Nudge Nudge

Finishing up the discussion of Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow on a cautionary note, the book’s model of a human mind broken into two parts: a fast, associative System 1 that does the bulk of our day-to-day cognitive work and a slower, deliberative System 2 that analyzes deeply, handles counter-intuitive situations, and takes control when necessary should be seen for what it is: a metaphor.

The author himself announces the metaphorical nature of his construct of the mind, telling us early on that his creation of the labels System 1 and System 2 was a deliberate artifice which, among other things, provides his alleged System 1 some named characters for one of the stories it uses to achieve understanding.  And as much as the metaphor of slow and fast mental entities working in partnership helps explain a wide number of observable phenomena (such as our tendency to fall for visual and cognitive illusions), we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that Kahneman’s is just one of a long line of metaphors used to describe human behavior.

For example, while it has become fashionable to sneer at Freud, his identification of a conscious and unconscious mind (not to mention the Ego, Superhero and Id he posited) not only impacted both the scientific and wider culture, it also served as the foundation for modern public relations and advertising when put to practical use by Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays.  And our culture’s fondness for the notion of a Left-Right creative-logical split in our brain (despite an absence of physical evidence for such a divide) simply proves how much we humans desire to break our world into neatly labeled categories.

Now it may very well turn out that Kahneman’s fast/slow dichotomy will withstand experimental scrutiny over time.  But work done since then (including a colleague’s thesis I’m currently reading that proposes three different modes of thinking vs. Kahneman’s measly two) is already building on and refining the original hypothesis.  So before we start abandoning previous theories and models and start thinking of ourselves entirely in fast and slow terms, it’s best to exercise some humility and accept the fact that this model, while useful, may very well turn out to be wrong.

Shifting gears to political matters (which is supposed to be the subject of this blog), I must also admit to becoming uncomfortable when the author began suggesting examples of his theories could be put to practical advantage. 

If our minds work a certain way, the author asserts, why not take advantage of this phenomenon to gently move (or nudge) people towards socially acceptable or preferable behavior?

The classic example of this idea comes out of the near 100% volunteer rate for organ donation in certain European countries, vs. a far smaller rate for Americans.  This difference turns out not to be the result of differing levels of generosity between cultures, but rather a different in forms – specifically organ-donation volunteer forms which are opt-out abroad (meaning volunteering for organ donation is the default choice) but opt-in here in the US.  So if telling your printer or web page designer to change which box is checked automatically can lead to such a huge increase in some socially beneficial good, why not apply it to other societal problems (such as improving American saving habits by making joining an automatic savings plan the default option)?

The trouble is that you pretty rapidly run out of examples of causes where playing on global cognitive hard wiring will lead to unquestionably good outcomes.  Kahneman highlights the popularity of Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s recent book Nudge which shows how slight manipulations in how information is presented can gently push people towards making the right choices about their money, health and overall happiness.  And he’s particularly excited that one of the book’s authors is playing a role in the current US administration, providing an avenue to put these ideas into practice.

But who gets to decide what behaviors the population will be nudged into?  And who gets to determine where friendly nudging ends and outright manipulation begins? Historically, powerful persuasive techniques such as classical rhetoric or Freudian science have been embraced by politicians and advertisers who want to get us to do what they want.  So what is to prevent new techniques based on what we think we know about our fast and slow processors from simply becoming the friendliest option on a list that also includes propaganda and coercion?

It may be a fool’s errand, but if this blog is about anything it’s about trying to engage that reasoning part of our minds (or our slow processor if you like) much more than often we do when it comes time to make key decisions that can affect our future as individuals and as a country.  And while it would be far simpler if we could all be made to “do the right thing” by simply switching around some wording or some options on a form, fears over who gets to be the nudger makes the far messier option of trying to get people to think for themselves a preferable alternative.