Tolerance for ambiguity

Just woke up not long ago. It's the second day of Chinese New year! Spent the whole day sleeping..eating..watching movies. Was really tired yesterday because went out with a few friends before that day to catch a movie and chill out till 5am in the morning.

I have been thinking about something I read for some time. I found out that in every culture there is a different degree of tolerance for ambiguity...and that is one of the causes for airplane crashes. During investigation of air plane crashes, the black box is often analyzed as it contains the recording of all the conversation between the pilots with the control tower. They found out that the Korean culture has one of the highest tolerance for ambiguity. What do I mean? It means that in a conversation with a Korean, it is never a bad thing to be indirect. Even in trouble, before you are going to crash, a particular case saw one pilot not daring to tell the control tower what is going on directly. The reason is that in their culture...the person in command at the control tower is reputably very strict and authoritative. Pilots are usually afraid of the person in command. In an exchange that was recorded...when the pilot mentioned that he thinks that they are running out of fuel and may have to land soon..the response was that they had to wait a bit longer as the ground was still not ready. The pilot interpreted that the person at the control tower was angry with him and decided to keep quiet. Eventually that particular plane crashed. Sounds absurd? But it's true.

Tolerance of ambiguity can be both a good or bad thing. It is a tactful way of communication but you never know what the person really means. You need to read into his words. It is a cultural thing in some countries. Especially when dealing with another culture which is not ambiguous, there is a high likelihood of miscommunication. It can be very frustrating as well as the conversation is built on hints. On the other hand, Singapore rank among the top as one of the least ambiguous culture. Singaporeans are more direct in conversations and communicating intentions.

I thought this is a very interesting observation. The tolerance for ambiguity I feel goes beyond just in conversations as mentioned in the book. I think it is an important aspect of life. Ambiguity is often experienced when people are afraid to ask questions. In the the particular incident with the air plane crash..the pilot was afraid to ask for help directly because he has been socialized into thinking and behaving a certain way. He has been trained to tolerate ambiguity in his culture. An American  expert was employed by the airline to come and help rectify the problem of air crashes and this phenomenon of ambiguity was one of the observations he made. The Koreans were put through a de-socialization process where they were de-socialized from ambiguity in communications in the air. Ambiguity can be something that some people can live with more than others because they have been brought up that way.

In the context of Singapore, we are trained in critical thinking skills in secondary, junior colleges and universities. Especially in universities and even junior colleges there is an inclination towards the skill of deconstruction. I think our tolerance for ambiguity should not discourage us from thinking and objectively appraising any situation. A tolerance for ambiguity is not faith. Faith is not contradicted but sometimes ambiguities have contradictions.