Do you reckon?

Navigating the cognitive minefield of now

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

There are difficult decisions constantly confronting us, and unsurprisingly, a plethora of voices and messaging constantly working to influence our decision-making. Many of these voices push us decidedly (and intentionally) toward reactionary and emotional responses. Too few encourage you to slow down and think for yourself, instead directing and funneling you toward one conclusion or another as might befit their agenda.

It’s worth observing that many of the most challenging decisions we face these days are embedded in an socio-emotional minefield and revolve around passivity and compliance.

As an example, the choice to participate in an experimental population-wide injection campaign fits the bill. The choice to participate in ‘voluntary’ retinal scans at airports does as well. The choice of parents to vaccinate their children in order to attend school. The choice to take a prescription drug based on a doctor’s recommendation. The acceptance or non-acceptance of the consensus narrative du jour on any range of topics in one’s news feed. Even the seemingly small and simple choice to express disagreement with one’s family, friends, and colleagues—to break with popular group belief or practice, raising the risk of being ostracized—can be paralyzing.

It has been said that decision-making is a skill of successful people, especially leaders, but it is also a skill of everyday rational thinkers. Indeed, one of the definitions of the word decision — ‘a determination arrived at after consideration’ — points to a foundational gravitas undergirding the word itself. The Latin stem, decidere, means ‘to cut off’. A ‘decision’ literally is a conclusive choice in a matter of consequence.

The modern usage of the word, ‘decision’, however, tends to dilute this quite a bit.

The frame we’re largely encouraged to look through is more akin to a menu, where the decision-maker is essentially passive: one’s choice of television programming, how you take your coffee, soup or salad, paper or plastic. These aren’t true decisions, they are really just selections based on fondness, habit, or even prejudice.

If we look closely, the decision-maker in this context isn’t a true decision-maker at all. It isn’t that choices don’t have consequences—they certainly may. The issue is that we are being encouraged to see decision-making as a true-false binary or multiple-choice, fill-in-the-bubble survey, conflating habit and preference with thoughtful, reflective assessment.

This framing encourages the expression of preference over true decision-making, and so predictably, many find themselves on unfamiliar ground when it comes to matters which decidedly require deeper thought and consideration.

To further illustrate, let’s dig into a highly-cited number regarding human decision making.

35k Decisions a Day?

The claim goes more or less like this: “an adult makes about 35,000 remotely conscious decisions each day”.

That’s quite a specific number! Surely, there must be some sort of basis for this statement, so I went looking. One of the first search hits comes from Dr. Joel Hooman.

Pay attention to Dr. Hooman’s examples and framing, because he is not alone.

First off, for Hooman, you’re just a consumer, and the things that matter are (apparently) trivial: which cable channel you watch, your coffee, your ‘friends’ on Facebook and spending with budget implications. That’s it!

This article and the 35,000 figure has been cited and parroted in a great many places, including CNN, Psychology Today, the Harvard Business Review, Inc. Magazine, Forbes, and PBS. You get the idea. It’s a thing that has achieved mainstream ‘pulp-reality’. Search engines will find it, and so will your favorite chat bot.

But is it real?

Turns out, several others have wondered about this. The Psychology and Neuroscience Stack Exchange dug into it, and Substack writer El Call Did the Research.

Do We Really Make 35,000 Decisions a Day?

After some independent searching (to satisfy a degree of curiosity), I came upon a behavior design site discussing the work of Daniel Kahneman, and I thought, “Ah, perhaps this number comes from Kahneman!” So I consulted my copy of the book. No dice. The number is not cited in his insightful work, Thinking, Fast and Slow.

The result of this relatively brief digging? There’s real difficulty tracking down a solid source. The number appears to be pulled out of thin air. You’d think that a specific quantified value like 35,000 would be based on some sort of referenced science; but if the science has been published, it has eluded this researcher, and others (If, dear reader, you know of a reference, please do leave it in the comments).

Yet, this ’35,000 decisions a day’ number is *everywhere*. It is repeated and parroted so frequently, one should wonder if it is part of a programmed cultural narrative.

Somewhat less darkly (but not less troublesome), we can imagine that the repetition might come partly from modern reliance on internet search engines and chat bots, connecting words and search terms without qualification or substantiation.

But is it really part of something larger?

Setting that question aside (for now), observe that the ‘35k decisions’ figure feels real because of ubiquity, not because it is true.

