“We’d rather do the quick, simple thing than the important complicated thing, even if the important complicated thing is ultimately a better use of time and energy.”

Buster Benson summarizing a critical behavior tendency in his article, “Cognitive bias cheat sheet.”

I’ve been pondering this idea lately, a characteristic of human nature in which we naturally seek cognitive ease and prefer options that require less mental effort. Our preference for simplicity is deeply ingrained in our cognitive biases, and thus we naturally gravitate towards the path of least resistance to preserve mental energy.

I mean, I get it. After a long days’ worth of work and brainpower, it’s so much easier to reach for the packet of instant ramen in my cabinet than to wash and prep veggies for a healthier meal, much like it is to scroll through my socials than it is to focus on a book.

The problem with the ramen is that over time, I’ll start to see the consequences of that choice. I will likely gain some weight, I’ll lose even more energy because I’m not getting nutrients, and I’ll continue to choose the ramen because it’s what I’ve been conditioned to crave.

I started thinking about this in terms of technology and social media. In previous blog posts I’ve discussed how big tech companies maintain algorithms that power their platforms, prompting user engagement and maximizing time spent online. This business model, driven by ad revenue and the exploitation of user data, incentivizes a harmful agenda where phone addiction is the overarching consequence.

This current system is like the ramen, easy to opt for because of its pull, and unhealthy to consume because of its properties. But, there is potential for change.

Redirecting algorithms to prioritize user well-being would require significant effort, resources, and a complete 180 of perspective. Unfortunately, given the option between this extraordinary investment or sticking to the existing structure, big tech companies will consistently choose the latter.

It’s simpler for them this way. This path is profitable and doesn’t require the efforts of a full industry shift. It relieves them of the responsibility of vegetable prep.

This dynamic emphasizes the need for rules and regulations, improved standards and goals, and the mindset from which a humane system can be constructed. As Donella Meadows, renowned systems thinker, warns, these leverage points are not keys to the kingdom. The more invasive the change, the more the system will resist it (Meadows, 1999). This is only natural because it’s not simple.

User awareness of this issue is necessary now more than ever. If we wish to challenge our natural biases and pave the way for paths that present us with the most resistance, we need to encourage tech companies to prioritize an agenda not of what we, as users, can do for the company, but of what the company can do for its users.

We should be able to choose the veggies and the book.

Works Cited

Benson, B. (2016, September 1). Cognitive bias cheat sheet. Medium. https://betterhumans.pub/cognitive-bias-cheat-sheet-55a472476b18

Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. The Donella Meadows Project. https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/