Decisions become remarkably harder and less competent with each succeeding decision.
Two societal
implications are that 1) accepting or
declining economic transactions is costlier than we think and 2) electing
numerous officials curtails democracy.
Ignored transaction
costs
The housing
mortgage crisis exemplifies the first implication: commentary has failed to
take account of the toll imposed on people who want to buy homes, when
pseudo-opportunity taxes their willpower. The structure of “opportunity” is
central here: an open offer from varied offerors isn’t subject to
once-and-for-all decisive rejection. Instead, a potential borrower may have to
wrestle with impulse for months, so that finally accepting a loan becomes a
desperate response to the constant drain on scarce willpower.
The harm never considered is how much willpower
is drained from those who refrained
from borrowing, who successfully resisted the impulse to take a home loan; how
the drain on their willpower paralyzed them in making other decisions—having been forced to squander their willpower on
resisting loans that should never have been offered. Willpower is a scarce
resource, and it is far more costly than almost anyone realizes. It’s the great
hidden societal cost of market transactions. And while researchers assume willpower is replenished with a night’s sleep and breakfast,
I suspect that longer frames also operate—this is the reason we need weekends
and vacations.
The faux-democratic proliferation of
electoral events
Like
proliferating consumer “choices” that kill happiness and productivity while
seeming to enhance them, the proliferation of elections has an analogous
paradoxical effect on democracy.
Since every choice offered diminishes our ability to make choices, elections
for judges and dogcatchers or for the multiple offices required under the U.S.
federal system weaken democracy by detracting from the effort citizens devote
to any electoral contest.
Although
dramatically reforming the American political structure is neither feasible nor
high priority, it is well to have a vision
of what kind of structure is or isn’t effectively democratic. Ego-depletion
theory tells us that the fewer offices for which a citizen votes the better, but
construal-level theory offers additional
standards. It proposes that
“Seeing the forest” and “seeing the trees” involve integrated mental sets, dubbed far-mode and near-mode because distance of time, place, and person makes us think in terms of forests and nearness in these respects makes us think in terms of trees.
Outcomes
will depend on whether the decision is construed in far-mode or near-mode. The
theory might be invoked to support a system of checks and balances like the
U.S. system, where elections staged at different intervals and over
different-sized constituencies induce varying construal levels. At the federal
level, elections to the House of Representatives are relatively near-mode, due both to small districts
and frequent elections, and presidential elections may be most far-mode, although Senate terms are
longer. Near-mode fosters resistance
to change, so it is theoretically consistent with construal-level theory that the House has taken so strongly to saying no.
But if the
system succeeds in eliciting different construal levels in different government
branches, this has come to seem a defect rather than merit. If government is to
deal in broad purposes, far-mode
should dominate in formulating policies. If policies are to be implemented
intelligently, near-mode should
dominate in their local application. How to square this with
ego-depletion theory’s moral that the number of contests in which any citizen votes
be limited, preferably to a single office? One way to try to accomplish this might
be a unicameral parliament with local bureaucracies appointed top down, but
this produces an effect opposite to the intended. Appointments to distant career
posts are based on far-mode
processes, unlikely to lead to effective near-mode
reasoning by the appointees.
Another
little used but in-theory effective means of unifying local government with
national government could better secure the appropriate allocation of near and far cognition: indirect election of progressively higher levels of
government by local bodies, so the choices are minimized and each delegation is
progressively more far-mode.
It may be objected that this was part of the defunct scheme originally adopted
under the U.S. Constitution, which provided that local government bodies elect
U.S. Senators and delegates to the electoral college, but the U.S.
Constitutional scheme insubordinated local power to national by limiting the
power of the federal government, whereas in the (unitary rather than federal)
system here envisioned, the higher levels dominate the lower despite being
selected by them, to subordinate near-mode
to far-mode while economizing human
willpower.
No comments:
Post a Comment