Short-circuiting Systems
Pretend you’re being chased by a bear. You are all alone, you have no weapons, no sense of which direction might aid escape. You don’t even have the right footwear. The bear is getting closer, you can hear the forest brush cracking and snapping behind you. The ground shakes from his weight. Suddenly, your kindergarten math teacher jumps out in front of you and shouts, “Quick! What’s 1+1?”
This example was presented during a trauma-informed care training I attended many years ago. It demonstrated how challenging it is for children to learn when they are experiencing trauma in the home, bullying in school, or violence in the neighborhood. Any attempt to access rational thinking or basic learning while in survival mode will not yield optimal results. I was curious about this as I read about the two systems Daniel Kahneman refers to in his book “Thinking Fast and Slow.” How does trauma impact System 1 and System 2?
System 1 can handle multiple things at one time as long as they are easy and relatively effortless. Can trauma short-circuit that system? Does trauma make relatively easy and effortless actions more difficult or challenging? Would that not create greater resistance by System 2 to kick in to help, since it’s already the lazier of the two systems? Although we may be born “prepared to perceive the world around us, recognize objects, orient attention, avoid losses,”[1] I wonder how trauma impacts our perception of the world around us and the narrative we assign to those perceptions. System 1 is where impressions and feelings originate. It is the source from which the explicit beliefs are determined and deliberate choices are made. A lot rides on the wellness of System 1 and the stories it tells. If there is an error in System 1, surely that error will carry over into System 2 and potentially misguide the decision making process.
For example, if a child repeatedly learns that love hurts, this impression or feeling builds memory muscle and will wire System 1 to respond accordingly, such that when faced with an opportunity to be in a healthy, loving relationship, System 1 may warn System 2: “Stop, do not engage” because love hurts. This might look like an avoidant-attachment style, avoiding emotional connection with others because it’s possible that love will hurt. Kahneman identifies this effect in The Fourpoint Pattern, a system of preferences which can be broken down two ways: people attaching value to losses and gains, and people mistaking possibility with probability.[2] People with avoidant-attachment style might suffer from the probability effect, thinking, “Because I have been hurt, it is possible I will be hurt again.” They might be risk-averse, avoid intimacy for fear of losing the game of love once again. Or they might become risk-tolerant; intentionally engage in meaningless relationships knowing there is no threat to the system; the shallow engagement avoids future loss. Whatever the scenario, the errors of thinking to which System 1 defaults will create an illusion in System 2. These biases can make both systems vulnerable to viruses in our thinking and ultimately, in our relationships with others and ourselves. Rarely do we see ourselves as who we are in the moment, but through the filter of our memories. “Odd as it may seem, I am my remembering self, and the experiencing self, who does my living, is like a stranger to me.” [3] How much more strange when viewed through the lens of trauma?
I was also curious to learn how the Halo Effect adds more malware. If the Halo Effect is about making general conclusions without considering what information is missing, [4] it seems like conclusions based on false information would have the same effect. This effect is growing in our culture, with the average person remaining in the easiest mode of system processing with very little desire to search for what’s missing. The average person is also likely to readily believe falsehoods that support their existing operating systems. This is because to do otherwise would be a threat to the systems. It would require a shift in perspective, reprogramming, and/or stretching the imagination. It’s so much easier to stick with the program and let someone else do the imagining. Our culture has learned to sit back and watch the next Netflix series rather than write a new code, for themselves and others.
Enter, stage left – the well differentiated leader, the one who makes sure the right code enters System 1 to support wise decisions made in System 2. Christ is calling for leaders who may have experienced trauma, and have been called to get through those failed codes to identify the virus. Who implement a wellness plan to ensure healing, thus avoiding a systemwide failure. Who are aware enough to trace and track the error codes, and build up firewalls to block future malware. Who recognize that the memory of a bear is not the same as an actual bear.
And since this is a blog, I’m allowed a personal opinion. Thank you for your grace as I stumble through this new thinking. As a child, I had to create a world of imagination in order to thrive. Jesus was my guide, my optimism. I spent my childhood summers in the woods, but I never felt threatened by bears. Was it because Grandaddy had a gun collection or because I have never been chased by a bear? Probably both and I was taught to fear being chased by a bear. And so therefore, despite never having been chased by a bear, I believed I should fear bears. This is the error code in System 1 thinking. But is it an error? Is a code for survival in a potential worst case scenario an error code in the system or a backup system ready to run in case of emergency? I have come to believe that these short-circuits are actually a blessing – I can see the wild grizzly when others see Pooh. I can say, “No thank you” to the possible virus rather than wait to fix things after the malware has done its damage. Proactive is better than reactive when it comes to trauma response. I appreciate both selves. The wild, quick, survival mode and the rational, centered, slow mode. Both are needed.
In fifty-three years, I have never had to run from a bear. I’ve seen many, some with cubs, but I was never chased by a mama bear. Did the possibility scare me? Yes. Was it a possible threat? Sure. Should I train my system 1 to respond to that possibility? Not sure. I lived in Florida for years as well. I learned to run zig zag when fleeing an alligator attack. Is that likely in Florida? Perhaps even more probable than a bear attack in Oregon. As a leader preparation is everything, regardless where you are on the world. Whether it’s the threat of a bear, an alligator or bombing, a leader should be prepared. System 1 should default as ready and alert, informing System 2 regardless of mood or memory – and understanding that nothing is 100% reliable – to prepare yourself accordingly. I’m thinking leaders who have experienced trauma are equipped and inspired to make faster System 2 decisions – they know how to coordinate plans when the bear shows up. As I heal, I should stop overthinking and accept that the bear is there, somewhere, eventually. And if not, I’m at least prepared for it. Rather than fear it, I should make peace with it – imagined or real.
[1] Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011)
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid
About the Author
Erica Briggs
One response to “Short-circuiting Systems”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi, Erica, thank you for your posting it is very informative. I hope there is not bear in hiding in the bushes behind the river, hehe. I have not seen one in a real life, and I don’t want to see one out here in Troutdale.
By the way, I have a question if you don’t mind. You mention ‘differentiated leader,’ how would one show that kind of leadership through system 1 and system 2?
Thanks again!