Holly Bennett: I wish we’d think about how we think

Comment: How many long-form, nuanced political speeches did you listen to in 2023? How many paragraphs of political prose, written from a place of calm contemplation did you read? How many silent moments of reflection when you interrogated the invisible influences impacting political rhetoric did you have? If you participated in any of these activities you are part of a rapidly diminishing minority.

The ability to think critically – a laudable and once cultivated skill – is dwindling at an alarming rate. Putting my penchant for hyperbole to one side, I genuinely believe this is a lurking threat to every robust democracy. For example, we are seeing a marked increase in political messaging kowtowing responding to society’s proclivity for polarising, divisive and gotcha politics across the entire political spectrum. And more often than not, our media obliges, because nuance doesn’t create good click bait.

I won’t glibly write that the media is to blame: you’re reading this on a mainstream media website afterall. But I will point out that the media actively responds to the way in which we consume media and if we, consumers, throw back our heads, mouth wide open, why should we expect to be served a smorgasbord of well-rationalised, researched and considered journalism? A fast food diet of trashy commentary is all too common and we’re being willingly spoon fed.

Which takes me to the skill that is knowing how to think.

In my current line of work as a lobbyist I have a duty to those I serve to understand and navigate the activities of the political world, free from bias. A laudable but relatively unachievable goal, because if you are human, you are biased.

So, instead I spend time trying to avoid assumptions and generalisations, while surrounding myself with those who see the world in a different way and challenge my biases: they help me think better.

Take the following ideology across the natural political divide. Entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan describes “the will of the people” and “let the market decide” as similar concepts with different advocates. The alternative of letting the market decide (pitching people something in their individual self interest, not some kind of greater moral good) or deferring to the will of the people (advocating a moral good, not something in their self interest).

Neither one of these two regularly relied-upon concepts are more correct: “The first believes they are building a genuinely beneficial product, not hawking some flim-flam religion. The second believes they are building a genuinely important movement, not hawking some flim-flam company.”

Because of my own bias I have a natural disposition to default to the market deciding. But from my own experience in business I know that markets have a predilection towards the status quo; common sense tells us the status quo does not often inspire change.

From time to time my unconscious bias appears – unconscious bias is a human condition and I am human after all – but I try to return myself to what I know to be true: no single political party or government is a panacea; they all do things we might perceive as good or bad based on our own worldview.

So how does this translate to thinking about how we think?

Well, it is my view that we have become far too complacent with how politicians speak to us: broad brush conjecture and sweeping generalisations are being adopted across the spectrum, which is doing nothing meaningful to advance our country.

Politics driven by generalisations is the worst kind of politics: it encourages people to avoid presenting alternatives, to not critique a position and not to express an unpopular opinion. It encourages groupthink, which does nothing more than drive out good decision-making and problem solving. Generalisation abstracts specificity.

Personally, I don’t think National is the one and only for business, in the same way I don’t think Labour is the one and only for workers. I don’t think the market is always right and I don’t think effective environmental protection requires complete decimation of industry.

Take the column space I was afforded on this platform around Election 2023. Not long after my first column went live, the editor told me he’d received an email complaining about the introduction of “another lefty woman” columnist. Bear in mind Newsroom had specifically asked me to write from a centre-right perspective, and it was industry peers on the centre left of politics who recommended me – not because my views are particularly spectacular, but because I’m an ardent fiscal conservative.

Readers can decide for themselves why I was categorised as a “lefty”, however it’s not the first time my written words have been ignored and assumptions about me have replaced facts.

Which turns me to my wish for 2024: I wish we would all spend some time thinking about how we think.

When it comes to physical wellness, we all know that we should be aiming for 10,000 steps, two litres of water and eight hours of sleep per night, yet there is an abyss when it comes to something we all do: think. If you care about critical thinking, you must take time to interrogate your own thoughts. I believe space to think is just as important as your 5+ a day.

I often share the basic premise of my columns with my parents, two people who have never shied away from giving me feedback. I spoke about my hope for our nation getting better at thinking and my Pāpā said bluntly “Who in New Zealand really has the capacity to want to do that?”

Therein lies the conundrum: we are deprioritising how we think about a diverse range of matters at the same time there is a proliferation of politicians telling us what we must think about everything. No one, absolutely no one, is responsible for your thoughts but you.