Olympian in Jumping to Conclusions
I appreciate Daniel Kahneman’s candor in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow.[1] I am rather certain I understand his precepts of System 1 and System 2 thinking. His writing style is engaging and almost playful at times. How he broke down human cognition and choice-making into these two thinking systems is brilliant. I in no way want to disparage his work as a psychologist or an economist. I was tracking well until Chapter 25 of his aforementioned book. At the beginning of this Chapter, he says, “Unlike Econs, the Humans that psychologists know have a System 1. Their view of the world is limited by the information that is available at a given moment (WYSIATI), and therefore, they cannot be as consistent and logical as Econs. It was here where I was stopped in my tracks.
His use of the acronym WYSIATI (what you see is all there is) caught me off guard. I sat back in my chair and pondered as it struck a dissonant chord in my heart and head. Is all I can see, all there is? I am reminded of the story about Thomas’s encounter with Jesus after his resurrection from the dead. After placing his hands on the wounds of Jesus, Thomas said to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you now believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”[4] There are scores of verses in the Bible that command us to walk by faith and not by sight. I write this at the risk of taking too much of a margin of variation in my thinking, and I am certainly desirous of dialogue on this matter.
I suppose I am keenly tuned into this idea because I have had the privilege of living a life that has taken me to the most dangerous places on earth, both as a missionary and a soldier. My mind is flooded with memories of decisions that I have had to make in the moment, with only the counsel of a few Sergeants and a lot of training. I have had to make many System 1 decisions simply due to the impracticability of System 2 and the limits that time places on us. Usually, it is here where I regale you with war stories, but I will spare you this time as I continue to only be able to type with my left hand. I will end this section by saying that through the course of my life, I have gained a lot of experience in System 1 thinking in some very precarious situations. If Jumping to Conclusions was an Olympic event, I could add a Gold medal to my repertoire of my life’s achievements.
What are some of the valuable takeaways of Kahneman’s book? His discussion on the Illusion of Understanding is quite helpful for me. Even though my level of understanding over the years felt confident, I admit that I always knew that there were second—and third-order effects that would always sneak in and cause the decision-maker to have to adapt her conclusions with new variables in hand. I would almost consider this System 1.5 thinking. In a fast-paced environment, there is a constant need to iterate over and over again.
I was intrigued by Kahneman’s Prospect Theory. His thoughts on how people evaluate risk are quite interesting. His choice of examples of risk problems did not stimulate my thinking as adequate to change my perspective on risk-taking, but I understand his modular thinking. It appears to me that the risk choices we make are in direct proportion to how much we stand to gain and how much we stand to lose. Working among extremely destitute people can change your perspective over time. These people are more likely to take risks because of what they stand to lose. They already feel as if they have nothing, so why not take a chance? They are far more prone in most instances to take greater risks because what they have to gain mammoths over what they stand to lose. I would have liked to see him delve into the effect of loss on taking risks. I know he touched on it, but it didn’t feel sufficient, as loss is an important aspect of risk-taking.
I understand that Daniel Kahneman had a different worldview and a different religious perspective than an evangelical Christian. I also understand that “a natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” Please do not interpret my thoughts on this as I think we should reject all natural thinking. Not at all. I just believe I need to always have my spiritual antenna up as I consider substantive matters.
[1] Daniel Kahneman. Thinking, Fast and Slow. 1st pbk. ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013.
[2] Kahneman, 269.
[3] Kahneman, 278.
[4] John 20:24-29 (New American Standard Bible)
[5] Winerman, L. (2012, February 1). A machine for jumping to conclusions. Monitor on Psychology, 43(2). https://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/02/conclusions
[6] 1 Corinthians 2:14 (New American Standard Bible)
About the Author
David Weston
5 responses to “Olympian in Jumping to Conclusions”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
David, I enjoy your playful and candid writing style. Even more so when I imagine you typing it all out with only your left hand! I admire that kind of determination.
I find it interesting that you and I both landed on Jesus’ interactions with Thomas as a reference point for epistemology and belief. I also have shared your observations about world settings where appetite for risk looks very different. At least on a couple of occasions my “Christian road rage” has been unleashed upon my fellow car passengers as I shouted “don’t do that, your life is worth more!” at a reckless moto or tuktuk driver. There’s just such a different reference point for what is acceptable risk.
I find that there is often a cultural variance gap in research. I read an article recently that presented views on a topic “from around the world”. There wasn’t a single African nation in the result set of nearly 40 countries.
David –
One of the things you hit on here seems to be right in line with what I think Kahneman would celebrate: a more expansive and critical thought process. How have you increased awareness of where your blindspots may be (since we’re blind to where we’re blind…), and how do you invite other perspectives there?
I read Kahneman’s WYSIATI as a simplified way of helping us see our bias–we tend to function in this way, but it is incomplete and leads us to make decisions with a very narrow view. I don’t know that he was endorsing it as a framework to embrace and leverage positively, but as a pitfall to avoid. So, like you, I’ve been asking the questions, “Is all I see, all there is?” (or maybe, “where have I become convinced all I see is all there is?”), and
“where do I need to model risk in what is unseen?”
David,
I appreciated this post and look forward to you getting the use of your right hand back for typing (not just so I can read more war stories but also for general healing… but I do like stories).
It would have been interesting to read a whole book by Kahneman on risk. It is a fascinating topic. I don’t know if it was his intention, but when reading that section, it felt financially based (maybe due to his economics background). You bring out a good point regarding his focus on not losing or taking a defensive posture vs. the offensive posture that you described. Can you share more thoughts on why your perspectives may differ?
David, I also appreciated your generalization on risk choices with respect to how much can be gained or lost. Kahneman’s economic focus is understandable given the platform for academic publication and subsequent funding.
Your wider perspective (and your background) got me thinking about national security concerns. The shift toward the threat of terrorism brought this topic forward, that a person with little to lose in this world and the promise of paradise in the next is more motivated to chose the path of martyrdom.
Darren’s question covers mine. I see some alignment with Kahneman’s fourfold pattern substituting a person’s outlook on life for the tabulated monetary gain or loss.[1] Your boots-on-the-ground experience would make for an interesting alternative to Figure 13.
[1] Kahneman, 316-17.
David,
Thankful that you are hitting the keyboard with elegance and grace. Please keep on mending well.
Your mention of risk and risk profiles made me think about different profiles of groups or communities that don’t align with how we would naturally attribute risks. I once met with a group of convicts in an educational setting, and their shared stories opened my eyes to an entirely new dimension of risk.
When exploring risk – it often includes utility or value in the dialogue. Do you think that this is more of a short-sighted approach by not ultimately including God’s economics into the equation? I often think I might not be taking enough risks because it is a lack of faith from my perspective.