Too many minds: conflicting theories of decision making
In the movie The Last Samurai, Nobutada offers Nathan Algren some advice when the latter is repeatedly defeated in sword practice,
Nobutada: Please forgive, too many mind.
Nathan Algren: Too many mind?
Nobutada: Hai. Mind the sword, mind the people watch, mind the enemy, too many mind... No mind.
What does Nobutada mean by "no mind"? To me, it is that exquisite feeling when skiing just flows. There is no conscious decision about how to navigate moguls, trees, other skiers, your body just takes over and you can enjoy being in the moment. You do not consciously think about what you need to do, it is instinctive. That is the state that Algren needs to achieve.
Practice makes perfect
Thinking back to when I was learning to ski, it took intense concentration. Any lack of attention was likely to result in a fall. It has taken years of practice for my skiing to become more instinctive, and to make the feeling of flow a more frequent experience. And once achieved, the enjoyment is such that you want to repeat it again and again.
For me, this feeling is the most obvious indication that there is a lot more to how our minds work than just conscious thought. If you are an experienced driver, you might remember arriving at your destination without really remembering how you got there, your mind was busy with other things.
The two-system paradigm
Generally, the marketing world has bought into Kahneman's two mode, fast and slow, paradigm of how we think. System 1 is fast, intuitive, and easy. System 2 is slow, deliberative, and effortful. In Thinking Fast and Slow Kahneman describes the two systems as follows,
"System 1 continuously generates suggestions for System 2: impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings. If endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions turn into beliefs, and impulses turn into voluntary actions."
System 1 may be the busy body, but System 2 has editorial control. System 2 is mobilized when faced with decisions that involve difficulty and is responsible for self-control. If you have ever "bitten your tongue" and not said what you really wanted to, that is System 2 taking control. But how did System 2 know to do that? I will return to that question later.
Get a GIST on it
Heretical as it might seem to Kahneman fans, there are other paradigms out there. Have you heard of the Fuzzy-Trace Theory (FTT)? FTT is a variant on the dual-mode paradigm and proposes that the quick-decision system focuses on the gist or overall meaning of a problem instead of deliberating on verbatim facts. Writing in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Valerie Reyna states,
"FTT offers a third option beyond standard dual processes: an often-unconscious, imprecise, parallel thinking process of gist-based intuition that is the mainstay of advanced cognition."
A gist is not the same as heuristic or mental shortcut, it is a distillation of meaning, and the simpler the better. Told that unvaccinated children are 23 times more likely to get a disease compared to vaccinated children, parents will likely remember the difference as "big." Later in the paper, Reyna continues,
"Another key difference between FTT's approach and that of others is that FTT does not advocate deliberation (thinking harder, longer, and more elaborately about details) as the hallmark of higher reasoning, instead emphasizing nondeliberative but educated intuition."
In other words, the more experience we have, the stronger our gist, and the quicker we make informed decisions. Yes, there is hope for us old farts yet. And maybe gist is what allows us to get in the flow?
A key implication of FTT is that communicators should focus in on the gist people distill from messaging. An overall impression is far more likely to be remembered than the specific facts. Given my experience with pre-testing and advertising tracking, this aspect of FTT feels right. People remember impressions, not facts. Too many messages undermine efficacy. So, advertisers should think long and hard about how their messages are likely to be remembered. What is the simplest impression that people might take away?
Maybe there is only one mode?
Whatever dual system you prefer, they all assume a qualitative difference between systems. But what if there was no difference? Maybe our thinking does not differ in kind, but rather in degree? In other words, the processes are the same, but the degree of effort is lesser or greater.
So, rather than System 2 overriding System 1 when you bit your tongue to avoid saying something bad, maybe one, single system escalated your degree of thought (perhaps based on the degree of emotion involved)? I do not feel a difference when my thinking kicks over from System 1 to System 2, so maybe I am just devoting more resources to whatever I am thinking about? Or maybe I only experience flow when both systems are in alignment?
