Which is your dominant Hand?
Certain tasks come more naturally to you depending on which hand you write with. If your dominant hand was taken away, you would suddenly have to put much thought into how to perform those same tasks with your non-dominant hand. I am right-handed, but I am unsure of when I decided to be right-handed. I imagine that, as a child, I instinctively started using my right hand to pick things up, and I have continued to do so ever since. I don’t think about it; it just happens—I use my right hand to cook, brush my teeth, comb my hair, answer the phone, and more. However, when I have been forced to use my left hand, I have had to concentrate and think through each step to complete the task.
In his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman thoroughly explores the two thinking systems that drive human decision-making. He describes System 1 as the fast, automatic, and intuitive thinking we rely on and the innate skills we possess.[1] I relate this to the function of my dominant right hand. By this logic, System 2 would correspond to my left hand, which Kahneman explains operates through slower, more deliberate, and analytical thinking. [2]
While I didn’t find this book particularly engaging (evidently, System 2 didn’t kick in as I wrote this sentence), and some of the concepts could have been explained more simply and quickly, a few ideas intrigued me. One of these was the concept of a “mental sprint.” Kahneman explains that when we are faced with a task requiring focused attention and deep reasoning, like solving a complex problem or making a tough decision, we activate System 2. This can be compared to a “mental sprint” because it demands concentrated energy and focus over a short period. Kahneman contrasts this with System 1 thinking, which is automatic, effortless, and often operates without us even being aware. [3]
A mental sprint occurs when we temporarily set aside our instinctive judgments and engage in focused, deliberate thought to work through a problem or task. Since this requires considerable mental effort, it can be exhausting and difficult to sustain over long periods, which is why our brains tend to avoid it when possible. This is why we often feel mentally drained or fatigued after a mental sprint.[4] I feel that this course has felt like a mental sprint so far. Reading a book each week and being expected to grasp all its key concepts has demanded a high level of concentrated energy and focus, leaving me mentally fatigued. I wonder how much we can absorb when processing this information so quickly. However, as I continued reading, Kahneman explained that because it is a task we are not used to, it will initially feel mentally draining. But, he adds, “as you become skilled in a task, its demand for energy diminishes.”[5] So, I am hopeful that reading a book per week will be effortless by the end of the semester. Until then, System 2 will be fully engaged, running on mental sprints.
Another concept that I found interesting in the book is the “anchoring effect.” Kahneman explains that the anchoring effect is a cognitive bias in which people place too much importance on the first piece of information they receive when making decisions. Once this initial reference point is set, it shapes later judgments and estimates, even if the anchor is unrelated or illogical.[6]
Kahneman’s research shows that the anchoring effect can impact decisions in various areas of our lives, from negotiations and financial choices to consumer behavior. I would argue that the anchoring effect has also influenced how we interpret the Bible and certain concepts within it. From a young age, we are presented with specific interpretations of Biblical ideas and taught their meanings. When we later encounter evidence that challenges those initial teachings, it’s often easier to stick with our original understanding than to reconsider or adjust our views. The anchoring effect highlights how our minds can be subtly shaped by irrelevant initial information, leading us to make decisions that are not entirely rational or informed.[7] Similar to the concept of the mental sprint, Kahneman suggests that to avoid falling prey to the anchoring effect, we must consistently engage in System 2 thinking. This helps us stay alert and avoid being influenced in ways that lead to errors. As he puts it, “Maintaining one’s vigilance against biases is a chore—but the chance to avoid a costly mistake is sometimes worth the effort.”[8]
Kahneman introduces various concepts throughout his book and further explores how System 1 and System 2 interact. He sheds light on our cognitive biases and demonstrates how the two systems can help us make better decisions in our lives in personal and broader contexts. Ultimately, my takeaway from the book is recognizing the limitations of my automatic thinking and consciously engaging System 2 when necessary to avoid judgment errors. While I agree with his advice, he could have made this point more efficiently, and I believe that many of the issues and concepts he addresses could be addressed and solved through therapy.
[1] Kahneman, Daniel, “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” (NY: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2013) 21.
[2] Kahneman, 26.
[3] Kahneman, 34-35.
[4] Kahneman, 37-38.
[5] Kahneman, 35
[6] Kahneman, 119
[7] Kahneman, 125-128
[8] Kahneman, 131
About the Author
Linda Mendez
5 responses to “Which is your dominant Hand?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hey Linda, how have you experienced the anchoring effect in this class?
Robert,
I dont think I have encountered the anchoring effect in the class but definitely with his book. My initial interaction to it was an overload of information that I didnt find interesting and so I didnt allow myself to process all the other information it had to offer. I shaped my judgment around an anchor that mislead me to think the book didnt have much to offer and it led me to an illogical and wrong conclusion.
Linda,
Great practical example that everyone can grasp with the dominant hand. Thank you for that.
Like Robert’s questions above, would you be willing to share an example of anchoring to a biblical concept that you later reevaluated and adjusted? I am interested in what perpetuated the adjustment. More specifically, do we have an anchor bias based on a rapid evaluation of System 1 that never gets passed to System 2 because we feel it has been “solved”?
Linda,
This was a ton of information. At the end of the fourth chapter, I found one of my “fleeting” notes (the receipt from 2013), but I never got further. I like the behavioral economics aspects and shared the sunk cost fallacy in my blog, which I have encountered numerous times in business.
The anchoring effect could be disturbing. When I think about individuals’ unwillingness (laziness) to search for information and further clarification. When looking back at our recent discussions about misinformation and disinformation through social media, what if most individuals anchor on the wrong message? I hadn’t really explored that thought until you mentioned the anchoring. What are your thoughts about the unhealthiness of anchoring?
I agree with you about this class being a mental sprint. It does sometimes feel like a mental overload. How much of this will I retain or use? I guess I will have a general idea of a lot of key books that I can go back to when I actually need to apply the concepts.
I relate with your example of the anchoring effect in our understanding of the Bible. I remember as a kid how I was influenced to believe in one narrow way; all the stories in the Bible are literal, the world was created in 7 days, only conservative evangelical christian are really saved and the apocalypse was coming soon so be ready. The more I learned, matured and experienced the more these anchoring things were questioned. What I thought I knew as absolute truth was now becoming blurry. Thanks to God, that this only pulled me in deeper into the mystery of God. An unfathomable God who I can trust and know intimately, but that I may not be able to ever fully understand because it is beyond what even my System 2 thinking can even do.