Unlearning 101

Unlearning Disease

With all of the information now pulsing around us, it is easy to forget that “we don’t know what we don’t know.” I constantly try to remind my clients in the health care sector of this simple fact. A case-in-point is the extraordinary strides being made in the field of genomics—which, due to accelerating gene sequencing technologies, are occurring on a daily basis.

One the bigger implications of these cascading discoveries is that they will likely fundamentally alter how we classify disease in the future. As a little historical reference, it is useful to consider that in 1850 there were only 140 categories of disease. In 1993, the last time the World Health Organization undertook the classification of all diseases, there were some 12,000. The next classification isn’t expected to occur until 2015, but it is not hard to imagine that the number of diseases—and how they will be classified—will increase even more.

For a great primer on this possibility, I’d encourage you to read this article, Redefining Disease, Genes and All. I especially liked this quote at the end of the article. One doctor, responding to the fact that as late as 1909 one of the leading causes of death was listed as “visitation of God,” went on to offer this warning: “Imagine how they are going to to be laughing at us,” he said, “not 100 years from now, but even 50 or 20 years now.”

As a result of accelerating technological change, it is certain that “we don’t know what we don’t know” about a wide variety of diseases. To stay open to the possibility that these diseases might soon be both classified and treated differently , it is helpful to keep in mind the possibility that if you don’t change your views you will likely be widely mocked at some point in the future—and it might even be sooner than you expect.

Interested in viewing related articles on unlearning? Check out these past articles:

Does the Pharmaceutical Industry Need to Unlearn?
Is the Health Care Industry prepared to Unlearn?

Unlearning from Video Games

Think that video games lead to violence or anti-social behavior? Or that only male teenagers play video games? Or perhaps you are of the opinion that video games have no educational value . Well, think again and prepare yourself to unlearn. I strongly encourage you to read this post which highlights many of the recent findings of Henry Jenkins, the director of comparative studies at MIT.

I especially like the quote from James Gee who describes video gamers as “active problem solvers who do not see mistakes as errors, but as opportunities for improvement.” Of all the things that we must “unlearn,” one of the greatest is that mistakes are failures. Often they aren’t, instead they are a necessary and vital step down the path toward progress.

Unlearning Untruths

Last summer, the New York Times had an interesting editorial entitled "Your Brain Lies to You,” which was written by Sam Wang and Sandra Aamodt. Amazingly, 18% of Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth and another 10% believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim.

According to the article, one of the causes of people holding on to blatant untruths is something called “source amnesia.” As your brain recalls information—even if it is incorrect—it is reprocessed by the brain and over time the information is separated from the context in which that information was first gathered.

One implication is that “source amnesia” can cause even intelligent individuals to “forget” that certain statements were originally propogated by discredible sources. The problem becomes more serious when “untruths” accord with people’s pre-existing worldview.

In other words, people tend to believe information that fits within their existing belief system. For example, in the case of believing Barack Obama is a Muslim, many people may already tend to believe that anyone with a middle name of Hussein “must be” a Muslim.

The article goes on to offer a couple of helpful hints for people interested in helping others unlearn. For instance, for individuals attempting to counter untruths, the authors suggest that repeating false rumors may be a counter-productive strategy. Using the case of Obama again, supporters should not emphasize that he is “not a Muslim;” rather, they should play up Obama’s Christian credentials.

The article also recommends that people be asked to imagine their reaction if evidence runs counter to a conclusion opposite of what they are expecting. Apparently, the simple act of asking people to consider an opposite interpretation causes them to be more open minded.

Practice Your Unlearning Game

On December 30, 1936, over 17,000 fans packed into the old Madison Square Garden to watch Long Island University, the country’s top-ranked basketball team, take on Stanford. It was slated to be a great game. Long Island was putting up its 43-game winning streak up against the reigning Pacific Coast Conference champions.

More than that, though, people were there to watch Hank Luisetti, Stanford’s 6 foot 2 inch star sophomore. He was the only player known for shooting the ball with one hand while jumping up in the air. At the time, every other player shot with two-hands or took hook shots.

Luisetti’s “jump-shot” was so radical that it caused Nat Holman, the legendary coach of City College of New York—and a man known as “Mr. Basketball” -- to remark, “That’s not basketball! If my boys ever shot one-handed, I’d quit coaching.”

Stanford went on to crush Long Island University and, two years, later, Luisetti became the first college player ever to score 50 points in a game. Today, it is impossible to find a single player at either the collegiate or professional level who shoots two-handed.

It took a long time for basketball players to unlearn the two-handed shot, but the story serves as a good reminder that unlearning is not easy and that—like most sports—it is something which must be practiced continuously.

In fact, the sporting world is an excellent place to study the practice of unlearning. On May 6, 1954, Roger Bannister unlearned the “four-minute mile” barrier when he circled the track at Oxford in a then record of 3:59.6. Dick Fosbury similarly unlearned the traditional straddle method of high-jumping when he invented the now famous “Fosbury Flop.”

Alas, unlearning is not so easy. In the insightful book, The Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowiecki, recounted a study conducted by David Romer, an economist at Berkeley. In the study, Romer reviewed 1,100 first-quarter fourth-down plays where the teams would have been better off going for it. Instead, they kicked the ball 992 times. In blunter terms this means that in 90% of the cases, the team’s coaches were actively working against their team’s prospects of winning.

Is such insanity limited to the gridiron? No. In the book, Moneyball, Michael Lewis demonstrated how the Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane unlearned his reliance on crusty old baseball scouts and instead turned to young, Ivy League educated “number crunchers” to help him spot the top prospects to draft. The book was published in 1999. To date, and in spite of the A’s consistently fielding one of the best teams with the lowest payroll, only one other team has adopted the strategy in a widespread manner—the Boston Red Sox.

