Thinking, Fast and Slow about Online Public Engagement

by Nick Charney

---

I was pouring through some course material on a behavioural economics earlier this week and got to thinking about how to apply the lessons from Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow to the world of online public engagement. I would suggest reading Kahneman's book in full, but If you haven't you can watch the video below for an overview of his thesis.

 

TL;DR Thinking, Fast and Slow 

Kahneman's core thesis is that the human mind is made up of two different (metaphorical) systems: System 1 (fast) and System 2 (slow). System 1 operates automatically, intuitively, involuntary, and effortlessly — like when we drive, recognize facial expressions, or remember our name. System 2 requires conscious effort, deliberating, solving problems, reasoning, computing, focusing, concentrating, considering other data, and not jumping to quick conclusions — like when evaluate a trade-off (cost benefit analysis) or fill out a complicated form. Kahneman says that these two systems often come into conflict with one another, essentially:

• System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, subconscious 
• System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious 

The problem is not that people have two systems of thinking, but that they often rely on one system in situations when they should be using the other.

Where Thinking Fast and Slow meets Online Public Engagement 

So, here's the rub. The majority of the popular communications technologies (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.) are designed for speed/ ease of share and as a result are likely to prime users to use their automatic (system 1) rather than reflective (system 2) muscles. This is perfectly fine given that their business models are based on usage, however what it also means is that the majority of online communications technologies are simply unsuited for meaningful (deliberative) public engagement, if in fact that is what we are after. The corollary of which is that there is likely a future market for slower online engagement technologies that prime people to use their more reflective systems. It also means that there will be demand for people who can structure online engagements in ways that nudge citizens to more conscious and deliberative participation in governance.

On slower technologies 

I think it is reasonable to expect to see a resurgence and/or second more refined wave of public crowdsourcing platforms. I also think – given what I've articulated above – that it is reasonable to expect that the success of this second wave hinges not only on a more mature technological solution but also on the ability of those deploying it to carefully calibrate it around specific problems, purposefully include relevant stakeholders, and deliberately design the process to unlock slower and more reasoned public engagement.

The Line Between Visionary and Delusional

by Kent Aitken

---

Where's the line between "Visionary" and "Delusional"?

This is a question Richard Pietro, a cofounder of Citizenbridge*, posed over Twitter last month.

Let's imagine that you, reader, are cooking up an idea, and you're wondering whether it's brilliant or stupid. Amazing, or impossible. (Notwithstanding the actual link between genius and madness**.)

But how accurate is your perception of the size of the realm of possibility? I'm sure you can think of examples where your view of the world missed the mark of reality. I certainly can. And the psychology and behavioural economics literature is rife with examples of it.

So here's the question: knowing that we most definitely have a margin of error, what is the impact if you're overestimating the breadth of "possible"?

If you're underestimating?

*Citizenbridge is a not-for-profit that takes government data and remixes it on a platform suited for discussion and debate, with the goal of increasing the level of dialogue between elected officials and the citizens they represent.

**Heck, where to start? One large analysis found "an 87 percent rate of psychiatric disorders in eminent poets and a 77 percent rates in eminent fiction writers." Far in excess of other fields. Or, a study of 70,000 Swedish teens found that those that scored highest on intelligence tests were the most likely to later develop bipolar disorder. Or, Salvador Dali: "There is only one difference between a madman and me. The madman thinks he is sane. I know I am mad."