In March, the world lost one of its best thinkers — Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Laureate in Economics, and author of the bestseller, “Thinking Fast and Slow.” In that seminal work, Kahneman described how the human brain has two systems of thinking — System 1, the “fast” system, in which we process problems automatically and intuitively; and System 2, the “slow” system, in which we deliberate over problems, critically assessing and weighing different aspects of the issues before reaching a conclusion.
In my view, System 1 is most useful in two opposite contexts: emergencies and low-stakes decisions. In an emergency, delay itself poses a risk of harm. Though the stakes are high, you typically do not have time to collect, much less analyze and synthesize, data. Instead, you must make the best decision you can, with the information you have, and you must do so quickly.
In low-stakes situations, you likely do have the time to collect and synthesize data; however, that time, energy, and effort are better spent elsewhere, because getting the answer “wrong” has limited consequences. For low stakes issues, a “good enough” answer is good enough.
To determine whether the issue you are facing is low-stakes, moderate-stakes, or high-stakes, imagine yourself having already decided the issue at hand, and then ask, “Is this decision going to matter 10 days from now? Ten weeks or months from now? Ten years from now? How easily could I/we reverse the decision? What would that require in terms of time, money, and/or reputation?”
If the decision won’t matter 10 days or weeks from now, and the decision can be reversed with relatively little time, money, and cost to reputation, then it is a low-stakes decision. Just decide, and act on your decision. Even if the worst-case scenario comes to pass, you can course-correct, and at little cost to you or others.
By contrast, with moderate- to higher stakes issues, System 1 thinking is not optimal, because the consequences of a flawed solution are significant and harder to reverse. These issues instead call for System 2 thinking — more deliberate and critically thoughtful analysis.
But how?
This is the System 2-thinking approach I recommend:
- Acknowledge what biases and blind spots you might have about this issue.
- With what beliefs or assumptions are you beginning your approach to this situation?
- What do you believe you already know about this issue, and how do you know it?
- Is this an issue or situation you’ve dealt with before? How did it go the last time you faced that situation?
If your prior experience of the situation was positive, you might be inclined to assume that you should use the same approach that worked well last time. If your prior experience of the situation was negative, you might be inclined to assume that the issue cannot be solved, and certainly not the way you approached it last time. However, critical thinkers recognize that no two situations are identical. Important aspects of the context might be different today than the last time you confronted this issue. A solution that worked before won’t necessarily work today, and one that failed before might nevertheless work today. Ask yourself whether differences between the context in which you last faced this issue, and the current context, suggest that a different approach might be possible, or even required.
- In addressing this issue, what would be ideal to know that you do not already know? Whose perspectives besides yours should you be considering? Who might have expertise that would be helpful to you in analyzing this issue?
- If, during your analysis, you encounter information that challenges your beliefs and assumptions, are you willing to reconsider those beliefs and assumptions?
- Identify what problem you are solving. Confirm who will be making the decision on the issue at hand, and ask what, specifically, about this situation they believe needs changing; how that situation affects them; who else is affected and how; and what the situation would look like if it were resolved to their reasonable satisfaction.
- Analyze the root causes of the situation you are addressing. It is easy to treat symptoms; it is much harder to solve problems at the root cause level. And yet, complex problems are often caused by multiple factors that, if unaddressed, will result in some version of the problem recurring over and over again.
- Brainstorm (with others) multiple options for solving the problem. A decision can only be as good as the best alternative you considered. Before recommending a particular solution, make sure you are considering a wide range of possible options generated by a group of people who have a diverse set of perspectives on the problem.
- Ask what the best counterarguments to, and risks of, your recommended solution are. What would someone who opposed this solution say about it? What is the fairest response to those objections? What might possibly go wrong if your organization were to implement this solution? Is there anything the organization can do now to make those potential negative outcomes less bad and/or less likely?
In sum, remember that it’s not necessary to “think critically” about every issue or problem that arises. If the stakes of your problem are low, let your intuition guide you to a quick decision, and act. You will learn something from seeing how your decision plays out, and if the decision turns out to be “wrong”, just correct it and keep moving.
If, however, the stakes of your problem are moderate to high (but not an emergency), then think slowly, using the critically thoughtful problem-solving process outlined above. Critical thinking isn’t fast, and it isn’t easy, but it does produce a process that gets hard problems solved well.
Risa M. Mish is a Professor of the Practice at Cornell University’s Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management, where she developed and teaches the Core MBA and Executive MBA courses in Critical and Strategic Thinking.