means our knowledge and understanding isn't just shaped by the information we have, but also by what we can imagine and think. If you cannot imagine or make sense of the right theory, then knowledge about some topics will always be beyond you. That is why, for example, fields like theoretical physics or complexity science are so confusing for lots of people. Many people struggle to make sense of and imagine the details or concepts that underpin those theories.

We need imagination to understand other people

This same dynamic, where we need to be able to imagine a particular idea or theory in order to make sense of the world, often sits behind the success (or failure) of communication between different people. In order to understand what someone else is saying, or where they are coming from, we have to be able to (at least partially) understand how they think. It you cannot make the imaginative leap to see the world how they see it, then it can be really difficult to understand what they are saying or meaning.

Let's pick a stark example to explain the underlying dynamic and consider two people with very different worldviews. The first is a strident materialist: physical matter is all that is, and can exist, as governed by the laws of physics. The second is a spiritualist who believes that the foundational nature of the universe is spiritual and that physical matter is an imperfect manifestation of the spiritual. These different ways of seeing the world mean that many discussions between these two people will involve them talking past each other as even when they use the same words, perhaps 'matter' or the 'human spirit', they will have fundamentally different understandings of what they mean.

If each of them has enough imagination to make sense of the other's point of view, they have a strong basis to talk meaningfully and have productive discussions - even though they fundamentally disagree. But if neither of them has the imagination, then their conversation will be confused and each is likely to end up thinking that the other is stupid or obtuse.

This is a common dynamic. The differences in views might be between economists and sociologists, or psychiatrists and neuro-scientists, people from different countries, or supporters of different football teams. In all cases, if either side is unable to even imagine how the other sees the world, then it is more or less impossible to understand what the other is saying or why. As a result, unless someone has a high degree of humility, they will commonly conclude that the other person is dense, malicious or simply wrong rather than recognising the limits to their own imagination.

Encourage empathetic imagination to reduce polarisation

This is a dynamic that plays out online every minute. People are unable to imagine or make sense of how someone else sees the world and so assume the other person is dumb or evil. Jumping to one of these conclusions is much easier and is often rewarded with likes and clicks. Polarisation inevitably follows, especially when everyone on the other side does the same thing in return. However, this approach misunderstands how communication and knowledge work.

The problem is that, when you read something online and cannot make sense of why someone would think it, it is possible it is a failure of your own imagination rather than a fault in the other person. Most people have had the experience of suddenly understanding what someone else was thinking and finding that a lot of things suddenly now made sense. However, if you don’t take the effort to try to imagine what they were thinking, it typically seems like that person was crazy or dumb.

The challenge for all of us is to stop and try to imagine what someone on the ‘other’ side is thinking and why they see the world the way they do. You may well still conclude they are wrong, but at least you will have a stronger basis for doing so.

There are regular calls for a return to more civil discourse and more polite public debate. Even if we can change various social norms to support this, widespread civility will require people to learn to use their imaginations to grasp what others from different points of view are actually saying. If you cannot imagine a world in which a claim you don't agree with could make sense, the natural tendency will always be to write it off as dumb, malicious or a product of vested interests.

The ultimate hope would be for everyone to develop this sort of empathetic imagination, as it would fundamentally change the tone of public debate. However, there are too many incentives - human, corporate and technological - working against it, so I don't expect it to happen any time soon.

Nevertheless, at a personal level, the world becomes a much happier and safer place if you can put yourself in other people's shoes and imagine where they might be coming from. You may never agree, but at least you have some empathy and understand why they might think like they do. This often means that whole groups of people you thought were stupid or evil can turn out to be far more sensible and normal, just different.

1. I should note that I am not the only person arguing this, as I have noted previously.