I've noticed a lot of different responses to how folks are handling this time and, honestly, it's unnerving for me to see so many different coping styles. There is denial ("This is so stressful, I cannot read the news") and then there's denial ("There is not a real problem going on"). There's information-seeking ("I will search all the data and research and look for information the experts") and then there's information-seeking ("I will only believe the research that supports the way I see things").
We all want to know the Truth: How bad is this going to get? Am I going to die? Is someone I love going to die? Am I going to lose my house? Will I be able to make this financially? OH MY GOD, IS THIS LIKE THE FREAKING PLAGUE AND NO ONE IS EVER GOING TO GET IMMUNITY FROM IT UNTIL THEY GET IT BAD ENOUGH TO DIE??? ((Or maybe that last one is just me))
The problem is this: we are only going to know these answers, really know these answers, 2 years from now, when everything has settled down, we have figured out how to survive, life has come to a new normal, and we have collected and analyzed all the data. That's the backward sensemaking. That's when the real "Truth" will be established. ((Although, y'all know as well as I do there are still going to be different interpretations of the facts.))
But right now, we're right smack dab in the sensemaking as-it's-happening process. And that feels crummy. Because that's why sensemaking happens and why we grab on to some truth so quickly. I'm paraphrasing Weick, obviously, but we are in a crisis situation that is ambiguous with a future that is uncertain. We are talking with, at, and to each other to figure out a reality we can enact that is less stressful for us. We are likely to choose truths that fit our world views instead of choosing truths that are actually, well, true.
This is one of the reasons I feel so angry and agitated: I see people quickly cherry-picking one data point that supports their view and ignoring the preponderance of data that do not. I feel myself doing it, especially when ONE study says something that seems unusual. But when there are three different studies that find the same thing (e.g., we're possibly up to 6% exposure in population-dense communities), well then dammit I believe it. I take that as a new truth. So while that seems like good news, another story arises that we may be underestimating the deaths by 60%. I don't take that as a truth yet, but I take it as a data point.
That said, it's difficult to trust and doubt what you "know" at the same time. (Another bit of advice from Weick) But it's important that you do not use data like a drunk uses a light pole: For support instead of illumination. Also, since I stole that phrase from her, you should just follow Dr. Laurel Rose on Instagram (KingGutterBaby for an expert's take on the current data.
For me, it requires following a few basic life policies, including "Science is true whether you believe in it or not." Look for the facts. Look for convergence of science. Nothing (for me) is worse than when all the models predict vastly different outcomes. It means, truly, that the models likely have very different assumptions and very different calculations and probably they are all wrong or have serious errors. Science is true. Truth converges. Science converges onto a truth. Remember models that predict the future are never as accurate as models that analyze the past. And never trust one model that is so different than all the others.
Another policy I learned on my first job from my best boss: A big number times a small number is still a big number. Do you know any identical twins? The probability of identical twins is a fraction of a percentage: .45%. But over the large number of pregnancies each year, people have identical twins. In fact, there are enough identical twins that you know some. Do you know any fraternal twins? The probability for fraternal twins is much higher: 1 to 2%. But it's still very low. YOUR pregnancy is not likely to be a twin pregnancy. (98% not likely) But over 1 million pregnancies, there are going to be 10,000 to 20,000 fraternal twins born.
Use those numbers (identical and fraternal twins) to understand the COVID death rates and you might have a better understanding of why public health officials are so concerned. By the way, there are 3,79 million births a year in the US currently. Honestly, looking at Worldometer and knowing the twins stats freaks me out even more. ((Adding to this post: This Washington Post article does a great job of reconciling the different death and infection rates for a good comparison to the flu)) Also, this article? That there are different strains emerging and some are more deadly than others (Washington State from China and NYC from Italy)? YIKES.
Anyway, I hope this helps you understand your need to constantly talk about the "truth" with other people and to want everyone to converge upon an agreed understanding about WTF is going on right now. It's sensemaking (at least as I learned it from Weick). And what sucks mightily is that we are going to be in this ambiguity for a long time to come. So maybe use this as a time to learn the life lesson of dealing with ambiguity and to begin trusting and doubting what you know at the same time: You may be wrong, you may be right. We won't know the real truth for a few more years.
No comments:
Post a Comment