Ed Batista

Writer and comedian Seth MacFarlane–the creator of the animated series Family Guy–was recently interviewed by Terry Gross on Fresh Air. Here's the conclusion of their conversation:

Terry Gross: On September 11th you were supposed to be on that plane that was…hijacked and flown into the north tower of the World Trade Center, and you were late, your travel agent gave you the wrong time, so you missed being on that catastrophic flight. Do you ever think of the rest of your life as being this kind of gift, because it could have all ended for you that day?

Seth MacFarlane: One of my favorite quotes by Carl Sagan is that we are as a species, and as a culture, we are significance junkies. We love attaching significance to everything, even when there really is no significance and something is just a coincidence, and this is a perfect example to me… Obviously the day itself was a tragedy and a disaster, but if we're just talking about my case, it doesn't strike me as something that I am attaching an unbelievable amount of significance to. [1]

In 1997 Carl Sagan published The Demon-Haunted World, and one of the book's last chapters, "Significance Junkies," addresses the many ways in which we misinterpret statistics and substitute magical thinking for clear-headed understanding. One example cited is the common attribution of "hot" and "cold" streaks and other aspects of athletic performance to quasi-mystical sources:

We seek meaning, even in random numbers. We're significance junkies… So what? What's the harm of a little mystification? It sure beats boring statistical analyses. In basketball, in sports, no harm. But as a habitual way of thinking, it gets us into trouble in some of the other games we play. [2]

Sagan's use of the term "junkies" is apt; we crave significance just as any addict craves their drug of choice. And when it's not readily available, we invent it–we imagine significance all around us. This may be harmless when it occurs in entertainment and similar domains, but as Sagan suggests, it can also pose real problems. One of the areas where this occurs is in our working relationships, particularly when we're in a leadership role.

Our craving for significance leads us to see meaning in randomness, to hear signals instead of noise. We mistakenly believe it's all about US–that people are thinking about US, noticing US, responding to US–when, from their perspective it's really all about THEM–and they're thinking about something else, noticing someone else, and responding to a whole host of factors: what they ate for breakfast, what their spouse said last night, the state of their retirement portfolio.

We matter less than we think we do, and the universe is more random than we want it to be–and those can be painful truths to accept. Sagan opens his "Significance Junkies" chapter with an epigram from mathematician and philosopher Henri Poincaré: We also know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling.

We crave significance and invent meaning not because we're stupid, but because we're creative: it hurts to admit our insignificance, and we find consolation in endlessly inventive delusions of relevance. But it's really not all about us, and once we realize that we can enter into a different kind of conversation with the people around us. Instead of simply assuming that our actions are the basis for their reactions, we can get curious about what they really are thinking about and noticing and responding to.

And yet, while it's usually a mistake to assume that another person's response is entirely about us, it may be equally mistaken to assume that our impact on other people is aligned with our intentions. It's all too easy for our actions or comments to have an unintended impact on other people, and this can be exacerbated when we're in a leadership role. [3] By emphasizing our tendency to see significance where there is none, I'm not suggesting we ignore other people's responses–a heightened awareness of our impact on others is an essential leadership skill. But I make a distinction between improving our ability to discern when we've had an impact on others on the basis of observed behavior, and letting go of the assumptions and imaginary scenarios that spring from our craving for significance.

Footnotes

[1] Seth McFarlane: TV's Family Guy Makes Music, Too (Interview with Teri Gross, Fresh Air, October 17, 2011)

[2] The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, page 349 (Carl Sagan, 1997)

[3] Intent vs. Impact (When Communication Goes Awry)

Photo by Andy.