"I don't mind debating issues because I am usually always right!": How neuroscience can help us make better decisions.

Psychologists have been interested for decades in two modes of thinking that have been termed System 1 and System 2.  Daniel Kahneman, psychologist and 2002 Nobel Prize winner, describes the significance of System 1 and System 2 thinking in his best-selling book Thinking, Fast and Slow.  This blog will rely on the research shared by Kahneman to help identify the brain processes taking place "under the hood" so to speak that have relevance in our decision-making.  I am most interested in how System 1 and System 2 operate in tandem in the ways we develop, maintain, and communicate our beliefs.  It may be surprising to know that some of our strongest held beliefs (theology) may in fact be a result of a dominant, territorial System 1 and a “lazy” System 2. 

 

We are learning from the neuroscience community that our brains are much more than a

2.2lb lump of tissue that serves as our command center for our bodies.  Parenthetically, the weight of the brains of a Sperm whale is about 15lbs and an elephant is 8.8lbs.  What separate the human brain from other species are the complexities of our brain and the benefits of having a networked “upper” and “lower” brain organ.  The upper brain is typically associated with executive function located in our highly developed frontal lobes.  Lower function is typically associated with automatic, instinctive action like fight or flight reaction and other basic survival actions.  In contrast, higher brain function allows humans to exercise abstract thinking, reasoning, and complex analysis that transcend basic animal instinct to hunt and survive. 

Here is a short list providing a simple explanation to illustrate the types of function in each System. 

Automatic activities attributed to System 1:

·      Detect that one object is more distant than another.

·      Orient to the source of a sudden sound.

·      Complete the phrase “bread and ……”

·      Make a “disgust face” when shown a horrible picture.

·      Detect hostility in a voice.

·      Answer to 2+2=?

·      Read words on large billboards.

·      Drive a car on an empty road.

·      Find a strong move in chess (if you are a chess master).

·      Understand simple sentences.

·      Recognize that a “meek and tidy soul with a passion for detail” resembles an occupational stereotype.

Highly diverse operations of System 2:

·      Brace for the starter gun in a race.

·      Focus attention on the clowns in the circus.

·      Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.

·      Look for a woman with white hair.

·      Search memory to identify a surprising sound.

·      Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.

·      Monitor the appropriateness of your behavior in a social situation.

·      Count the occurrences of the letter “a” in a page of text.

·      Tell someone your phone number.

·      Park in a narrow space (for most people except garage attendants).

·      Fill out a tax form.

·      Check the validity of a complex logical argument.

There are a few particular rules as it relates to the function and relationship of Systems 1 and Systems 2 that help explain why we do what we do sometimes.

First, System 1 remains in the “on” position taking the bulk of the work as long as System 2 permits.  Second, System 2 is considered to be “lazy” that is to say it prefers to let System 1 do the work since the operation of System 2 takes more energy and uses more of the brain’s network.  Third, when faced with difficult or complex questions, sometimes our brain would rather defer to System 1 with an easier answer rather than deploy System 2. 

As you can see from the list of System 1 and 2 functions, System 1 is our intuitive command center.  Imagine going to the Apple store for the specific purpose of buying the latest iphone because your old phone is broke.  In dealing with the sales staff, you realize the phone you really want is out of stock and needs to be ordered and will take a few weeks; however, if you would settle for a lesser model you could purchase a phone that is on the shelf.  This is similar to the way our brains make intuitive decisions as well as form opinions.  System 1 has a limited “stock” of options (i.e. well established beliefs, opinions, and intuitive feelings) along with limited brain function (i.e. does not enlist the help of specific brain networks that would allow for deeper thinking or even thinking that would overturn the System 1's “stock” of answers.) Remember, System 1 remains in the “on” position because it is the most efficient way for our brains to function. 

This helps to explain Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink” factor.  Our brains, via System 1, have developed a quick acting, ready response to many of the decisions we make throughout our day.  Some refer to this as their gut feeling or their intuition.  It is important to know that I am not necessarily saying that some of the decisions we make are not accurate or even good when using only System 1.  I am saying that if not careful, our brains may settle for the “easier” less “critical” route in making discerning, analytical decisions.  Remember the number one rule of neuron relationship in our brains.  The more they fire together; the more they wire together.  Over time, this creates a super highway in our brain.  Using the metaphor of a super highway, our brains have a well-established road system that carries our thoughts through well-established mapping or network.  Put simply, a person that has always believed that a button down dress shirt should never be worn with jeans when prompted by the option of wearing a dress shirt this way, their System 1 will default to its “stock” answer which is “dress shirts never go with jeans.”  This becomes a “no brainer” because the information super highway carries the dress shirt/jeans decision very quickly through the mental map using deeply entrenched road systems to conclude the answer.  It may be said that since System 2 is never engaged on this decision, the chance of a different outcome let alone an honest debate with a fashion savvy expert is rendered useless.

Second, System 2 is “lazy” not wishing to be in the “on” position as long as System 1 is engaged.  There has to be a conscious decision to turn System 1 “off” and engage or switch to the “on” position System 2.  There is a built in weakness with System 2 that has to be mentioned.  Kahneman defines the term “Heuristic” as the simple procedure that helps find adequate, though often imperfect, answers to difficult questions.  He points out that this term comes from the same root as “Eureka.”  The implication of this relationship is that we may prefer making big life decisions never really engaging the brain System best equipped to arrive at the best decision.  The term “lazy” in this context is a preloaded term that explains that the human brain prefers efficiency instead of hard work. 

