Decision making in the world of Post-

truth: Why debate is not healthy

Publicado em 23 de janeiro de 2017

Gareth Tennant MSc

As we head into 2017 it is perhaps worth taking stock of some of the situations we now
find ourselves in. I will state now that this article is not another rant about whether
Brexit was a good idea or not, or whether Trump is danger or liberation to American
Politics. This is simply my observations about the current climate of complex political
decisions being made in a world where information is available in abundance but the
truth still seems elusive.

Post-truth named 2016 word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries describes a situation
where objective fact is obscured by subjective sentiment. This results in appeals to
emotion and personal belief having greater influence than evidence based realities.
This has obvious down sides; not least of these is that irrespective of the personal
options people hold, almost everyone ends up feeling aggrieved about the outcomes of
big decisions. In the cases of both Brexit and a looming Trump White House, the
discussion about what actions are now going to be taken post the definitive decision are
glaringly different to the campaign rhetoric leading up to them.
Dealing with complex problems

This is all because we have tried to simplify very large and complex social problems in
one simple binary question; in or out, Clinton Vs Trump. When this over simplified
approach hits the reality of the situation, the complexity comes rushing back and
compromises to set in stone campaign pledges are now having to be sought.

In the early 2000s, David Snowden and Cynthia Kurtz, researchers at IBM developed
the Cynefin framework (see fig. 1) as a way of categorising problems. They postulate
that all problems fit into four domains of decision making; obvious, complicated,
complex and chaotic. There is a fifth category of disorder for situations where there is
no clarity about which of the other domains apply. Snowden and Kurtz argue that as we
gain understanding about the relationships between cause and effect, we should be able
to move from chaos to simplicity.

Fig.1 Cynefin Model (Snowden and Kurthz, 2003)

Multifaceted political issues such as immigration, economics, trade relationships and

sovereignty are by their nature complex problems. Therefore, in these cases, cause and
effect only become clear in retrospect. There are just too many variables to know
definitively what the right solution is. Instead we rely on experience and judgement to
apply a strategy and then test and adjust our policy as our understanding develops.
But when we are faced with a clear binary decision in a referendum or an election. Our
ability to sense out the right approach is removed, we effectively treat complex
problems as complicated ones and begin to argue that the cause A equals effect B and
the solution is X, whilst others identify a different

causal relationship and argue for solution Y . This then sets the conditions for a debate
on who is write and who is wrong.

Debate or Negotiation

Debates by their nature are divisive and have a polarising effect on problem solving.
When we begin to debate we tend to become defensive about our lines of argument. We
pick holes in any information that tries to counter our own views and cling to facts that
support it. We become very susceptible to confirmation bias and over time become
wedded to our own ideas. As the positions on both sides of the debate become more
entrenched any middle ground that may have initially existed seems harder to reach.
Counter intuitively, the more information made available, the more this fuels the
polarisation and the chasm between opinions grows.

In his book, Talking to terrorists, Jonathon Powell extols the virtues of negotiating. He
argues that even in the most extreme circumstances of scepticism and disagreement,
negotiation is not only possible, but necessary to bridge the void between differing
opinions. Negotiation requires both compromise and concessions. Being able to
empathise with someone who holds completely different values from your own is not
easy. It is harder still to cede ground and develop collaborative approaches to problem
solving. However if we are to move forward in this age of post-truth then we need to be
humble enough to accept that whichever side of the fence we sit, there is some merit in
opposing argument.

Moving forward

To thrive in an age of complexity and ambiguity we need to approach Complex

problems for what they are. This requires us to change of frame for reference and
instead of seeking a particular solution, we need to seek greater understanding. The
more we understand, the more we will be able to test and adjust our approaches. We
should aim to avoid making big sweeping decisions that have long lasting and
irreversible consequences and instead aim to make many minor adjustments, probing
and analysing as we go.
This will require us to be discerning about truth, testing assumptions and applying due
diligence to the veracity and validity of received information. Above all we should have
the courage to try to innovate and the humility to accept when things dont work. We
should aim to empathise with those who hold different views, trying to understand what
drives them to their conclusions and influence them though inclusion and compromise
rather than trying to convince them with evidence.

This perhaps leads us to the conclusion that we should nudge rather than push.

By

Gareth Tennant

Director & Founder Decision Advantage

www.decisionadvantageuk.com

http://bit.ly/2vMoGli