Thinking fast and slow: the case of the charitable promotions

 Although it is not a canonical book of the Tanach ,Daniel Kahneman's seminal book Thinking, Fast and Slow is cited so often by rabbis and Jewish scholars that one might wonder whether it has achieved a special status as a book of unarguable truths about ourselves, the world within which we live and our decision-making processes. 

Happily for students of Pirkei Avot (the Ethics of the Fathers), Kahneman's work is firmly rooted in it. His thesis is that human decision-making is based on the interplay of two very different types of thought, each of which has a vital part to play when we live our daily lives, act out our routines or face problems and issues that lie beyond the realm of the ordinary. 

The first, "system 1", is the means by which we navigate the myriad minor issues that face us each day and it is this system that accounts for the vast majority of our choices. Activities such as putting on a sock, avoiding an oncoming pedestrian on the pavement, unlocking our front door, making a cup of coffee or responding to a greeting do not require us to stop dead in our tracks and carefully map out what we do. We respond swiftly and often instinctively--and these responses will generally be correct. System 2, in contrast, is engaged when system 1 simply will not work. If I forget my front door key, I must stop and think how best I can gain access to my home. Likewise, I must do a little careful calculation before deciding if I have enough time to drink a cup of hot coffee before leaving to catch a train. 

What does this have to do with Pirkei Avot? The very first piece of guidance in the first mishnah of the first perek teaches: "Be deliberate in judgement" and many commentators go to great lengths to explain that this means what Kahneman would call switching from System 1 to System 2 thinking when resolving a legal dispute. The danger against which this guidance is given is that a judge may jump to the wrong conclusion where he intuits that he has dealt with many cases of the same nature, or involving the same "type" of litigant, in the past. Later in the same perek, at Avot 1:6, Yehoshua ben Perachya counsels us to judge others favourably even where at first glance they are guilty or unworthy of the benefit of the doubt. Again, the impetus of System 1 reasoning is acknowledged, as is the need to curb it. An anonymous mishnah in the fifth perek cautions us not to interrupt others when they are speaking -- a classical System 1 social response -- since it is better to hear them out and then decide whether your words need be said at all. 

A couple of weeks ago I was going through my post and came across two charity appeals. One was from World Jewish Relief's Ukraine Crisis Fund; the other was for the University Jewish Chaplaincy. Glancing at the promotional material for each, I was horrified by the contrast before my eyes of an image of desperate refugees from a war-torn battle zone juxtaposed with one of students eating and indeed partying together. How could I even contemplate supporting the chaplaincy in the face of an appeal on behalf of those who were so obviously in need? I instantly put the chaplaincy appeal in the pile of papers for recycling.

That was my System 1 decision. I then recalled Avot 1:1 and the maxim that one should not be hasty in one's judgement. I also bore in mind the teaching of Rabbi Meir that one should not judge anything by its external superficialities (Avot 4:27). Having done so, I took the trouble to reassess my decision and read the promotional material of the two charities carefully. 

As expected, System 2 delivered a more measured result. For a start, I discovered that the University Jewish Chaplaincy had sent 30 students and three chaplains to work with Ukrainian refugees in Poland. For another, I was reminded of the need to support students who face the ongoing antisemitism on campus which seems to have become endemic, as well as the mental health issues that many students have experienced. On mature reflection it seemed that both charities were deserving causes and that I had been over-hasty in deciding to deprive one of support on the sole basis of entitlement through the contrast between two sets of visuals.