Now back to Cambridge, we join Kahneman and his behavioral economics colleagues. They write about the frequent use of Heuristics (simple, readily applied rules) that enable fast thinking to occur. Many heuristics serve us well in addressing daily-problems and making decisions about mundane and often reoccurring matters. However, they often get us in trouble when we face unique and multi-tiered problems—such as formulating policies regarding rights and responsibilities. We might be inclined to “throw hard” and engage a simple values-based heuristic about saving the life of a single person: “Your failure to pass this new health care legislation is endangering the life of my mother!” The opposition’s concerns about the proposed health care legislation is immediately rejected, even in its more benign form: “Your opposition is nothing more than a Nazified decision to ‘let them bleed!’”
We have torpedoed the discussion, demonized the opposition and sped up the response being formulated by our “opponent.” All of us are throwing hard and fast rather than engaging in slow, thoughtfully pitching. In applying this heuristic to the rights/responsibility dilemma we decide immediately to “stop the bleeding!” We make it quite personal: “people [including my mother] will live if this bill is passed.” Or “you don’t really give a damned about other people or about me when you refuse to pass this bill!” If we do sit back and do some thinking, then we are likely to be declared “inhuman” and indifferent to human welfare. On the other hand, if we quickly assess those proposing the new legislation as nothing more than “bleeding heart” liberals and visionaries, then we have made it just as personal. Our oppositional colleagues have become our enemies. The Nuclear Effect is fully in effect and complementary schizmogenesis is flourishing.
Regression and the Search for a Silver Bullet
What then is the solution? How does thoughtful, systemic thinking and decision-making operate to help us effectively balance rights and responsibilities. Let’s cut immediately to the chase: there probably was not a silver bullet available to resolve this dilemma. We might need to slow down our thinking and challenge our humane, short-term perspective on preserving personal rights or ensuring collective responsibility with a broad-based application of slow and systemic thinking and dialogue. However, good intentions might not be enough. We need to do a better job of thinking in a systemic manner, as Forrester and Meadows propose, but this might also not be enough.
For a moment we need to stand still rather than do something—especially as we face VUCA-Plus realities. Our slow thinking might be leading us to the difficult and anxiety-provoking conclusion that our policy must change. This recognition, in turn, creates more anxiety and pushes us back to fast thinking. Our rational system of thought and problem-solving will easily collapsed. The baseball once again might fly over the backstop. Hell breaks loose everywhere in the world. Like Dalkowski, we (collectively) seek out something that will numb the pain of failure.
