Fostering Reasonableness: Supportive Environments for Bringing Out Our Best

Pushing and Pulling

Because we have multiple needs, no single need can dominate at all times, and we must somehow negotiate these competing interests. We have drives that push and pull us to varying degrees in multiple directions. A person who has not eaten for a while is likely to develop an appetite and then possibly a hankering for food, and if left unfulfilled, ultimately such a person will be ravenous. So we can be pushed to differing degrees to seek food. Softer nudges are easy to ignore, stronger pushes less so.

In addition to being pushed toward seeking food, we can be pulled toward food. If we happen upon a fruit tree or the aroma of cooking food, we can be pulled toward it, even when not particularly hungry.

But we can get too much of a good thing, and food is no exception. If people eat too much, they can experience pained stomachs and even nausea.

And so we find a simple pattern, the push to stop what we’re doing to seek food, the pull toward food we’ve found or detected, and the push away from food when we’ve eaten too much. The pushes we experience as pain or discomfort, the pulls as pleasure. Many other needs work in this same manner, specifically the need for knowledge. And because these needs share the common currency of pain and pleasure, they can be evaluated against one another. If we are hungry enough, we’ll venture into the frigid cold to seek food.

The Need for Knowledge

Because humans are a species dependent on information for survival, the human need for knowledge, like the need for nourishment, has a set of pushes and pulls. To learn, we need new experiences. We need to be exposed to new environments; we need to try new things and test ourselves physically and mentally. We need to seek challenges, dare to make mistakes, and bounce back when we fail. However, the world is a dangerous place. For our prehistoric ancestors, it was a world in which one might encounter predators or enemies but no emergency rooms. Even today we may come up against challenges we’re not ready for. What are the pushes and pulls in the realm of knowledge seeking?

Flow as a Special Case of Clarity

Many who learn about clarity see a resemblance to Csíkszentmihályi’s (1990) concept of flow, a psychologically immersive state of intense focus on the task at hand accompanied by a lack of self-awareness. A person in a state of flow feels energized and experiences enjoyment.

An example would be a rock climber scaling a rock face, where the skill level of the climber and the challenge of the rock face are essentially matched. The climber is facing a series of challenges, figuring each out, and then moving onto the next, and is thus mentally engaged for an extended period of time. Achievements and satisfaction come at quick intervals. And because the task is so engaging, there is little opportunity to be self-aware. Video game designers try to deliver this same effect.

Flow appears to be a case where clarity is stimulated over an extended period of time and at a pace generating a sustained feeling of pleasure. There is the constant sense of progress, of solving puzzles, of getting closer to one’s goal, of uncertainty giving way to certainty.

Although flow is a special case of clarity, it is relatively rare when compared to more general cases when clarity can be achieved. And so when considering clarity in the context of the Reasonable Person Model (RPM), we will focus on the more common experience.

Moving Forward

RPM is interested in the conditions that elicit more reasonable behavior in people. One might theorize that pain is a factor in less reasonable behavior and that pleasure, at least in some cases, can lead to more reasonable behavior. With a basic understanding of the clarity mechanism and the conditions in which it can lead to the experience of pleasure and pain, we can see the dots sitting there ready to be connected. So, we will now take a look and see how the clarity mechanism interacts with the three components of RPM—model building, being effective, and meaningful action.[4]

People Want to Learn and to Understand, with Caveats

The clarity mechanism exists to promote knowledge-seeking behavior that in turn results in the building and extending of mental models. People want to understand, and they will strive to understand when the circumstances support it. But it is more complicated than that. There are some fundamental tensions that can keep people from pursuing knowledge; to a large extent they stem from the fear of confusion and chaos.

People do not want to be confused; they fear feeling “stupid,” especially in social contexts. Further, people prefer a pace that is neither so fast as to be confusing nor so slow as to be boring, a pace that is tailored to their own progress. And they hope that they will have support when they need it without feeling embarrassed. To some degree they fear boredom, but for the most part they fear confusion and the potential for humiliation that confusion can bring.