30 years of debate and no definitive answer
De Neys does rule out that there is perfect alignment between modes, i.e., a process is not either fast or slow, either effortless or effortful, etc.. He does so on the grounds that there are problem solving mechanisms that are proven to be slow and effortless. One such is the Incubation Phenomenon, aka "sleeping on it." However, his ultimate conclusion is that,
"after 30 years of debate, there is currently no good evidence that would allow us to decide between the single and dual process model view."
Pick a model, any model?
But if you think De Neys has finished there, think again. Not only does he find the evidence inconclusive, but he also finds the distinction between dual and unimodel thinking irrelevant and trivial. His argument is that both models lead to the same conclusion regarding outcomes, so why fight over the exact nature of the processes involved. He states,
"In a sense the choice between a single and dual process model boils—quite literally—down to a choice between two different religions."
Ouch!
While I doubt that any academic with a vested interest in one model or another will be swayed by this argument, I found De Neys' viewpoint reassuring. It is not just us dumb marketers who can endlessly take sides over important questions. Short-term versus long-term anyone? (But remember, that question is a red herring.)
And my choice is…
Nobutada: Please forgive, too many mind.
Nathan Algren: Too many mind?
Nobutada: Hai. Mind the sword, mind the people watch, mind the enemy, too many mind... No mind.
What does Nobutada mean by "no mind"? To me, it is that exquisite feeling when skiing just flows. There is no conscious decision about how to navigate moguls, trees, other skiers, your body just takes over and you can enjoy being in the moment. You do not consciously think about what you need to do, it is instinctive. That is the state that Algren needs to achieve.
Practice makes perfect
Thinking back to when I was learning to ski, it took intense concentration. Any lack of attention was likely to result in a fall. It has taken years of practice for my skiing to become more instinctive, and to make the feeling of flow a more frequent experience. And once achieved, the enjoyment is such that you want to repeat it again and again.
For me, this feeling is the most obvious indication that there is a lot more to how our minds work than just conscious thought. If you are an experienced driver, you might remember arriving at your destination without really remembering how you got there, your mind was busy with other things.
A big proportion of our day-to-day decision making is made automatically, but without prior experience to guide us, we must consciously think about what to do. Most academic researchers would probably agree with that assertion, but thereafter it seems they are of many minds on how the mind really works.
The two-system paradigm
Generally, the marketing world has bought into Kahneman's two mode, fast and slow, paradigm of how we think. System 1 is fast, intuitive, and easy. System 2 is slow, deliberative, and effortful. In Thinking Fast and Slow Kahneman describes the two systems as follows,
"System 1 continuously generates suggestions for System 2: impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings. If endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions turn into beliefs, and impulses turn into voluntary actions."
System 1 may be the busy body, but System 2 has editorial control. System 2 is mobilized when faced with decisions that involve difficulty and is responsible for self-control. If you have ever "bitten your tongue" and not said what you really wanted to, that is System 2 taking control. But how did System 2 know to do that? I will return to that question later.
Get a GIST on it
Heretical as it might seem to Kahneman fans, there are other paradigms out there. Have you heard of the Fuzzy-Trace Theory (FTT)? FTT is a variant on the dual-mode paradigm and proposes that the quick-decision system focuses on the gist or overall meaning of a problem instead of deliberating on verbatim facts. Writing in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Valerie Reyna states,
"FTT offers a third option beyond standard dual processes: an often-unconscious, imprecise, parallel thinking process of gist-based intuition that is the mainstay of advanced cognition."
A gist is not the same as heuristic or mental shortcut, it is a distillation of meaning, and the simpler the better. Told that unvaccinated children are 23 times more likely to get a disease compared to vaccinated children, parents will likely remember the difference as "big." Later in the paper, Reyna continues,
"Another key difference between FTT's approach and that of others is that FTT does not advocate deliberation (thinking harder, longer, and more elaborately about details) as the hallmark of higher reasoning, instead emphasizing nondeliberative but educated intuition."
