Thoughtober Week #2

When conflict of interest within policy affects cognitive ability

Conflicts of interest among government advisers can significantly impact public perception and critical thinking in several ways:

Erosion of Trust: When the public becomes aware of conflicts of interest, it can lead to a loss of trust in government decisions and policies. This skepticism can make people more likely to question the motives behind official advice and less likely to accept it at face value.

Misinformation and Bias: Advisers with conflicts of interest might provide biased information that serves their own interests rather than the public good. This can lead to the dissemination of misinformation, making it harder for the public to form well-informed opinions.

Reduced Transparency: Lack of transparency about advisers’ interests can fuel suspicions and conspiracy theories. When people feel that information is being withheld, they may become more critical and less trusting of official narratives.

Polarisation: Conflicts of interest can contribute to political polarisation. Different groups may interpret the same information in vastly different ways, depending on their trust in the sources. This can deepen divides and make constructive dialogue more difficult.

Critical Thinking Skills: On a positive note, awareness of potential conflicts of interest can encourage the public to develop stronger critical thinking skills. People may become more diligent in seeking out multiple sources of information and questioning the credibility of those sources.

Conflicts of interest in government can take many forms. Here are some common examples:

Nepotism: This occurs when public officials hire or promote family members or close friends to government positions, bypassing fair and transparent hiring processes.

Financial Interests: Officials may have personal financial stakes in companies or properties that are affected by their policy decisions. For instance, a government official voting on a land development project in which they own property.

Procurement and Contracts: When officials are involved in awarding government contracts to businesses in which they or their family members have an interest, it can lead to biased decision-making.

Dual Roles: Holding multiple positions that could influence each other, such as being a government adviser while also serving on the board of a private company that benefits from government contracts.

Political Contributions: Accepting donations from entities that stand to benefit from government decisions can create a conflict between public duty and private gain.

These conflicts can undermine public trust and lead to decisions that do not serve the public interest. Addressing them requires robust transparency and accountability measures.

Some examples of how the public needs to be more cognisant of information being given by government can be exemplified by the following -

UK government’s nutrition advisers are paid by world’s largest food companies, BMJ analysis reveals - Click HERE to read the paper.

Conflicts of interest among the UK government’s covid-19 advisers: what has the configuration of SAGE got to do with it? | The BMJ - Click HERE to read the paper.

One notable example of a conflict of interest during the HS2 project in the UK involved the awarding of a £2.8 billion contract for rolling stock. Siemens Mobility, a bidder for the contract, took HS2 to court over allegations that a key member of HS2’s procurement team had unregulated and unreported contact with staff from Bombardier, one of the companies in the winning joint venture. Siemens claimed that this contact created a material conflict of interest, potentially influencing the decision-making process unfairly.

Another instance involved the phase two development partner bidding process. Concerns were raised about Chris Reynolds, a former HS2 chief of staff, who later worked for CH2M, a company bidding for the development partner contract. Although there was no suggestion of wrongdoing, the overlap in his roles raised questions about the potential for conflicts of interest.

People in the UK now know that HS2 has in fact cost the tax payer a lot of money with no real term gains for the majority of the population, and indeed was cut short of the intended outcomes.

The neuroscience of conflicts of interest involves understanding how our brains process decisions when personal interests might bias our judgment.

Here are some key insights:

Dual-Process Theory: Our brains use two systems for decision-making: an automatic, intuitive system (System 1) and a slower, more deliberate system (System 2). Conflicts of interest often exploit System 1, where self-interest can unconsciously influence decisions without us realising it.

Affective Neuroscience: This field studies how emotions and cognitive processes interact in the brain. Conflicts of interest can trigger emotional responses that bias decision-making. For example, the anticipation of personal gain can activate reward centers in the brain, making it harder to remain objective.

Neurocomputational Models: These models show how the brain integrates cognitive and emotional information. When faced with a conflict of interest, the brain’s reward system (involving areas like the ventromedial prefrontal cortex) can overpower rational decision-making processes, leading to biased judgments.

Cognitive Biases: Conflicts of interest can exacerbate cognitive biases such as self-serving bias, where individuals interpret information in a way that benefits themselves. This can lead to rationalising unethical behavior as acceptable.

Social and Ethical Implications: Understanding the neural basis of conflicts of interest can help develop strategies to mitigate their impact. For instance, promoting transparency and accountability can help counteract the unconscious biases that arise from conflicts of interest.

The media plays a crucial role in shaping public perception of conflicts within society through several mechanisms:

Framing and Agenda-Setting: Media outlets decide which stories to cover and how to present them. This process, known as framing, influences how the public interprets events. The agenda-setting theory suggests that the media doesn’t tell people what to think, but rather what to think about, by highlighting certain issues over others.

Selection of Stories: By choosing specific events and aspects of conflicts to report on, the media can shape the narrative. For example, focusing on the humanitarian impact of a conflict can evoke empathy, while emphasising violence and chaos can generate fear and anxiety.

Use of Visual Media: Photos and videos have a powerful impact on public perception. Visual media can make certain aspects of a conflict more immediate and real to the audience, often amplifying emotional responses.

Language and Tone: The language and tone used in reporting can influence how the public perceives the severity and nature of a conflict. Terms like “crisis,” “disaster,” or “tragedy” can shape the emotional and cognitive responses of the audience.

Editorials and Opinion Pieces: These provide direct insights into the media outlet’s stance on various issues, potentially influencing the perspectives of their audience. Editorials can guide public opinion by presenting arguments and viewpoints on conflicts.

Social Media Amplification: In the digital age, social media plays a significant role in spreading news. Stories that go viral can reach a wide audience quickly, often with added commentary and personal opinions that further shape public perception.

By understanding these mechanisms, we can better appreciate the media’s powerful role in shaping public discourse and opinion on conflicts.

Training our brains to recognise conflicts of interest involves a combination of awareness, education, and practical strategies.

Here are some effective methods:

Education and Training: Participate in formal training programmes that focus on identifying and managing conflicts of interest. These programmes often include case studies and scenarios to help you recognise potential conflicts in real-life situations.

Mindfulness and Reflection: Regularly reflect on your decisions and actions. Ask yourself if there are any personal interests that might be influencing your judgment. Mindfulness practices can help you become more aware of your biases.

Clear Policies and Procedures: Familiarise yourself with your government’s policies on conflicts of interest. Knowing the rules and guidelines can help you identify situations that might constitute a conflict.

Seek Diverse Perspectives: Engage with others to get different viewpoints on potential conflicts. Discussing your decisions with others can help you see things from different angles and identify biases you might have missed.

Use Decision-Making Frameworks: Apply ethical decision-making frameworks that include steps for identifying and addressing conflicts of interest. These frameworks can provide a structured approach to ensure you consider all relevant factors.

Stay Informed: Keep up-to-date with best practices and new developments in conflict of interest management. Continuous learning can help you stay vigilant and improve your ability to recognise conflicts

By incorporating these strategies into your routine, you can train your brain to better recognise and manage conflicts of interest, leading to more ethical and transparent decision-making.

Paid subscribers follow to the bottom to find a useful ethical decision-making frameword!

I think, in terms of the media, journalists need to do a much better job of asking people they interview about conflicts of interest and then reporting them