I’ve been talking to people a lot about the referendum over the past few months in both professional settings and in the pub. Purely from my own experience, two things strike me at once: firstly, everybody wants more facts and more clear-cut arguments for and against. Secondly, everybody seems to have made their minds up. The amount of people who admit to not knowing which way they will vote is staggeringly low. Not only this, but I’m constantly surprised at how steadfast people are in their views. What are people basing their opinions on?
Every one of us has instincts. Personally, I have been reading everything I can about the referendum for a while now, from daily broadsheet coverage to obscure independent blogs. Being part of my job, I knew in advance that I would be doing this. I also knew that I would have to report on my findings, ideally from a neutral standpoint. So I left my instinct behind.
University helped me with this, in behavioural economics we learn about cognitive biases and heuristics - shortcuts the brain takes when processing information that can lead us to acting irrationally. For example, confirmation bias means we are prone to believe information that supports our existing viewpoint and discredit that which challenges it. The availability heuristic means we rely on immediate examples that come to mind when evaluating a decision, rather than seeking out new information. Status quo bias tells us that we have a natural preference for the current state of affairs. The point is that we cannot switch these things off, but by being aware of them, we can try.
So I did exactly that. Let’s go in with no preconceptions, listen fully and intently to both sides, and see where we end up. It goes something like this: start with the basics, read the arguments from the campaigns, read the factsheets, read as many bullet-pointed cases for and against as I can get my hands on. Immediately, alarm bells are ringing. Conflicting statistics, hyperbole, inconsistency: it’s everywhere. Deeper we go then, chasing sources, trawling through legislative documents, tackling all the long-reads. Find everything that argues against what I think I already know and read it all. Do it again and again. This is my job, but it’s for me too. I am waiting to be inspired, to have a revelation, to have the answer shake me by the collar and say “this is who you are!”
It hasn’t worked. I have never moved more than 5% or so from the fence. Will something happen in the next 10 weeks or so that will change this? I hope so, but I am not hopeful. I have to remain impartial in a professional sense, which at this point is not difficult because I can just tell the truth. But all of us need to make a decision, and all of us should use our vote to the best of our ability.
It has been said many times by myself and others that there is only one fact in this debate: that there are no facts. Obviously, there are facts about what the EU is, what it does, what our trade relationships are, all those things. But as for what happens if we stay in versus what happens if we leave? There are no easy answers. In objective terms, every single point of contention is debateable. There is a case to be made both ways. All we can do is figure out what the potential outcomes are and weigh up the odds of those outcomes coming to fruition. Even if we knew every piece of relevant information in existence this would be impossible to do without making any judgement calls along the way. The problem is, when we take this kind of debate and try to wrangle it into appearing factual, we create an environment in which hyperbole, cherry-picking and fear-mongering thrives; an environment where every comment is interpreted as an absolute by the opposition, leading to false-criticisms of false ideas; an environment where the more confident the prediction, the more it should be treated with caution.
When faced with this situation what tools do we have for making a decision? Well, we have our instincts. More information is always good, but in the end we will have to make judgement calls, we have to be subjective. How a person will vote will be based on all the things that makes them who they are: their upbringing, where they are from, where they live, where they work, their friends and family, their political leanings, their experiences. So you know what? Let’s not try and condense our views into ten bullet points, let’s just have a chat about them. By empathising with one another, we can understand both sides of the argument much better than if we throw dodgy statistics about the place. We all need to use our vote on June 23rd, being undecided won’t be an option by then. So people say they want more information, but they are still managing to make their minds up. They’re going with their instincts. I’m not going to question why this is anymore, I’m going to say “That’s okay. That’s good”.
A longer version of this blog first appeared in Issue 101 of 53 Degrees magazine.
alex.davies@gmchamber.co.uk @GMCC_Alex
Every one of us has instincts. Personally, I have been reading everything I can about the referendum for a while now, from daily broadsheet coverage to obscure independent blogs. Being part of my job, I knew in advance that I would be doing this. I also knew that I would have to report on my findings, ideally from a neutral standpoint. So I left my instinct behind.
University helped me with this, in behavioural economics we learn about cognitive biases and heuristics - shortcuts the brain takes when processing information that can lead us to acting irrationally. For example, confirmation bias means we are prone to believe information that supports our existing viewpoint and discredit that which challenges it. The availability heuristic means we rely on immediate examples that come to mind when evaluating a decision, rather than seeking out new information. Status quo bias tells us that we have a natural preference for the current state of affairs. The point is that we cannot switch these things off, but by being aware of them, we can try.
So I did exactly that. Let’s go in with no preconceptions, listen fully and intently to both sides, and see where we end up. It goes something like this: start with the basics, read the arguments from the campaigns, read the factsheets, read as many bullet-pointed cases for and against as I can get my hands on. Immediately, alarm bells are ringing. Conflicting statistics, hyperbole, inconsistency: it’s everywhere. Deeper we go then, chasing sources, trawling through legislative documents, tackling all the long-reads. Find everything that argues against what I think I already know and read it all. Do it again and again. This is my job, but it’s for me too. I am waiting to be inspired, to have a revelation, to have the answer shake me by the collar and say “this is who you are!”
It hasn’t worked. I have never moved more than 5% or so from the fence. Will something happen in the next 10 weeks or so that will change this? I hope so, but I am not hopeful. I have to remain impartial in a professional sense, which at this point is not difficult because I can just tell the truth. But all of us need to make a decision, and all of us should use our vote to the best of our ability.
It has been said many times by myself and others that there is only one fact in this debate: that there are no facts. Obviously, there are facts about what the EU is, what it does, what our trade relationships are, all those things. But as for what happens if we stay in versus what happens if we leave? There are no easy answers. In objective terms, every single point of contention is debateable. There is a case to be made both ways. All we can do is figure out what the potential outcomes are and weigh up the odds of those outcomes coming to fruition. Even if we knew every piece of relevant information in existence this would be impossible to do without making any judgement calls along the way. The problem is, when we take this kind of debate and try to wrangle it into appearing factual, we create an environment in which hyperbole, cherry-picking and fear-mongering thrives; an environment where every comment is interpreted as an absolute by the opposition, leading to false-criticisms of false ideas; an environment where the more confident the prediction, the more it should be treated with caution.
When faced with this situation what tools do we have for making a decision? Well, we have our instincts. More information is always good, but in the end we will have to make judgement calls, we have to be subjective. How a person will vote will be based on all the things that makes them who they are: their upbringing, where they are from, where they live, where they work, their friends and family, their political leanings, their experiences. So you know what? Let’s not try and condense our views into ten bullet points, let’s just have a chat about them. By empathising with one another, we can understand both sides of the argument much better than if we throw dodgy statistics about the place. We all need to use our vote on June 23rd, being undecided won’t be an option by then. So people say they want more information, but they are still managing to make their minds up. They’re going with their instincts. I’m not going to question why this is anymore, I’m going to say “That’s okay. That’s good”.
A longer version of this blog first appeared in Issue 101 of 53 Degrees magazine.
alex.davies@gmchamber.co.uk @GMCC_Alex
RSS Feed
