#BTColumn – Knowing can be good and bad

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by this author are their own and do not represent the official position of the Barbados Today.

by Adrian Sobers

“Time is the most precious commodity that human beings have. Public officials should find ways to give them more of it.” – Cass Sunstein, Too Much Information

Too Much Information (TMI) is a cautionary tale on “warnings, labels, and enjoying life.”

It is therefore fitting that Mr. Sunstein, former Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under President Barack ßObama, ends his timely caution by reflecting on the timeless cautionary tale recorded in Genesis 3:1-7.

He writes: “The power of the tale of Adam and Eve lies in the inevitable question that the text tempts every reader to ask: Mightn’t Adam and Eve have been better off— freer and more truly human—after they ate the apple?”

In some cases, information is a curse (how hot dogs are made for example). And, as is the case with the account in Genesis, the curse can be literal.

TMI is a short but useful book where Mr. Sunstein deals with a singular question that has implications for everyone: “When should government require companies, employers, hospitals, and others to disclose information?”

His answer runs counter to the common mantra one hears regarding information disclosure in public policy circles, namely, that people “have a right to know”.

Even if it prevents them from enjoying their hot dog? Even if they will do nothing with the information?

Some argue that even if people do not use the information, simply having it contributes to personal autonomy (as the serpent alluded to in Genesis, “you will be like God”). And information does have a godlike power.

Nassim Taleb (Antifragile) points out another curious property, information “feeds more on attempts to harm it than it does on efforts to promote it.”

As Mr. Sunstein writes, “Information is a powerful tool —in some ways the most powerful of all.

In countless contexts, government is entirely right to provide it or to require others to do so.

We are better off with stop signs, with warnings on cigarette packages and prescription drugs [ . . .]. But sometimes less is more. What is needed, for the future, is much more clarity about what information is actually doing or achieving.”

Given how necessary information is to our survival, it might seem counterintuitive to question the idea that it can hinder. That, in some cases, it is better not to know.

According to Sunstein, that is exactly the case. He says a growing number of researchers are of the view that government often requires a large (and growing) assortment of disclosures, to which people hardly pay any attention.

This means “they are essentially a waste — a way of making policymakers think that they are improving health or safety when they are doing nothing of the kind.”

The crown jewel of TMI, however, is the discussion on sludge.

Popularized by Richard H. Thaler, it refers to the friction people encounter when they want to go in another direction.

Before gnashing your teeth at the public sector, consider Mr. Sunstein’s point that the “private sector can [also] do a great deal more to reduce sludge [ . . .] to make life easier for consumers and employees with ideas or complaints, and to help people avoid serious risks.”

Sludge is not all bad and has its place. It can help ensure program integrity and acquire useful data to name but two of many valid uses.

However, these justifications are not an open invitation to impose administrative burdens on John and Jane Public.

For any particular burden (especially forms), the question is whether the information being acquired is useful: “If public officials are asking people to file with paper rather than electronically, refusing to reuse information that they already have, declining to prepopulate forms, or requiring quarterly rather than annual reporting, they should offer a strong justification.”

This is especially important since the negative effects of sludge are multiplied for the most vulnerable populations: the poor, elderly, and disabled.

Cognitive scarcity (not to be confused with cognitive ability) is especially problematic for the aforementioned groups.

As Mr. Sunstein points out, “If the Government is asking poor people to navigate a complex system or to fill out a lot of forms, they might give up.” (You know how it goes: Head down this corridor, when you come to the hoops; start jumping.)

He suggests institutions subject themselves to Sludge Audits, not just governments but “banks, insurance companies, hospitals, universities, and publishers could save a great deal of money by reducing sludge, and they could greatly improve the experience of people who interact with them.

They might even be able to change people’s lives.” For the better of course; and this side of Eden, that should fuel much of what we do.

The guest column was offered as a letter to the editor.