The popular belief is that people
are fully rational, that they do all kind of cost-benefit analyses and somehow
always reach the optimal conclusion. As you might have learned by now, this
assumption is deeply flawed. People can make rational judgments, but more often
they don’t.
In the field of decision making
psychology there is a widely accepted view on how people think and make
judgments. This view is not unchallenged, but overall it is widely accepted. It
is called the “dual-system” judgment. As its name says, it assumes the
existence of two major ways of thinking.
The general terminology for these
ways of thinking is quite simple: “System 1” and “System 2”. To better illustrate
how these systems of thinking function I’ll call them “The bird brain” for
System 1 and “The computer brain” for System 2.
Let me describe each system
(brain) and then I’ll present some considerations on how they interact.
The “Bird Brain” or “System 1”
has the following characteristics:
The “bird brain” is very fast and intuitive. It bases its judgments on associations acquired through experience.
These associations are based on
similarity with previously encountered situations or prototypes. For
example if the “bird brain” sees a man dressed up in an expensive suit with an
expensive watch and a fancy car, it will infer that this person is rich or a
corporate professional. The rationale is that this person looks like a rich
person / corporate professional.
The “Bird brain” perceives the environment in a quasi-statistical
manner. In other words, it does not use statistical descriptions, but
rather it uses inaccurate subjective inferences on the environment. For example
the “bird brain” will infer that there are more murders than suicides because
of the prevalence in memory of the instances of murders (news and movies) and
the lack of instances in memory of suicides. In fact there are more suicides
than murders.
The processing of information done by the “Bird brain” is based on heuristics or in other words rules of thumb. For example the “bird brain” will want a discount
and not a good price. For the fast associative system, a discount is equivalent
with a good price, but it is not necessarily so. A discounted price can be
higher than the regular price.
The “bird brain” is relatively undemanding of cognitive capacity in the
sense that it is effortless. Intuitive and associative judgments performed
by system 1 are done without significant use of mental and subsequently bodily resources.
The brain is the biggest user of metabolic energy resources and most of these
resources are not consumed by the “bird brain”.
The “bird brain” is activated automatically in the sense that it is
always functioning. It is the default
way of processing information / making judgments. At the same time, the “bird
brain” can be over ridden by the “computer brain”.
The “Computer brain” or “System 2” has the following characteristics:
The “computer brain” is slow and analytical. It bases its judgments on rules
acquired through culture or formal learning and tries to identify structures in
the environment. A very good example of “system 2” reasoning is engineering
planning and design. When an engineer designs something he is making analytical
reasoning using rules learned through formal education, based on established
structures identified in the environment such as knowledge on characteristics
of materials.
The “computer brain” is controlled and consists of explicit thought
processes. In addition, “computer brain” processes are conscious. Unlike the “bird brain” unconscious processing, when
someone is doing judgments in the “computer brain” mode, that someone is aware
that he or she is thinking critically.
The “computer brain” is demanding on cognitive capacity and metabolic
resources. Reasoning using the “system 2” draws on cognitive and energy
resources. In other words, using the “computer brain” leads to fatigue and may
end up in exhausting limited energy resources.
The general belief is that we
operate on the “Computer brain”, but the reality is that most of human
decisions and subsequent behavior are dominated by the “Bird brain”. The truth
is that the “Bird brain” is overall very effective in the sense that it leads
to decisions that are not necessarily optimal, but good enough. Moreover, the “bird
brain” is very good at fulfilling evolutionary goals of survival, finding good
mates, investing in children and so on.
What is intriguing is that the
world in which we live now is significantly different from the world in which
humans have evolved for millions of years. Now we have to make choices about
financial products, buy computers and make long term plans. In these less than
familiar (from an evolutionary perspective) contexts, the “bird brain” fails to
provide optimal solutions.
It is obvious that the two systems of thinking do not act
independently, rather they interact.
It is possible in certain situations and states that the “bird brain” is the
only one functioning, but more often than not, the two systems interact. Next I’ll
present some of the most common situations of interaction between the “bird
brain” and the “computer brain”.
As mentioned earlier, the default way of mental processes is the “bird
brain” mode. At the same time, the “computer
brain” can be “switched on” and it may overrule the “bird brain”. For
example, the “bird brain” might say “buy the most expensive product assuming
that it is also the best”. When the “computer brain” is switched on it might
say “wait, look at the attributes of the product and pick the one that has the combination
of attribute levels that best suits your need”. Subsequently, the person making
the purchase will go through the mental effort of doing this analysis.
Another situation apart from the
aforementioned one is when the “bird
brain” thinking leads to a conclusion (or behavior) and the “computer brain” is
switched on and gives a different conclusion. It is possible that these two
different conclusions to be in conflict
with each other. In the previous example the “computer bran” took control, but
it is highly possible that the interaction between the two systems to simply result in conflict and no action
to be taken. Similarly a person might implement the result of the “bird brain”
while knowing that the “computer brain” gives a different opinion.
A third way of interaction
between the “bird brain” and the “computer brain” is when a person tries (wants) to make a sound judgment. This implies the
use of the “computer brain”. At the same time, the “computer brain” will work
using inputs from the “bird brain”. A very good example for this is “arbitrary
coherence” and I will explain it a bit later.
A fourth way of interaction
between the “bird brain” and the “computer brain” is when a person makes a decision or exhibits a behavior based on the “bird
brain” thinking mode. After the decision is made or the behavior exhibited,
that person will try to make sense of his or her actions and will use the “computer
brain” to justify the actions or decisions. For example if someone makes a
purchase based on “bird brain” mode thinking such as buying a very expensive
coffee making machine, when faced with the consumed fact, he or she will use
the “computer brain” to come up with (solid) reasons for the purchase such as “it
is of high quality and will last for a long time”.
To sum up, the “dual system”
judgment view states that people make judgments in two modes – system 1 (bird
brain) and system 2 (computer brain). The judgments made by System 1 (bird
brain mode) are fast, associative, uncritical, heuristic based and effortless.
The judgments made by System 2 (computer brain mode) are slow, computational,
critical, rule-based and effortful. System 1 (bird brain) is quite good at
ensuring the accomplishment of evolutionary goals such as survival and perpetuation
of the specie. At the same time the “bird brain” is quite bad at making complex
judgments that we face in the modern world.
The two systems (bird and
computer brain modes) interact. This interaction can result in: (1) the
computer brain overruling the “bird brain”; (2) it can result in mere cognitive
conflict; (3) it can result in using the “computer brain” mode, but functioning
on (flawed) “bird brain” inputs; (4) it can result in the “computer brain”
creating reasonable explanations for actions performed under “bird brain” mode.
No comments:
Post a Comment