There is another fear that is more profound than that of being confused: the fear of being left in a state of chaos, a more pervasive state of doubt and uncertainty. We are deeply invested in the knowledge we’ve gained through our experiences, the mental models we’ve built to interpret and navigate the world. They are the lenses through which we understand our experiences and decide what to do. Our emotional lives are embedded in our models; our loves and hates, desires and fears, hopes and dreams all exist within our models. And because of their central role in our day-to-day lives, people do not want to undermine their mental models. The confusion that would result from our core mental models collapsing would be profound, and so we are very cautious about putting these models at the cliff’s edge.[5]

When we encounter information that challenges our core beliefs, we have a set of ready strategies to protect our models. Discounting or ignoring the information is one common strategy. Another is to seek out like-minded people to reinforce our existing models.[6] This is exemplified by the millions of small Internet communities that offer places where people can validate their existing beliefs socially.

Teaching with the Clarity Mechanism in Mind

Despite these potential sources of fear and reticence, people do want to learn. When designing an environment for learning, the clarity mechanism helps us to constrain the space of possibilities. We would generally like to minimize the sources of discomfort and leverage sources of pleasure in the learning environment, although perhaps confusion and boredom are among the motivators that draw in those who wish to learn.

Confusion and boredom provide a dual tension. If we progress too slowly, learners might suffer from boredom and disengage. Moving too quickly before allowing key concepts to consolidate can lead to confusion. Adding to this challenge, many learning environments, such as classrooms, have students representing a range of skills and aptitudes, meaning that any given pace might simultaneously leave some bored and others confused.

Allowing people to learn at a pace that works for them would be ideal, although it can be difficult in many circumstances. One strategy is to minimize lecture time and pivot as soon as reasonable to project work that helps solidify new concepts done by individuals or small groups.[7] Now the pace is more self-directed, and those who need additional help can get individualized assistance.

Additionally, teachers are often challenged by the potential for boredom in those who might progress quickly. One approach is for projects to have optional components that provide engaging challenges that supplement the material. Under some circumstances, allowing the faster learners to support the teaching of others can be a win-win.[8] This can permit some learners to receive individual attention, while for the faster learners boredom is averted and deeper understanding can be achieved. This is not a risk-free strategy, however, as some types of help can undermine rather than encourage the learning process, and not everyone will appreciate the difference.

Addressing the potential for confusion may be an even greater challenge. Building conceptual understanding in right-sized chunks is part of the solution. Using multiple, varied concrete examples can support abstract concepts that are nebulous at early stages and that benefit from grounding. Likewise, approaching a concept from multiple directions can be helpful, as different people will resonate better with different approaches.[9]

As learners we want to move forward, experiment, and be willing to risk some failure along the way without the fear of confusion—that is, getting lost or making a muddled mess. Providing mechanisms for learners to retreat when they’ve gone too far can help address this potential fear. Software that provides users the ability to “undo” actions or “reset” to an earlier state supports the exploration of its users. There can be analogues to these in other learning environments as well. For example, when students become overwhelmed in a task, the teacher could guide them back by breaking down the task into smaller ones.

Not only do we want to avoid confusion and boredom, we also want to engage the pleasures of the clarity mechanism. We would like to employ the pull of the promise of understanding, and when the pieces fall into place, allow the learner’s own clarity mechanism to provide the reward of a jolt of positive affect.

One approach is to organize learning around questions,[10] as a question asked implies that the learner is already thinking about the issue and her or his receptivity is heightened. The desire is there to be leveraged. In a teaching context it can give the teacher insight into where the learner is at. Scheduling time for questions earlier in the process, rather than at the end, can bring about a rich set of questions without the askers fearing that they are exposing their failure to grasp what they were already believed to know. Creating lessons that promote questions is another approach. Perhaps there are some obvious gaps, or the ending is left out or abridged, or the unexpected happens. These leave the learners demanding answers and being highly receptive to them.

We can further engage learners by structuring lessons in terms of puzzles and mysteries to be solved and then providing the resources for finding the solution. Asking learners to make predictions and invest a bit of themselves in an outcome can be very engaging, even if the predictions are not confirmed.[11] Leading learners down the garden path in order to elicit incorrect assumptions and models that are then overtly challenged can be very engaging.[12]

As learners gain expertise, it can be difficult for them to appreciate their accomplishments. What was once challenging has become simple, perhaps even obvious and boring. This is a natural side effect when amorphous concepts become consolidated and efficient.[13] Assisting learners in appreciating their process and their progress can be helpful.[14] This helps them build a model of their own learning and gain confidence in their abilities. It encourages them to trust the process. And, if the learners ever find themselves in the role of a teacher, it may give them a sense of the challenges their own students will face and help them teach better.