Daniel Kahneman’s actual words from Thinking, Fast and Slow, come echoing back:

“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from the truth.”

Parsing the Media

The influence sought over how we perceive our role as decision-maker is where the goals of the old media and the new-fangled social media overlap and intersect.

Social media is grooming everyone to take the part of a compliant and passive expresser of preference. We are encouraged to ‘like’, ‘follow’, ‘repost’ and ‘restack’. Post your preference, find your partiality or prejudice and amplify it by splashing ripples of it out into the internet. Older mass media channels cater to the even more passive; because there, preference is reduced to flipping channels or scanning headlines, electronic or otherwise: you digest what you’re given. It is worth noting that the most significant distinction amongst the target audiences here is attention span.

Even casual media consumers are inundated constantly by messaging akin to the ‘35,000 decisions’ trope: figures, statistics, talking points, headlines, and of course, advertisements.

It’s quite literally, a torrent.

The volume of input being driven into our cognitive space from all media sources is beyond overwhelming (no wonder so many are drawn to the enticing convenience of so-called ‘AI’). Indeed, if one cares about cognitive health, controlling the degree to which you allow this torrent to impact you is a very good idea (though this author is much more skeptical of ‘AI’).

But here’s the crux: everyone, regardless of reading speed, knowledge base, or skillset is being forced to adopt one or more of several strategies. This isn’t a complete list, but serves as a launching point for the discussion here.

Strategies for managing media overload:

1. Reduce or filter the number of input sources

2. Ignore or reject some of the input to make the volume manageable

3. Speed-process some of the input to save time

   a) If the material is in one’s comfort zone, make quick assessments

   b) If outside one’s comfort zone, rely on the interpretations of others

4. Increase time-commitment in an effort to process more volume

5. Set aside selected portions for further processing at a later time

People tend to adopt one or more of these strategies based on the amount of effort or time they are willing to put forth to digest the subject media. Many, however, will choose strategy #1 to avoid considering any of the others, especially if there is any effort (or lack of pleasure/entertainment) involved at all.

Note that no matter what combination of strategies one employs, the problem of assessing validity and trustworthiness of the source remains.

Repetition, Numeration, and Science

It’s safe to say that mass media has always been overtly psychologically manipulative; however, the modern form has increasingly and repeatedly turned to particular devices with great effect. Recognizing these devices is part of walking the minefield.

One such device is the use of repetition to promote subjective validity. We can see this in the widespread parroting of the unreferenced statistic from our ‘35,000 decisions’ example. Further, the social media short format of tweets, re-tweets and TikTok videos pair like hand and glove with this kind of repetition. Reach and whether or not a thing ‘goes viral’ (which is actually a form of repetition), is used to promote a sense of credibility because it plays upon a bias we share: the more a message is heard or seen, the more we internalize the idea that the encapsulated beliefs are shared and validated by others. The yield is socio-emotional leverage.

This bears repeating for emphasis.

This validation-by-others is a key point here, especially as it relates to passivity and compliance, because the more alignment people feel between a message and a perceived group consensus, the more they tend to label a message as ‘true’.

Message framing also increasingly emphasizes ‘the science’, especially quantitative aspects and numeration, in order to also promote a sense of validity or ‘truthiness’. Statements that include numbers, (like the preceding ’35,000 decisions’ trope) are often deemed to be more plausible and taken at face-value, regardless of whether the numbers are accurate, applicable, or substantiated.

Similarly, the information landscape is inundated by statements incorporating phrases such as: ‘researchers found’, or ‘scientists have determined’, ‘peer-reviewed’ or ‘science-backed’, or a position based on ‘scientific consensus’; all of these have the power be very influential, especially to an audience which does not see itself as skilled or versed in science or numeration.

Graphs and infographics are yet another set of devices in play. Like the citation of unqualified statistics, graphical representations of numeration are rife with the potential to misrepresent data to an audience which may or may not be skilled in recognizing embedded intentions. There is an under-appreciated art to truthful visual representation which goes far beyond whether or not something is eye-catching or pleasing to look at. The public is mostly unequipped to effectively parse graphical representation.

To boil it down: when a message incorporates a graph, a number, or a statistic, we tend to internalize the idea that the message is valid and confirmed by others.

Most people don’t dig, they accept.