Put differently, “thinking hurts” because it takes more of the brain’s energy.  With survival being the brain’s primary goal, consuming energy and carefully budgeting the brain’s resources are vital. To understand this rule, think about the number of times a person would rather read a Cliff Note of a book instead of working through the actual book itself.  Think about the number of times a person would rather revert to “stock” positions on their political views instead of considering the argument that seem to challenge their ideology.  Think about the number of times people make purchase decisions based on very little relevant information about the product being purchased.  You get the idea?  Kahneman points out a very important characteristic of System 2, “System 2 is ultimately in charge with slowing down System 1 and impose logical analysis.”  Self-criticism is one of the functions of System 2; however, when it comes to our attitude and emotions System 2 makes for a better defense attorney than a prosecutor; an endorser rather than an enforcer.

This rule has implications in church work and the study of and use of Scripture that will be discussed later in this essay.

Third, when faced with difficult or complex questions our brains would rather revert to an easier answer even at the expense of not answering the initial question presented.  This rule is an illustration of what has been previously explained in the relationships between System 1 and System 2.  Kahneman supports this position, “System 2 often follows the path of least effort and endorses a heuristic answer without much scrutiny of whether it is truly appropriate.  You will not be stumped, you will not have to work very hard, and you may not even notice that you did not answer the question you were asked.  Furthermore, you may not realize that the target question was difficult, because an intuitive answer to it came readily to mind.”  The practice of substituting an easier question for a difficult question is common strategy implemented by System 2.  Remember, thinking hurts and takes energy and resources that may be used for survival.  

The practice of substitution occurs all the time in churches and formation of doctrines.  I remember growing up thinking that the Bible was one big book of individual verses that may be lifted at will to prove a point. The use of chapters and verse designations added later in the translation process add to this practice.  The technical term for this type of biblical use is “proof-texting.”  In other words, if a person was inclined to hold the position that baptism is not an important part of the faith formation process, they may like to cite Luke 23:32-43 the thief on the cross narrative.  After all, Jesus chose to save at least one person without the use of baptism.  Therefore, it must be the case that baptism is not necessary.  Notice the substitution of a singular event in Scripture, that is not even a salvation text, for the much more difficult question of analyzing the broader scope of Scripture regarding the occurrences and frequency of baptism. 

Another favorite proof-texting error occurs with the use of 1 Corinthians 14:40, “But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.” This is the “stock” answer to anything in a church that may be different or a deviation from custom and heritage.  It is funny to think in my lifetime, to be more precise within the last twenty-years, there were church splits over the use of over-head projectors in lieu of using hymnals for church singing.  Did you notice I used “over-head projector” in that sentence.  My own kids have no concept of what that is since all they know are laptop projectors and Apple TV devices.  The point is that 1 Corinthians 14:40 was somehow used to suggest that using technology over hymnals would somehow be an infraction of 1 Corinthians 14:40 because technology is not decent or orderly. 

My favorite proof-text that was actually used against me on the discussion of whether or not

it is sinful for a Christian to consume alcohol is found in Habakkuk 2:15, "Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbors, pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk.” This passage was cited to me as a scriptural command against drinking.  The person deploying this passage failed to cite the entire verse, "Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbors, pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk, so that he can gaze on their naked bodies!” This is humorous because not only did the individual substitute a host of scriptural references that condone alcohol and some that even present wine as a blessing from God for the quick win in an argument by citing part of one verse out of context, but he even reduced the proof-text even smaller or simpler to make his point.  There is no question to me what was actually taking place in this particular discussion.  My counterpart held to a very strong personal view about alcohol, which I respect.  It was much easier to lean on System 1 because at least his personal convictions could remain in tact at the end of the discussion. Plus, it would take a lot of critical analysis to work through the entire scope of scripture along with challenging self-views which is often more painful than doing the expository work.

In conclusion, knowing about System 1 and System 2 provides a framework to better understand some of the reasons why we make our decisions.  It is important to reiterate that just because our brains would prefer to take the path of least resistance does not necessarily mean we end up with wrong or even bad decisions.  It may be that this information is helpful in our own interpersonal communication.  There are reasons few major paradigm shifts or theological shifts occur at the proverbial office water-cooler.  More often than not, to engage in both personal and religious matters takes a lot of patience, time, and a lot of critical self-reflection.  Unfortunately, pastors and church bureaucracy have little built in time to give individuals the time needed to unlearn their long held beliefs in order to potentially relearn new ones.  It just may be that our ways of doing faith formation and discipleship in our churches fail to take into consideration one of the most important variables in the equation.  Our brains.  

This essay is not suggesting that we are to jettison our strongly held beliefs. Instead, take time to question and do the analysis needed to periodically run your own belief systems through the filter of objectivity.  This is best done by surrounding yourself with people you trust that hold a different view than you and are willing to give you their best reasons for disagreeing with you.  In turn, be willing to receive the best arguments that are contrary to your view and resist the temptation of substituting the simple answer for the complex answer.  Finally, take into consideration that the media specializes in targeting our System 1 functions, and they are winning in shaping our ideologues, our purchases, and our belief systems.