I am writing this review of Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman to show how new breakthroughs in economic research have highly-relevant implications for the politics and media in today’s society. 

Kahneman presents the theory of the unconscious mind as two systems: System 1: which operates automatically and quickly with little to no effort (hence operating “unconsciously”), and System 2: which involves deliberate thought. I’ll focus on the first system in this review, as heuristics/biases in this system can occur, leading to implications further on.

One of the effects mentioned by Kahneman in System 1 is the halo effect (pages 94-97 in the book), deriving from the unconscious desire to have emotional coherence (to keep items emotionally consistent). Therefore, this can lead to the assumption that just because we like a person on one area (e.g. Kahneman references an easy to talk to person called Joan) that we can generalise this to the person being good in all areas (e.g. if Joan was asked to contribute to a charity, you would be more likely to assume she would). 

This effect can be one possible explanation of why some people reject policies from a political party they don’t like without full consideration of what it entails, as admitting the policy is good in their eyes can cause a lack of emotional coherence, which could lead to an automatic rejection of the policy. 

This leads on to another effect Kahneman talks about throughout the book (introduced on page 98), summarised in a totally easy to remember acronym: WYSIATI (What You See Is All There Is). This refers to the tendency to base decisions and to draw conclusions only on the information you have in front of you, potentially leading to errors in judgement. This is because we tend not to account for critical evidence that is missing (as it is difficult in general to know what to account for), so System 1 provides an easier explanation to connect the dots to provide coherence, which usually gets accepted without the input of System 2.  

For both of these effects, this emphasises the importance of researching beyond what immediately appears on your social media feed, or in a newspaper that you read, to ensure a balanced view on the major issues in society (this idea is covered in another article in the PolSoc Paper: Does Social Media Activism Count?).

Finally, a major topic discussed in this book is the theory of loss aversion. This is the notion that the pain of taking a loss (e.g. in a gamble) far outweighs the pleasure of a gain (research suggests that the ratio is around 2:1). This tendency can have an effect for political parties in that it leads to a reluctance to move from the status quo, as the benefit from radical change whilst in power (e.g. new systems benefitting lives through convenience) could feel vastly outweighed by the pain of backlash from media or opposition if their plans do not go according to plan. Hence, this could lead to politicians, even with their differences in views, being more likely to conform to the current set standard for policies already in place.

From the concepts covered in the book, I propose a solution to this, offering a potential method to decrease the likelihood of immediate backlash from the public and help for more major change to be passed as policy. In their formation, policies should be worded such that negative emotions do not instantly come to mind if the announcement of the policy is the only thing considered (through the effect of WYSIATI), and that their merits are extremely emphasised, whilst any losses caused should either be minimised or framed to propose a benefit in another way. Therefore, this policy should appear more agreeable to the public and be less likely to spark instant outrage from affected stakeholders.

In conclusion, here I have skimmed the surface of some of the implications of the way System 1 works. ‘Thinking Fast and Slow’ is a great book if you would like to learn about these in more detail, as well as learn about more heuristics/biases such as the planning fallacy, the availability heuristic, prospect theory and the endowment effect. I would highly recommend reading this book, especially if you have an interest in psychology or economics, and researching for yourself other fields in which these biases may have an effect.