Perhaps it is a coincidence—and a healthy payroll—but in case you haven’t been paying attention the Red Sox have won two of the past five World Series. It is also, however, possible that Boston has been practicing its unlearning skills. In 1947, Jackie Robinson became the first African-American to play in the Major Leagues. The Boston Red Sox were the last team to integrate—doing so only in 1957. During that time it won no American League pennants and, of course, no World Series.

Bottom-line: If you to want to win, practice unlearning.

Unlearning Common Sense

Imagine you were on a game show and were told that behind one of three doors there was a new car and goats behind the other two. You are then allowed to select one door. The host then opens a second door and reveals a goat. The question is this: If given the option to switch would you do it?

Most people say no, figuring that there is a 50/50 chance that your original choice is right. Unfortunately, this is the wrong choice. By switching you have a 2/3rds -- or 66.67% -- chance of getting the car.

This is known as the "Monty Hall problem" and it vexes even mathematicians. To understand the counter-intuitive logic, I refer you to these two videos. The first is from the 2008 movie "21" and the second, and more detailed explanation, comes compliments of Ron Clark:

Should Some People Unlearn Optimism?

It is likely that Al Franken will be soon be the next U.S. Senator from my home state of Minnesota. Personally, I'm not a fan of Mr. Franken but I did like one of the skits he used to perfom on Saturday Night Live. It was called "Daily Affirmations with Stuart Smalley" and the character's signature tagline was "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me."

There is much to be said for the power of positive thinking and, all things being equal, I believe people should think optimistically.

Unfortunately, all things are not equal. This article from the most recent edition of The Economist suggests that for some people positive self-statements can be counter-productive. Here's the operative paragraph:

"Dr Wood suggests that positive self-statements cause negative moods in people with low self-esteem because they conflict with those people’s views of themselves. When positive self-statements strongly conflict with self-perception, she argues, there is not mere resistance but a reinforcing of self-perception. People who view themselves as unlovable find saying that they are so unbelievable that it strengthens their own negative view rather than reversing it. Given that many readers of self-help books that encourage positive self-statements are likely to suffer from low self-esteem, they may be worse than useless."

A Powerful Lesson in Unlearning

Perhaps it is because I, myself, attended a private boarding school that the scene posted below from Dead Poet's Society appeals to me, but I'd like to encourage any interested in the concept of unlearning to take four minutes and also watch it. The "unlearner," as Robin Williams' character so eloquently says, "Must constantly look at things in a different way;" "Strive to find his (or her) own voice;" and "Dare to strike out and find new ground."

As the second scene so aptly demonstrates unlearning isn't easy -- and it is isn't for everyone (notice the boys who stay in their chairs) -- but those people with the courage to "constantly look at things in a different way" will find that this skill is, in the end, its own reward.

Enjoy!

How to Conduct an "Unterview"

Face-to-face interviews are not nearly as effective as most people like to believe -- as I explained in this recent post on "unlearning the interview." Nevertheless, if you are bound and determined to conduct one, I recommend turning the interview process on its head and conducting what I call an "unterview." Below are a few starter questions to get you on your way:

1. What isn't on your resume? The purpose of this question is find out whether the person "knows what he or she doesn't know."

2. Name one thing you have unlearned in the past year? An alternative question would be: "What is the most important thing you have unlearned in your life?" The response (or lack thereof) may provide a hint to how open-minded and flexible the person is and whether they are capable of change.

3. What do you find un-interesting? This question is really just the opposite of the old "what are your interests/hobbies" question, but I believe that you can find out just as much about a person from what they don't like -- or find interesting -- as from what they do.

4. What book have you wanted to read in the past year but haven't? As regular readers know, I'm a huge fan of starting an "anti-library" but this question may offer some insight into the depth of a person's intellectual curiosity.

This, of course, is just a beginning list. If you have other questions that would make for a good "unterview," I would love to hear your suggestions.

A Lesson in Unlearning from Peter Bernstein

"We simply do not know what the future holds." -- Peter Bernstein

Peter Bernstein, a best-selling author and risk management pioneer, passed away earlier this month. On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal ran a nice remembrance. I especially liked the final paragraph which read:

"Asked in 2004 to name the most important lesson he had to unlearn, he said: "That I knew what the future held, that you can figure this thing out. I've become increasingly humble about it over time and comfortable with that. You have to understand that being wrong is part of the [investing] process."

It is a wonderful reminder to both unlearning -- and to the importance of having some intellectual humility.

Related Post

Insuring the Future

Why the Healthcare Industry Must Be Prepared to Unlearn

In my many talks, presentations and speeches on the future of health care, one of the things that I really try to impress upon my audiences is the importance of unlearning—that is letting go of old knowledge or old ways of doing business. This is an incredibly hard thing to do, but if one wants to prosper in the Exponential Economy it is a skill that all of us will need to practice with increasing frequency.

To this end, I’d like to share two articles. The first is from NewScientistTech and it discusses how studies have found that surgical residents performed better during simulated surgery after playing on a Wii console. Now, the notion that a video game might help improve a surgeon’s performance might seem a little counter-intuitive, but as ever more surgeries become laproscopic and microscopic in nature, the dexerity of the surgeon is going to become even important than it already is. The challenge that this prsents is that old surgeons (as well as parents who want their children to become surgeon) might have to unlearn their bias against video games. In this case, video-gaming skills might actually make residents better surgeons in the near future.

On a slightly different level, this second report suggests that doctors might be able to detect cancer by the “feel” of the cancer cell. According to a recent study, cancer cells, in some situations, are softer than healthy cells. If true, this might require doctors to unlearn their current and preferred methods for detecting and testing for cancer.