Who to vote for? What are you voting for? Etc. etc. 

News and media, especially non-experts on social media will sell a message to their audience with nuggets of information that will be a part of your heuristic. What do I mean by this? If you read a tweet, or a news headline, without reading the article or digging deeper into a story- you may walk away with an opinion based on your world view.

For most of our day-to-day decision making we draw on heuristics to help us through the day. If every decision required immense work- nothing would get done (Tversky & Kahneman published at length). Heuristics and biases are our way of making decisions (quickly) and during uncertain times. 

The Abilene paradox (Jerry B. Harvey) is the idea that the group consensus decides one way, when on an individual basis they may disagree (this is a very simplified definition of this). Abilene paradox is seen in families, and boardroom table etc. Basically, I myself may think one way, but to be agreeable we go with what we assume to be the consensus in the room- usually something lead by an organizer- for example the CEO talking with conviction about an idea, that you may think is bad- but you go along with it, as it take a certain type of navigating to push back. 

Mix heuristics with the Abilene paradox and you have outcomes of societal development that have been shaped by one-line ideas, and headlines.  I get that for most things in life we are fine making decisions this way, but for more substantive issues, for example who to elect next, I posit people ought to spend more time working through informing themselves for optimal outcomes. 

My first venture into illustrating this is regarding voting for a political candidate. 

Heuristics and Abilene may push you toward a certain candidate of a certain political leaning, but are you well informed of the issues to ensure that you are voting- not correctly- rather as an informed person. 

My intention with asking this question is to have people consider more critical analysis when making important decisions. My highlighting the idea of heuristics and the Abilene paradox, I am illustrating manifestations that characterize what happens when someone doesn’t necessarily employ critical thinking habits. 

So going back to voting, to “beat your own thinking” I would posit to ask a few of the questions below that may precipitate critical thinking, and you may surprise yourself as to how well informed you become.

  • What is my current political party affiliation?
    • Why?
      • Is it because this is opposite my parents?
      • Is it because it “feels” right?
      • Is it because hearing about the “other party” makes me sick?
    • Or:
      • Do I know what key issues of this party are?
      • Do I believe that some people associated with this party may be extreme, but they don’t represent the norm?
      • Is it possible for me to understand the basis of the other party’s view, fully recognizing how different or similar they may be? 
  • What is a key issue of my party?
    • How does this issue differ from the other party(ies)?
      • What is the basis of the difference?
      • What is the basis of my believing in my party’s understanding of the issue?
      • What realistic policies can be enacted based on this issue?
      • How will those policies affect me, and other demographics in society?
      • Do I care about other people who are similar or different from me?

More will come on this topic, and others as I develop my thesis on creating a “check-list”  for critical thinking.