Making Snap Decisions: Part II
As we discussed in part 1 of this 3-part series, our brains use heuristics to help us quickly make decisions by rapidly, though not always accurately, making links between previously acquired knowledge and incoming stimuli. Today we’ll be looking at their impact on our interactions with others.
In a nutshell, we use heuristics to categorically zero in on which people, places, things and feelings (or lack thereof) will help us avoid pain/feeling unsafe and feel more pleasure/safety*. Everything from media messaging and cultural experiences to individual experiences and knowledge has the potential to inform our heuristic processes. In such abstract terms, this may not sound surprising or even noteworthy, but let’s break it down with a couple examples.
EX 1: Andrea lives with 2 roommates, Ray and Jasper. Andrea perceives Ray to be socially awkward like herself, and she feels good about their relationship and their ability to navigate conflict. By all accounts, Jasper is a loyal friend and good roommate. However, he’s also charismatic and attractive in a way that Andrea unconsciously associates with her middle school bullies. When Jasper tries to gently confront Andrea about not doing her share of chores, Andrea feels personally attacked and victimized -- she becomes highly defensive and is therefore unable to take in Jasper’s concern. This pattern continues and creates a significant divide between not only Andrea and Jasper, but also Andrea and Ray, which perpetuates her feelings of victimhood.
In this example, Andrea’s heuristic processes have perceived a significant link between Jasper and Andrea’s middle school bullies, preventing Andrea from responding based on all of the present information. So, although Jasper is actually a trustworthy and kindhearted person who could be a wonderfully supportive presence in Andrea’s life, Andrea’s heuristic processes have now resulted in her ostracizing herself from both Jasper and Ray.
Ex 2: Jordan, a white-identifying man, considers himself to be liberal, self-aware and anti-racist. He consumes news via various outlets to stay apprised of current events. While walking in the park one evening, Jordan hears someone yelling that someone ran off with their wallet. When Jordan looks in the direction of the yelling, he sees two individuals running in opposite directions of the victim: a white-appearing male and a Black-appearing male. Without a second thought, Jordan sprints after the latter and tackles the innocent man who’s just out for a jog.
Some research suggests that Black crime suspects are overrepresented in media coverage of arrests**. Before Jordan’s cognitive processes have had a chance to chime in with an objective assessment of the situation, Jordan’s unconscious mind has concluded that the suspect is more likely to be Black.
Of course, the process is typically not quite this cut and dry, as our experiences are varied and complex. These examples are merely meant to provide some insight into the possible relational impact of our heuristic processes. In the third and final installment of this series we’ll be looking at ways to work with and challenge the heuristics that aren’t serving us.
Until then, I challenge you to get curious about your interactions with those around you. What information is present that you might not have noticed before? What can you learn and sense about the person you’re interacting with? Can you notice what sort of connections and leaps your unconscious mind might be making in different interactions? How do these mental connections feel in your body, and what are your internal and external reactions to them? As always, I encourage you to be incredibly gentle with yourself.
*It’s important to remember that pain/pleasure and feelings of safety are subjective.
**References https://www.vox.com/2015/3/26/8296091/media-bias-race-crime