The Immune System

 

I’m pretty sure we’re all somewhat familiar with the role the body’s immune system plays in protecting us from harmful influences and foreign invaders. It’s a fairly complex system. In fact, aside from our nervous system, our immune system comprises the most sophisticated system within our body.

Suffice it to say, without our body’s immune system, things could get a bit “dicey.”

Consider the word “immune,” which comes from the Latin word immunis, meaning: “free” or “untouched”…in this case free from pathogens (in layman’s terms: germs).

Our immune system can be classified into two subsystems: the innate immune system and the adaptive immune system. The innate immune system refers to the body’s natural immunity, which is present at birth. It’s a built-in defense system that differs from adaptive immunity in that it doesn’t have to be “learned” through exposure to the aforementioned foreign invaders.

In other words, the adaptive immune system can be understood as the “conditioned” immune system.

There are some striking analogies to be made…

You will often hear someone say, “Oh, I’ve grown immune to the opinions of others.” Meaning, I am “free” or “untouched” by what others think. In some cases this is healthy, in others it is not.

While our body’s regular immune system includes a cerebrospinal fluid barrier, which protects our brains from disease, our analogous cerebral (mental) immune system, too often, is not so fluid in nature; rather, it has sealed itself off.

Over time, people may be conditioned to only allow certain voices (opinions/ truths) to be heard. They filter out, without thoughtful consideration, anything they do not want to hear. Either because of undefined personal motives, present social mores (political correctness), or because they’ve been told not to listen. While this may be seen as acceptable in our private lives–and often healthy–it is highly problematic in the context of representative government.

Similar to the effects of acquired immunity through vaccination, there are those in public office who appear to have inoculated themselves against the opinions of those they have been elected to represent. They, literally, have grown immune to the opinions of others… the voting public, county employees, their peers; or, even what their better sense (sound judgment) tells them to be true.

These individuals develop a sort of immunological memory that builds up a wall of defense which, in many cases, is not constructed as a guardian of principle, the ground rules for governing, or what is best for the majority; but, simply–and disturbingly so–to protect their egos, pride, arrogance, “own-way-ness” and, in far too many cases, their ignorance.

Some people demonstrate hyperactive immune systems in this regard. They won’t allow any thought–found to be in conflict with their agenda–to apparently invade their thinking. Add to this their intentional efforts–working overtime– to shape our thinking . . . and to eliminate critical thinking skills in hopes of forcing people to stick with the established mantra.

It has been suggested by Pulitzer Prize-winning author, Jane Smiley, that “A child who is protected from all controversial ideas is as vulnerable as a child who is protected from every germ. The infection, when it comes– and it will come–may overwhelm the system, be it the immune system or the belief system.”

It used to be we were encouraged to respectfully and purposely play “the devil’s advocate,” simply to make people discuss and explore thoughts and ideas further, as a means of determining the validity of their reasoning.

I have always maintained that those who challenge our positions, help refine outcomes.

Researchers Dan Lovallo, a professor of business strategy at the University of Sydney and a senior research fellow at the Institute for Business Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley, whose research is concerned with the psychological aspects of strategic decisions; and Olivier Sibony, a Paris professor whose research focuses on “Behavioral Strategy,” i.e., how to reduce the impact of behavioral biases on strategic decision-making (a recognized thought leader, in this field, and frequently cited author) concluded the same, finding that entertaining contrarian opinions yields better strategy.

As Craig Dowden, Ph.D., president and founder of a firm focused on supporting clients in achieving leadership and organization excellence, stated in a May 8, 2015 article, “Why every executive team should have a Devil’s Advocate”: “One might expect the most important distinguishing factor between a good or poor decision to be the quality of the analysis that informed it. Lovallo and Sibony discovered, however, that this is not the case. Not by a long shot. In fact, process trumped analysis by a factor of six to one. As the authors noted, “superb analysis is useless [and here’s the key factor] unless the decision process gives it a fair hearing.” Moreover, the researchers concluded that a strong process tended to yield a strong analysis, while the reverse was not found to be the case.”

What constitutes an effective decision-making process?

Here’s what Lovallo and Sibony’s research discovered:

. Resist the allure of confidence. Teams that maintained a healthy sense of uncertainty tended to make far better decisions than those that did not. While confidence is alluring, it tends to impede sound decision-making by marginalizing legitimate criticism.

. Solicit outside perspectives. Expertise and experience, not merely rank or title, should be considered when sending out meeting invitations. The reasoning is simple: The broader the scope of perspectives, the lower the risk for blind spots. . Nominate a Devil’s Advocate. The most effective decision-making processes embraced contrarian critiques.”

“…Lovallo and Sibony’s findings should give us pause. According to the research, executive teams would be better served to spend less time confirming their assumptions and more time questioning them.”

~Craig Dowden, Ph.D.

Given what we’ve seen demonstrated by present county “leadership,” I highly doubt their hyperactive cerebral immune systems are going to change their entrenched process, let alone their thinking.

Former Cook County Commissioner Garry Gamble is writing this ongoing column about the various ways government works, as well as other topics.