Circular Logic Works Because Circular Logic Works
Allow me to recount a story from my first day working in the legal department of a large Global bank. I began the day with the intention of causing no trouble, aiming to be cooperative and avoid any conflicts. As the new team member, everyone else had already completed an online test on banking regulations. I was informed that a colleague would guide me through it and provide the answers. Though disappointed, as I knew it would result in a lower score, I complied out of a sense of obligation. The colleague had a paper with the answers and read them aloud, while I followed along and selected the choices accordingly.
However, there came a question that I couldn't bring myself to answer incorrectly. It was too personally humbling for me. The question inquired about the consequences of not adhering to banking regulations, with options ranging from improved productivity to receiving a cease-and-desist order. I was told the correct answer was (a), greater productivity in the department, but I couldn't bring myself to click the radio button for that choice. I found myself aimlessly moving the mouse pointer in circles, unable to proceed. Finally, unable to bear it any longer, I asserted that the answer was (c) and clicked it.
To my surprise, the immediate response from my colleague was, "No, we all got that one wrong." She looked up and called over another person to discuss their answer, then they turned to yet another colleague, forming a small group behind me, all conversing about the question they had answered incorrectly. They sought a social consensus on what the answer should be. I was taken aback, rendered speechless, as they continued their discussion and attempted to involve a supervisor.
In an effort to halt their deliberation, I urged them to reconsider the situation. I explained that the test was administered shortly after our global bank had been fined one billion dollars for negligence in preventing money laundering. The company had invested significant resources in launching this course worldwide for all employees. I questioned why they would encourage us to break banking regulations by teaching us that it would bring better productivity to the department. However, it seemed that they were incapable of independent thought. As I observed their behavior, memories flooded back, reminding me of concepts such as social cognition and cognitive biases.
It became evident that they were striving for a social consensus, prioritizing agreement within the group over rational thinking. This phenomenon resembled groupthink, which I won't delve into here. Suffice it to say, the group's consensus took precedence over reasoned analysis. I proceeded with the test, and at its conclusion, the correct answer was revealed to be a cease-and-desist order. One didn't need to know the specifics of a cease-and-desist order to recognize that answers (a) and (b) were clearly unreasonable.
This experience highlights the differences I have noticed in my thinking over the years. The example I shared raises questions regarding the source of these cognitive disparities—whether they stem from my autism, higher IQ, or a combination thereof. It also underscores a recurring notion I often express: truth is what the group believes, and the group determines truth. They rely on each other to ascertain what is true, perpetuating circular logic.
In summary, this story sheds light on the challenges that can arise when individuals prioritize social consensus over independent reasoning. It prompts reflection on the factors influencing cognitive processes and invites a deeper exploration of the connections between autism, higher IQ, and unique thinking patterns.
