(By the author of the book: 'Sculpting Angels: Parenting Lessons to Foster Creativity in Children' which is on a different subject).
There have been two significant events in the United States of America
which are surprising and hence merit serious consideration.
One is the results of the presidential elections. Pre-poll estimates
put Clinton clearly ahead of Trump for a win. But the results proved these
predictions wrong. Today Analytics, Computing power, Information Technology,
Sampling methods, and Communication science have all developed to make accurate
and highly reliable predictions. But these predictions were proved grossly
wrong.
The other significant event is the unprecedented protests chanting ‘Not
my president’ with swarms of protesters before Trump’s inauguration as the
President. The country’s majority had voted for Trump. Why then these protests
against the view of a majority in a democracy?
We believe that forecasting election results was carried out by
engaging scientific methods and that the elections were held by fair means.
Further we will assume that the statisticians who predicted a win for Clinton
were not biased but were skilled in the science of forecasting. Of course those
who came out in large numbers to protest against Trump were from the minority
who obviously did not vote for Trump. However, these anti-Trump campaigners
were by far more vociferous than the pro-Trump supporters.
Having established these observations, we need to turn to Daniel
Kahneman who earned a Nobel Prize in Economics for his research in the field of
cognitive psychology and behavioural economics. His researched conclusions draw
from two types of thinking namely ‘Thinking fast’ and ‘Thinking slow’. (The two
types of thinking was categorised as System 1 thinking and System 2 thinking by
Keith E Stanovich and Richard F West who had already summarised extant research
distinguishing two types of thinking. In this article ‘Thinking fast’ is used
interchangeably with ‘System 1 thinking’ and ‘Thinking slow’ interchangeably
with ‘System 2 thinking’.)
Among the various differences between these two types of thinking,
System 1 thinking is fast, automatic, effortless, emotional and sub-conscious.
System 1 thinking is based on a primitive brain system. This thinking is what
leads to a ‘Reactive response’ as can be seen in Stephen Covey’s book ‘7 Habits
of Highly Effective People’.
System 2 thinking on the other hand is slow, effortful, logical,
analytical, calculating and conscious. This thinking is based on the modern
developed human brain system. This thinking is what leads to a ‘Proactive
response’, Habit No 1 outlined in Stephen Covey’s best seller.
It is easy to see that when one has a view or makes a decision based on
System 2 thinking she is proud about her view and therefore is transparent and
communicates quite openly the view or the decision. On the other hand, when one
has a view or makes a decision based on System 1 thinking, he or she will tend
to be secretive and shy of expressing openly the decision.
In other words, someone who wishes to vote for Trump based on System 1
thinking (say based on racial inequality) is not proud to declare that this
campaign has appealed to him. Therefore he does not voice his true view. He or
she therefore is inclined to mislead a survey sampling, seeking views on
support for Trump and support for racial inequality.
Little wonder therefore that the statisticians and other analysts were
mislead and went wrong in their prediction of a win for Clinton.
This inference is reinforced by the other significant and unprecedented
event namely the protest against the President elect. These protests were from
those who did not vote for Trump. Apparently their decision not to vote for
Trump was based on System 2 thinking, the deliberate, well analysed thinking.
Voters who had thought through System 2, are more transparent and are not shy
to express their views in the open and hence turned out in large numbers to
protest.
Daniel Kahneman has been careful not do advocate any supremacy of the
System 2 thinking over System 1 thinking, though some cognitive psychologists
have not been so kind. The two surprising phenomenon in the presidential
elections however informs that people tend to hide and suppress views based on
System 1 thinking while people flaunt views based on System 2 thinking. This
however lends evidence to the supremacy of the System 2 thinking over System 1
thinking.
In a democracy, it is the opinion of the electorate that matters and
not whether the opinion was the result of Thinking fast or Thinking slow. In
the interest of being non-judgmental, academics strive not to establish the
supremacy of System 2 thinking over System 1 thinking. However, violence of any
form has by and large been the result of System 1 thinking while creative
contributions to human progress have come through System 2 thinking. Further,
all democracies are governed by shrewd politicians who were successfully
elected to an office by their appeal to System 1 thinking. Nevertheless,
behavioural and social scientists consider it impolite and unfair, if any
supremacy is attached to one form of thinking over another.
The presidential elections in the United States
of America has thrown open a question. Is it time now to advocate the supremacy
of ‘Thinking slow’ over ‘Thinking fast’?
