The Folly Of Intuitive Heuristics And Biases – A Word To The Voter
As history records, any monkey can become a politician and grab power (with apologies to the non-monkeys in the noble profession). But the voter cannot afford to be a monkey. Politics is about the future of the next generation and about the reputation of those aspiring to power and leadership.
by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne
( July 8 , 2015, Montreal, Sri Lanka Guardian) A few days ago, I published in this journal an article entitled “Same Sex Marriage and the Law“. It was a discussion on constitutional law and human rights law pertaining to same sex marriage as prevailing in certain selected jurisdictions. An irate friend responded to my article, somewhat offensively I might add, furiously complaining of what he alleged is my immoral support of same sex relationships and unions. He had read my article in the context of preconceived opinions he had about the subject of morality and religious notions and come to the conclusion that what I was saying was wrong. Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman, in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, calls this mental process Intuitive Heuristics, where most people, who are naturally rational thinkers, depart from their reality when influenced by fear, bias or their upbringing and beliefs. Kahneman says that the essence of intuitive heuristics can be clearly seen in instances when a person, faced with a difficult question, often answers an easier one, usually without noticing the substitution. In other words, intense concentration on a subjective position makes one socially and rationally blind.
Kahneman says: “When confronted with a problem – choosing a chess move or deciding whether to invest in a stock – the machinery of intuitive thought does the best it can. If the individual has relevant expertise, she will recognize the situation, and the intuitive solution that comes to her mind is likely to be correct…when the question is difficult and a skilled solution is not available, intuition still has a shot: an answer may come to mind quickly – but it is not an answer to the original question”.
All of us think teleologically when we take a position or argue a point. That is to say, we have a preconceived notion on any subject based on the purpose that notion serves and we then tend to justify that notion in a debate, discussion or argument. This serves well in the practice of several professions that need argumentation for livelihood, such as law and politics. But it does not serve any scientific discipline well, be it medicine, physics, chemistry or engineering. In the field of politics, the politician can be intuitively heuristic to the point of misleading the voter, but the voter has to seek a response to the real question at hand and not be dictated to by his instinct or his liking for a particular politician or party.
Take the upcoming general election in Sri Lanka. Questions are being asked and articles are being written by intelligent persons on their takes on the correct choice. These are seen in questions posed in articles and speeches – for instance – did President Sirisena betray the nation? Why are the miscreants not brought to justice yet? Is there some hidden agenda? Is the present lot no better or worse than the previous lot? Are Sirisena and Wickremesinghe creating the anti-Mahinda wave among the voters? Could they be trusted? Would the country revert back to terrorism if the UNP wins? Is there a foreign conspiracy that we should be concerned about if the current regime remains in power? Most would answer these questions intuitively, with intuitive heuristcs and if rational answers are provided based on historical data and statistics, or even principles of law and policy, or socio-economic facts, they would get offended, even angry, claiming such thinking is wrong.
As history records, any monkey can become a politician and grab power (with apologies to the non-monkeys in the noble profession). But the voter cannot afford to be a monkey. Politics is about the future of the next generation and about the reputation of those aspiring to power and leadership. It may not necessarily be based on what a person accomplished or failed to accomplish over 7 months but what he represented over 40 years of his career. Has he looked after the people of whom he was in charge, or on the other hand, did he look after his own people at the expense of the populace?
For the voter, politics is about wisdom – of making a wise choice devoid of visceral feel and intuition. Harold Bloom, Sterling Professor of Humanities at Yale University and a former professor at Harvard, states in his book, Where shall Wisdom be Found, that there are three criteria that impel him to go on reading and teaching: aesthetic splendour, intellectual power and wisdom. Of these, the last is perhaps the most useful for survival. Wisdom is the ability to make correct judgments and decisions, and remains an intangible quality gained through experience. Often, society tends to attribute wisdom to an action or decision that is determined in a pragmatic sense by its popularity. Some criteria in judging wisdom are traditionalism and how long it has been around, and its ability to predict against future events. Wisdom connotes an enlightened perspective.
A standard philosophical approach to wisdom is that it involves making the best use of available knowledge. However, as with all decisions, a wise decision may be made with incomplete information. The technical philosophical term for the opposite of wisdom is folly. In his Metaphysics, Aristotle defines wisdom as knowledge of causes: why things are the way they are. Traditional western culture associates wisdom with virtue. For example, in the Roman Catholic church, wisdom (or prudence) stands with justice, fortitude and moderation as one of the four cardinal virtues. The source of these virtues was Plato (427 BC – 347 BC), who was an immensely influential classical Greek philosopher. Plato was a student of Socrates and the teacher of Aristotle. He was a prolific writer and was the founder of the Academy in Athens.
Wisdom is also the correct application of knowledge to the benefit of the decision maker. When the voter applies the virtues of wisdom, which are essentially epistemic and teleological (the latter being particularly applicable to the perceived machinations of a dishonest politician), one thing he should insist on that should influence his decision to vote for the right person is a concrete and tangible economic plan (not just a string of thoughts or a philosophy) and deadlines that would drive the economic goals, with justification and supporting facts on how the goals will be achieved. The voter owes this to himself, and above all to the future generations of the country. If a voter votes for a politician who gives these objectives and deadlines credibly, the voter would not be intuitively heuristic. Perhaps this is what President Kennedy meant when he told the people of the United States: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” – that is, vote with the brain and not with the gut.