In response to this tidal wave of incoming messages, a large proportion of lay-people adopt (from the preceding list) strategies 1, 2, 3a and 3b. To recap:

1. Reduce or filter the number of input sources

2. Ignore or reject some of the input to make the volume manageable

3. Speed-process some of the input to save time

   a) If the material is in one’s comfort zone, make quick assessments

   b) If outside one’s comfort zone, rely on the interpretations of others

In simple terms, they actively choose not to pay attention, make snap judgements if they find alignment with their preconceptions, and farm out their understanding to an anointed expert if it is outside their comfort zone.

For a larger proportion of the general public than is generally admitted, the very use of the words ‘science’ or ‘statistics’ can itself function as a critical-thought-terminator.

The complexification and thought-terminating qualities of the information stream is not an accident: it’s purposeful. It functions as a boundary warning: ‘Keep Out — Authorized Personnel Only’.

Lessons from Generalists

The information landscape isn’t just a torrent; as illustrated, it’s a minefield.

In this minefield, how does one actually make considered decisions?

Hardcore scientists may cringe at this suggestion, but the path of the Generalist can be extremely useful here, especially for lay-people.

By nature, a Generalist is not a specialist or expert, but a jack-of-all-trades. They are explorers and learners.

They don’t compartmentalize: they synthesize.

Their life experience builds knowledge on itself, often collecting competency across a broad range of experience. Because of this, they can become adept at integrating bodies of knowledge and finding connections across disciplines, often in a complementary and practical manner. The diversity of their knowledge base can lend itself to perceiving connections and correlations that specialists might overlook. Oftentimes this is true because generalists, by their nature, tend to branch out of their comfort zone regularly.

Because of the role they often play in facilitating team work, generalists also tend to be good at collaboration and situational awareness, keenly observing emotions and human interaction. This also helps them to be effective communicators, distilling complex problems into understandable (and actionable) chunks, without being driven by reactionary emotional response.

With just a little experience, a Generalist will look at the ‘Keep Out — Authorized Personnel Only’ sign and walk right past it.

Generalists can be quite good at testing the work of specialists, kicking the tires, and asking particular types of questions:

• What makes sense here?

• What doesn’t make sense here?

• What are the origins of this?

• How does/might this fit together?

• How is this practical?

• How do you communicate this?

Generalists work from principles, first and foremost. The job is to place knowledge within the context of what is known, without over-complexifying. Naturally, ‘what is known’ is unique to each individual; but importantly, when the Generalist finds a void in their knowledge base, they work to fill that space with their own research.

They don’t intend to become an expert, but rather, seek fundamentals and principles that can serve as a scaffold for reasoning. This is because, at their core, generalists strive to be open thinkers. In order to do that, they eschew compartmentalization and specialized knowledge in favor of integration.

Thus, the decision-making synthesis of the Generalist is not declaring preference and simple choice. It has more in common with the idea of reckoning.

“I reckon..”

What does it mean to say, “I reckon…”?

Perhaps a bit of etymology is in order.

The usage stems from English origins and so is found in Australia as well as the US, and likely throughout the realms of British influence. Usage was not reserved for the colloquial, despite prevailing (stereotyped) associations in popular culture with the American South. Although used in literary settings, the phrase ‘I reckon’ now tends toward a negative connotation in modern usage: it is often associated with ignorance and uninformed belief.

The word itself, however, encompasses much more than such prejudice allows.

Merriam-Webster returns definitions of the verb reckon as ‘to count’, ‘to estimate or compute’, ‘to consider’, and ‘to think or suppose’.

The first half of the word, reck, implies a degree of consideration, especially in the context of the word ‘reckless’, often interpreted as ‘thoughtless’, ‘careless’, or ‘rash’.

From https://www.etymonline.com/word/reckon

From https://www.etymonline.com/word/reck#etymonline_v_36940

Compare “I reckon” to “I think” or “I believe”.

‘I think’ can be a statement of assumption, whereas ‘I believe’ might be a statement which might not require proof or defense. Indeed, while the surface interpretation is often a form of ‘I think’ or ‘I believe’, the phrase ‘I reckon’ might be more accurately read to mean, "I have applied a process of thought and come to this conclusion".

The root of reckon has embedded within it the notion of an ‘ordered accounting’. Building further on this is the reckoning, as in ‘a day of reckoning’, when accounts are settled.

