About Programs Fellowship News Calendar
As we set out to build back better, it becomes vital not only to consider the type of structures we wish to build in this new landscape but also to pay close attention to the nature of the tools we are using, in terms of both the external devices we choose, as well as our own internal neuropsychological instruments.
Research into human resilience — our ability to adapt and flourish in uncertain, volatile times — points to the importance of cognitive flexibility, communication, trust, agency, and an ability to think about the future. Yet, these core components of resilience are undermined both by our ongoing climate anxiety as well as by many of the tools of our current digital information infrastructure: from search engines that distort the availability of information to social media platforms that amplify messages of fake news, fear, and outrage. We are exposed to negatively reinforcing spirals of threat which keep us neurologically hooked while fragmenting our attention and decision-making. They also trigger our "System 1" neural networks [1], which are systems that exploit mental short-cuts (rapid reactions, bias, stereotyping, and a reliance on comfortable cognitive habits) at the cost of the type of “System 2” thinking (slow, abstract, "open" complex decision-making) that supports more sustainable change.
Bearing this in mind, arts and cultural spaces have the potential to offer safe spaces for open-ended, non-polarized discussion, for relaxed curiosity and exploration — places that allow our “System 2” brain to strengthen and flourish. As cognitive science has shown, the more we juggle different scales and perspectives, the better we become at solving complex, spatial problems. The more that we practice alternative poetic forms of observation, the better we become at solving unusual engineering tasks [2]. And the more we dialogue slowly and respectfully with other cultures - in true exchange - the more cognitively fluid and innovative we become in many walks of life [3].
In contrast, the design of our existing digital spaces for public interaction is all too often driven by design methodologies (such as dopamine-focused gamification) and user-engagement metrics that prioritize speed and social status signaling, reward shallow reactions, and champion hyper-individualism and celebrity. As sociologist Paolo Gerbaudo noted, the design of our digital public spaces rapidly influences the dynamics of our physical spaces of gathering: even in real life, there is an increasing tendency for short-term performative posturing, a "choreography of assembly" rather than the type of deeper dialogue that leads to systemic transformation [4]. In addition, the cultural production of ignorance has never been stronger as politically motivated agents from multiple countries manipulate the information landscape. Furthermore, the exponential rate of spread and mutation of digital technologies means that it is extremely challenging to combat specific digital malpractice, and regulatory policy and monitoring are destined to always lag far behind.
In response, we must embrace counter-tactics that leverage our understanding of cognitive and neural mechanisms to help inform the design of arts and cultural practices and spaces, strengthening their role as incubators of emotional and cognitive resilience. Emerging experimental data indicates that techniques, including "digital inoculation" (such as carefully curated spaces where people can playfully explore fake news items) and "boosting" (such as fostering people's skills at balancing different political perspectives by addressing specific neurocognitive blocks [5]) can support deep transformation. It is time to harness the wealth of neurocognitive data on behavior change and integrate it with the richness of our data on designing arts and cultural spaces so that we can create more robust, biologically and sociologically relevant tools for building back better.
Where to begin? I propose the following questions as a starting point for inquiry:
How do we create art and cultural spaces/ policies/ funding initiatives that recognize the neuro-cognitive nature of the blocks that stand in the way of our resilience? How do we design to counter cognitive shut-down?
Do our metrics (in cultural engagement, in city resilience, in educational achievement, etc.) include cognitive flexibility and other neurocognitive measures of resilience? Given that change starts from within, do we commit to assessing the cognitive flexibility of our own institutions and workplaces?
[1] Gronchi Giorgio, & Fabio, G. (2018). Dual Process Theory of Thought and Default Mode Network: A Possible Neural Foundation of Fast Thinking Frontiers in Psychology, 1237.
[2] McCaffrey, T. (2012). Innovation Relies on the Obscure: A Key to Overcoming the Classic Problem of Functional Fixedness. Psychological Science, 23(3), 215-218.
[3] Maddux, W. W., Adam, H., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). When in Rome ... Learn why the Romans do what they do: How multicultural learning experiences facilitate creativity Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(6), 731-741.
[4] Gerbaudo, P. (2012). Tweets and the Streets: Social Media and Contemporary Activism.
[5] One prime example is the nascent news platform Onesub.io which aims to present multiple perspectives from different news media. It also provides feedback to the reader regarding the level of political balance in their daily reading and how to improve it.
Pireeni Sundaralingam currently leads research for Silicon Valley's Center for Humane Technology, exploring the impact of the attention-extraction economy on human brains and society, and helped advise on "The Social Dilemma", the internationally acclaimed documentary about social media.