Teaching in the Context of Entrenched Models

A particularly challenging scenario is when a teacher or author not only hopes to build mental models but also supplants the learner’s existing models. As mentioned previously, the fear of chaos may turn the learner away. There are approaches that can work some of the time.

Rather than challenging the learner’s models head-on, a more incremental, less threatening approach is to offer an alternative perspective that might be helpful in some circumstances.[15] With such an approach, the learner can try out a new model without wholly adopting it or tearing down existing models. The ability of humans to take other perspectives, to empathize with another’s plight, if only temporarily, is truly amazing.

This is analogous to planting a seed. If it takes root, it may grow and become an integral part of the person’s larger model. Even with its diminished status, the model may prove itself to be more and more useful by explaining more of the environment or allowing better predictions to be made. And if it does, the model may someday supplant or profoundly modify earlier models. There is no guarantee that this approach will ultimately work. But it does offer the possibility in a humane manner.

Environments That Support Clarity

People have a strong desire for clarity; after all, it is an internal source of pleasure. This makes it essential to create environments that promote clarity. Such environments are interesting and engaging while not being too confusing or overwhelming. Distractions are minimized, navigation cues are available, and information comes at a manageable pace. In other words, environments that support people’s clarity make it easier for them to pursue their purposes.

Many newer airport terminals are designed to help even first-time visitors find their way. First, they employ some standard features such as separate levels for departures and arrivals that are tuned to their respective purposes. The signage also tends to be standardized. And the gates are numbered and sequenced in an obvious way. Second, the paths of movement tend to be apparent, and going with the flow tends to be the right thing to do. For example, the path from the check-in area through security and to the gates tends to be apparent. And after one arrives and needs to find the luggage carousels or ground transportation, the path again tends to be clear, albeit supported by signage.

As is evident throughout this book, the concept of supportive environments applies not just to physical environments but applies more broadly and even in an abstract sense. There are learning environments, social environments, governmental environments, software environments, and so forth that can all benefit from being structured with cognitive clarity in mind. After all, you can get stuck in a computer program, lost in a lesson, mixed up in bureaucratic red tape, and disoriented by social interactions.

For example, even a context as common as a form that needs to be filled out can be structured to reduce confusion and uncertainty. Techniques include the use of light text in the area to be filled out that provide an example of the type of answer expected, or the standard answer is made more obvious than the rarer answers. Larger forms can be broken down into smaller, more coherent pages that focus on a single topic; boxes and shading can be employed as well. Sometimes a progress indicator is provided so that one knows how close one is to finishing.

Directed Attention as an Alternate Route to Clarity

So, the environment can directly support clarity. But when an environment does not inherently support it, there is a second route to clarity, which is to impose it by applying focused attention (Kaplan, 1978). This directed attention[16] can be used to fight off distractions, search for missing information, interpret and reinterpret confusing clues, devise workarounds, and plan escape routes. But even though people can do this, directed attention is a resource that can be consumed and eventually exhausted, leaving people mentally fatigued.[17] And this can leave them frustrated, impatient, uncertain, drained, and unreasonable. The worst has been brought out in them.

A lack of clarity is often the push behind the use of directed attention. When one feels obligated to stay and pay attention to something boring, one is using directed attention. When one is working hard to sort through confusing material, one is using directed attention. When one is overwhelmed and working to track three things at once, again, directed attention is being employed.

The fundamental relationship between the clarity mechanism and being effective is that people will strive for clarity even when it comes at a personal cost to their effectiveness. When clarity is lacking it can feel like an acute problem, so people will lean on their directed attention, even if they know it will come at a cost; more often, however, they are not even aware of the cost. And this erosion of a key resource makes them less and less effective, which in turn may make them less and less reasonable.

The activities advocated by Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan, 1995, 2001)[18] should be a part of everyone’s life. Environments that do not support clarity make those activities an imperative.