In other words, the more experience we have, the stronger our gist, and the quicker we make informed decisions. Yes, there is hope for us old farts yet. And maybe gist is what allows us to get in the flow?
A key implication of FTT is that communicators should focus in on the gist people distill from messaging. An overall impression is far more likely to be remembered than the specific facts. Given my experience with pre-testing and advertising tracking, this aspect of FTT feels right. People remember impressions, not facts. Too many messages undermine efficacy. So, advertisers should think long and hard about how their messages are likely to be remembered. What is the simplest impression that people might take away?
Maybe there is only one mode?
Whatever dual system you prefer, they all assume a qualitative difference between systems. But what if there was no difference? Maybe our thinking does not differ in kind, but rather in degree? In other words, the processes are the same, but the degree of effort is lesser or greater.
So, rather than System 2 overriding System 1 when you bit your tongue to avoid saying something bad, maybe one, single system escalated your degree of thought (perhaps based on the degree of emotion involved)? I do not feel a difference when my thinking kicks over from System 1 to System 2, so maybe I am just devoting more resources to whatever I am thinking about? Or maybe I only experience flow when both systems are in alignment?
30 years of debate and no definitive answer
A review by Wim De Neys in Perspectives on Psychological Science suggests that there is not enough evidence to decide whether there are one or two systems at work.
De Neys does rule out that there is perfect alignment between modes, i.e., a process is not either fast or slow, either effortless or effortful, etc.. He does so on the grounds that there are problem solving mechanisms that are proven to be slow and effortless. One such is the Incubation Phenomenon, aka "sleeping on it." However, his ultimate conclusion is that,
"after 30 years of debate, there is currently no good evidence that would allow us to decide between the single and dual process model view."
Pick a model, any model?
But if you think De Neys has finished there, think again. Not only does he find the evidence inconclusive, but he also finds the distinction between dual and unimodel thinking irrelevant and trivial. His argument is that both models lead to the same conclusion regarding outcomes, so why fight over the exact nature of the processes involved. He states,
"In a sense the choice between a single and dual process model boils—quite literally—down to a choice between two different religions."
Ouch!
While I doubt that any academic with a vested interest in one model or another will be swayed by this argument, I found De Neys' viewpoint reassuring. It is not just us dumb marketers who can endlessly take sides over important questions. Short-term versus long-term anyone? (But remember, that question is a red herring.)
And my choice is…
Not to make a choice. My conclusion is that we make the best decision we can under the circumstances, as quickly as we can. I will leave the one system, two system debate to the academics. However, there are various takeaways from my reading that any marketer should consider (I nearly said bear in mind).
- Experience has a huge effect on how we respond to the world around us. Whatever a marketer does needs to take this into account. What experience might people have had of the category or brand before? No one is a blank slate. If we have been exposed to a brand, we likely have an impression of it. Repeated exposure helps keep that impression easily accessible. If you are seeking to change behavior, just make sure you know how big a task that is going to be based on people's entrenched experience of your brand.
- Marketing activity should help people respond quickly and easily, not think. If people must consciously think about what your advertising means, then it will likely not be as effective as it could be. If the impression conveyed by your advertising conflicts with their existing impression of your brand, the dissonance will at best cause them to consciously try to reconcile the two, but at worse will likely cause them to reject the new impression.
- Marketers' expectations of people's ability to remember specific facts, claims, or messages is vastly over-inflated. Based on my experience, the concept of gist is very credible. We distill meaning to its simplest interpretation, so that it is easily accessible from memory. Impressions guide our expectations and future experience. Focus your marketing communication on a simple, memorable, and positive impression. And remember, it is the recipient that decides what matters to them, not you.
But what is your impression? Please share your thoughts.
Stay Informed
When you subscribe to the blog, we will send you an e-mail when there are new updates on the site so you wouldn't miss them.
Comments