An Ordered Accounting

Wrapping our thoughts around the nature of the information minefield and the intersection with numeration and scientific concepts, is nowadays, simply essential.

We are constantly being bombarded by narratives built around ‘scientific analysis’ and ‘discovery’. In the reading of those narratives, even accounting for the rise of pseudo-science (science-like activities) and scientism (science as a belief system), it must be acknowledged that much of what may be assumed to be ‘established’ science may not be as settled as the scientific establishment would have the public believe. This shouldn’t be surprising, because science, as a way of knowing, is by nature constantly evolving and shifting.

Science is a lens, a way of understanding, and it is never truly settled.

None of this need be interpreted as an indictment of science; rather, it is simply an honest acknowledgement of the shared and ongoing human epistemological journey.

Though you might not guess it by the assertions of some very vocal public figures, the working mantra shouldn’t be “We know”; but rather, “We think we know” or “This is what we don’t know.” And: “It needs to be studied (further)!”

Despite a basis in empiricism, there is still a tremendous degree of indeterminacy with regard to scientific knowledge and that reality should impact our decision making. On a great many fronts, if one were to truly wait for ‘the science to be settled’, one would be unable to act with decisiveness.

That’s an uncomfortable and poignant truth.

But we do have to make decisions, and quite often, in the face of insufficient data and knowledge. The crisis of now is that the data and knowledge are not only insufficient, but often misrepresented, distorted, hidden or outright censored; and, though not always the case, this is often done intentionally.

In his 1973 novel, Time Enough for Love, Robert A. Heinlein captured the essence of the challenge:

“To get anywhere, or even to live a long time, a man has to guess, and guess right, over and over again, without enough data for a logical answer.”

This is where recalling the approach of the Generalist can be extremely useful.

The Generalist seeks to learn fundamentals.¹ They apply critical thinking constantly, even in this effort, because sometimes even the teacher, specialist, or source can be wrong. New information is constantly sought and incorporated, but the Generalist effectively winnows streams of information and is adept at avoiding overwhelm.

Rather than get bogged down in minutiae (the Generalist leaves that analysis to the Specialist), a more integrative question is posed:

To point: “Does this make sense in the context of what I’ve learned?”²

The Generalist assesses the situation and then decides on an informed course of action, as best as can be achieved. Quick reflex-driven reactions are to be avoided. The Generalist uses a thoughtful, rational process. It isn’t hurried, but it isn’t slow either. The important bit is the assessment. On a fundamental level, it is a form of judging. Some would call this discernment, something that gets sharper with practice.

In a basic way, the question is always boiled down to: “What’s real here?”

Or, “What’s the prudent course of action?”

The Generalist seeks an ordered accounting.

This, in its essence, is a reckoning.

The Generalist accepts that there are always unresolved variables, unknowns, and insufficient data. Even misleading information. That’s part of the reality. But there isn’t an option not to make a decision (certainly, if one doesn’t act to make their own decisions, someone else will make them for you); rather, one makes the best rational choice possible, based on an ordered accounting.

And that’s the pointed bit of the crisis of now: in the face of complexity and deception, too many opt to abdicate. In some cases, trading their own agency for the edicts of authority, or conforming to a manufactured consensus, or a popular narrative in a search for social acceptance, or relying on repetition as a measure of truth. There may be other reasons. Of course, sometimes, it’s (sadly) pure laziness and indifference.

Abdicate comes from the Latin abdicare, meaning ‘to disown, disavow, or reject’. In the 1600’s the word came to mean ‘to divest oneself of privilege’.³ And indeed, giving up your agency to make decisions for yourself is not only abdicating, but the antithesis of liberty.

And as we’ve seen, too few pay attention to liberty until it is threatened.

Actively engaging your role as a true decision-maker, not a preference bubbler, is exercising liberty.

So, to reiterate the initial question, embodied in the title: Do you reckon?

-

#intertwine

#questioneverything

---

---

Information wants to be free—and over 90% of the content here is accessible to anyone. But everything takes care and time. If you like what you see, and you’re willing and able, consider leaving a tip. Every little bit helps. Thank you!

1. This is where an institution like IPAK-EDU is extremely valuable, especially for lay-people.

2. Critically, this might be more aptly phrased, “Does this make sense in the context of what I think I know?”

3. https://www.etymonline.com/word/abdicate