Of particular usefulness to the planning field, or at least for understanding the dynamic of the meeting I attended, is the description of how the human mind is divided and often in conflict, resulting in a situation where feelings take preference over reasoning. Haidt uses the analogy of a rider (our rational and conscious self or ego) trying to control an elephant that often has its own desires and agenda (our unconscious, emotional self) to explain why we often have difficulty behaving in a rational way. It turns out it is sometimes very hard to control what our elephant does.  

Haidt takes this concept further by looking at the evolution of the brain. In order to survive, humans have learned to take quick action when faced with a threat (“that is something that can eat me”) and respond slower when faced with opportunity (“should I catch and eat that frog now or later?”). As our species evolved, the fearful and cautious response was reinforced because it helped us survive and has now been hardwired into our brains. Consequently, our brain’s automatic system, our survival mechanism, is much stronger and more developed than our controlled system which reasons and plans, weighing pros and cons before taking action. The result is that we respond first, and rational thought comes later.   

We don’t necessarily need such a strong automatic response today, but remnants of it give us what Haidt refers to as a “negative bias” and explain why we react strongly to threats, like a new kind development next door, that we fear may impact our quality of life, even if our reaction is irrational or pre-rational. This makes it difficult for us to engage in new or forward thinking. It also reduces the likelihood that we will be influenced by facts or arguments that speak to the rational rider, but not to the emotional elephant. To make matters worse, our brain is hard-wired to invent a rational argument or justification for our irrational behavior (i.e., the rider will invent an explanation for why the elephant does something that makes no sense).

The take-home message—as it relates to planning and bringing about changes in attitude and behavior—is to not focus so much on conscious thought (the rider), and the typical rational analysis of a situation in order to influence a decision, but rather to find ways to train the elephant to think and behave differently. Haidt suggests personal work to understand and improve ourselves as individuals, offering up meditation, cognitive therapy and Prozac as the three main pathways to this retraining. Although a part of me is really tempted to find out what would happen if all planning meeting participants were given a mood altering drug prior to public debate, I think there are less controversial approaches worth exploring first. Perhaps we need to de-emphasize the facts and set the ground work for a better public process by finding ways to help people in our communities understand their social lives, and habitual responses and behaviors, in a way that makes it possible for them to be less influenced by the behavior of their elephant. Then maybe they can engage with others more effectively. Complete Buddhist enlightenment may be too much to hope for, but if everyone worked a little harder to acknowledge and rein in their elephants we’d all be better off.