Perceptions. People perceive things in very individual ways. Perceptions, how individuals view the world, are as idiosyncratic of each individual’s life experience and outlook as could be expected, some are more critical than others, others more or less emotional and rational. It’s these idiosyncrasies that make accounts so unreliable between multiple eyewitness accounts of the same event. Sometimes when video of the event is shown to the eyewitness who has an alternate account, they still adamantly maintain their version as the truth claiming the video as doctored in some way. What individuals see and don’t see, what counts as important and unimportant, in effect choosing what and how individual people interpret these scenes, form very individual perceptions.
Memories are made from collections of life experiences. Each individual life experience is as different as individual temperament, whether introverted or extroverted, judgement, whether optimistic or pessimistic, mental capacity for detail, whether intricate or trivial, giving us all an individual point of view. I don’t think there’s much argument or controversy in these statements. It makes perfect sense and most, if not all, people have this first hand experiential knowledge and an awareness of the differences between each of us. This makes each of us who we are and people seem to confidently know that.
People also seem to know about the flight or fight impulse, herd mentality and mob rule characteristics groups of individuals encounter when large portions of individual perception seemingly become, or are made to appear to be, the same. Many people attempt to manipulate these characteristics of humanity and the resulting group loss of control of reflective thinking towards reactive become available to the manipulator’s, and provocateur’s, own purposes and control. The multitudinous and subtle differences between individuals are downplayed, or ignored, in favour of a few strong similarities which are harnessed, manipulated and alienated from the individual to where this accumulated power can activate its influence through some medium. Power through authority is exerted on the many by a few who are held in esteem, through a cult of personality or some emotional Divine attachment to truth. There are many historical examples of this kind of manipulative authority over the masses, so to speak, socially, politically and economically, not many turning out to the better.
So, if we all know individual perceptions are independent of all other perceptions, then why put much stock in this notion of perception, whether by an individual or group, guiding the way business, corporate or social, should be taken or seen? Perception is a good starting point to a discussion, but is a poor endpoint. A more unreliable source of information can not be imagined and used in making decisions or guiding corporate management than solely one’s perception. The idea, let alone action based upon it, of “perception is everything”, could be the definition of delusional. It’s about idiosyncratic views of reality, in which every human individual has their own. Basing your actions on what someone else perceives seems a bit dicey. Shouldn’t actions be based on the best facts possible, ideally from reality? From a data set of perceptions then, and not just one? From a group of people and not a single person in authority?
If a great number of perceptions are evaluated as similar, they should be far more accurate and have more voracity than that of any single individual. Why then do some individuals have more sway than whole groups? It is a curious phenomenon and somewhat frightening. As Tommy Smothers once said, “Truth is whatever you can make someone else believe.”
Two kinds of perception: astute and stupid.
Astute perception, usually coupled with intuition, can lead to leaps of logic of the kind Newton and Einstein were able. But this perception has to be verified by others to become more than a theory or more any single person’s point of view. It may take decades for this verification to come about and be made into a truth. Even then, another astute perception can move us even further, making the previous ‘truth’ wholly untrue and setting a completely new path for progress, or further refining what is deemed to be true, thus redefining our beliefs once more. This process requires multiple perceptions, through open and democratic means of communication, struggling to determine an acceptable path, but once determined is durable until the next great ‘perception’. The process is time consuming and fraught with seemingly endless debate, but is an evolutionary process of improvement and progress.
Stupid perceptions are those created by persons in positions of authority and are not necessarily held to any kind of deliberate scrutiny by others. This is more a situation and manipulation of power than of rationality, a fad more than truth. These perceptions are usually devoid of any rationalism, come to the public from people who supposedly ‘know’ better, and people who question this position of authority come under the boot of its power through intimidation, marginalization and ostracism. There is, therefore, no sense of democracy as that would be seen as undermining the leaders vision. Less discerning people, yet eager followers of ‘the way’, are elevated to higher positions of power and authority, as those who are most discerning fall. The resulting undemocratic regime supported by minimal scrutiny is ultimately regressive in its all consuming effort to become universal through means of the abuse of power to demand conformity.
One of the means of justification used by the ‘leaders by perception’ to ‘prove’ their correctness is statistical raw data. If it is in any way measurable, they will measure it, skew it fit their model and make sure doubters are seen as naysayers, ne’er do wells, malcontents, and otherwise misfits to change. Of course, everyone knows statistics can be made to sing any number of songs and those versed well enough in their use can nearly defend anything they demand within the narrow proof of ‘data’. Outliers and anything unmeasurable are left off the table as unimportant, hastily downplayed as inconsequential.
Of course, any thinking person would immediately see the contradiction, that what the leader by perception is choosing as verifiable data is in itself a limited perception of what is acceptable as usable statistical data. Some, like Malcolm Gladwell and Bent Flyvbjerg, might even say that it is in fact the outliers and the unmeasurable that have a greater effect than what is measurable on any system. The absurdity of using perception as a means of leadership is abundant for all to see. This notion rarely works for any real length of time, and is divisive, corrosive and ultimately unrealistic as no-one truly believes in it and rather sees it as a very long stretch in overall credibility. People generally are not that stupid for too terribly long and eventually the fear of repercussion wears thin.