Every now and then we come across a variety of situations in our daily lives, where in, momentarily the thought of "what if I were to be in that situation, I would've" comes in our minds. As much as there are probably a gazillion events that happen everyday around the world, some events are just worthy enough to be talked about even after years, or probably decades of their actual happening.
Decision and the Context
Brexit refers to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. As a result of a 2016 referendum, almost 52% of the voting pool voted to leave the Union. The supporters of the withdrawal suggest Brexit, would help the UK deal with primarily three issues.
1. Influx of immigrants from the rest of the European Union' countries who travel to the UK seeking better job and livelihood opportunities. It was not just xenophobia and/racism in play, but also the idea of sharing resources with "outsiders" that triggered the voting patterns as they did.
2. Financial burdens on the UK, as a member of the Union, which otherwise it wouldn't have to, such as helping the less wealthy, EU member states financially.
In pt. 2, however, I believe is the bias that we study in the Prospect Theory, comes into play. As much as the UK would have to help the less wealthy states of the EU during financial crisis and problems likewise; regardless of the extent/intensity of these crises, they are not necessarily bound to happen. They’re rather events of chance which can be dealt with without much loss if thought through well. With that said, the population chose to outweigh the costs that would only occur by chance, over the benefits of free trade, newer opportunities (in education, businesses, tourism, etc.) and the diplomatic back up membership in the EU offers.
In pt. 3, I believe it was a combined bias as a result of that of limited attention and social norms. A lot of farmers and small scale businesses voted to leave, even though they do in fact form a group of those people that benefit relatively the most from UK being a part of the Union; access to a large market, competitive prices whilst being able to maintain quality, and profitability, at best. Besides, while, on one hand, only a small proportion of the youth participated in the elections, on the other, the part of the map that chose to leave seemed to have voted not against the argument of UK’s inclusion in the Union, but rather, against the erstwhile, interim government. We see their spirit driven not by the ideas and opinions related to EU and its consequences, but agitation arising from the belief that they have not been adequately represented in the political space.
Steps I would’ve taken to try to produce a better final decision: the How and the Why
I would’ve rolled out awareness programs in the forms of posters, PSAs on national television and radio, etc. in order to help in and stimulate a greater degree of participation among st the masses in the voting process.
Through these awareness programs, following would’ve been the things I’d have addressed:
1. Letting them know about the benefits Immigrants bring to the table including market diversification, increased economic activities and the hire worthy skill sets they bring along with them that only benefits everyone.
2. Mellowing down the “financial burden on UK” hysteria at least among st the educated and help them understand the fear associated with a crisis is in itself a result of thinking based upon a probability of an even happening, that too when the event in itself can be avoided if the system is made to function properly.
3. Youth turned out to be in very small numbers, and those who did, wanted to remain. Plus, after the results were out, we saw the Youth blaming the Old, and their participation in the protest was larger.
Therefore, encouraging the Youth to participate more might have helped turned tables of what came as the outcome of the elections. Secondly, about the small scale businesses, a small orientation video about how the membership only benefits these people could've been shown on national television and accordingly, advertised about. Here, as much as both sides of the coin would be shown, the good and the bad, a slight, unapparent inclination in the tone of the narration could've been incorporated.
One can't possibly state numbers and extent of changes, however I do believe the results would've been notably different, as these awareness programs would've not only affected the societal norms that influence a potential voter, but also led to self awareness and therefore, realizations that might have led to different results. Besides, the youth comprise nearly a third of the UK and hence, even 60-80% participation among st the youth would've made a big difference.
If any of this resonated with you, I guess we're connected *literally*, considering our "what if"(s) turned out to be similar.
I’ll have you some time to think about this, and let me know in the comments section whether I was right in radically changing the future of Britain. :P
Until then,
This is Mayul
Stay hydrated :))))))))))))
Socials:
Email: mayul.manav28@gmail.com
Instagram: @mayulmanav
One such event was Brexit, and here's my "what if" version of it:
Decision and the Context
Brexit refers to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. As a result of a 2016 referendum, almost 52% of the voting pool voted to leave the Union. The supporters of the withdrawal suggest Brexit, would help the UK deal with primarily three issues.
1. Influx of immigrants from the rest of the European Union' countries who travel to the UK seeking better job and livelihood opportunities. It was not just xenophobia and/racism in play, but also the idea of sharing resources with "outsiders" that triggered the voting patterns as they did.
2. Financial burdens on the UK, as a member of the Union, which otherwise it wouldn't have to, such as helping the less wealthy, EU member states financially.
3. A number of people have either abstained to vote or have actually chosen to vote out even though they benefit probably the most from the membership; lack of awareness.
Biases that May Have Been in Picture
I believe the bias that came into play in pt. 1, was a result of that of social context. It was observed that even though UK has in fact been one of the largest intra-EU immigration destinations, the density of these settlements divides the map of the UK into two almost equal, by area parts. Besides, the part which voted to remain is in fact the one which houses the majority of the settlements. This shows how inter-cultural interactions led to a rather more inclusive behavior among st the Brits such that they would rather choose to let the migrants stay harmoniously than close doors for them.
Biases that May Have Been in Picture
I believe the bias that came into play in pt. 1, was a result of that of social context. It was observed that even though UK has in fact been one of the largest intra-EU immigration destinations, the density of these settlements divides the map of the UK into two almost equal, by area parts. Besides, the part which voted to remain is in fact the one which houses the majority of the settlements. This shows how inter-cultural interactions led to a rather more inclusive behavior among st the Brits such that they would rather choose to let the migrants stay harmoniously than close doors for them.
In pt. 2, however, I believe is the bias that we study in the Prospect Theory, comes into play. As much as the UK would have to help the less wealthy states of the EU during financial crisis and problems likewise; regardless of the extent/intensity of these crises, they are not necessarily bound to happen. They’re rather events of chance which can be dealt with without much loss if thought through well. With that said, the population chose to outweigh the costs that would only occur by chance, over the benefits of free trade, newer opportunities (in education, businesses, tourism, etc.) and the diplomatic back up membership in the EU offers.
In pt. 3, I believe it was a combined bias as a result of that of limited attention and social norms. A lot of farmers and small scale businesses voted to leave, even though they do in fact form a group of those people that benefit relatively the most from UK being a part of the Union; access to a large market, competitive prices whilst being able to maintain quality, and profitability, at best. Besides, while, on one hand, only a small proportion of the youth participated in the elections, on the other, the part of the map that chose to leave seemed to have voted not against the argument of UK’s inclusion in the Union, but rather, against the erstwhile, interim government. We see their spirit driven not by the ideas and opinions related to EU and its consequences, but agitation arising from the belief that they have not been adequately represented in the political space.
Steps I would’ve taken to try to produce a better final decision: the How and the Why
I would’ve rolled out awareness programs in the forms of posters, PSAs on national television and radio, etc. in order to help in and stimulate a greater degree of participation among st the masses in the voting process.
Through these awareness programs, following would’ve been the things I’d have addressed:
1. Letting them know about the benefits Immigrants bring to the table including market diversification, increased economic activities and the hire worthy skill sets they bring along with them that only benefits everyone.
2. Mellowing down the “financial burden on UK” hysteria at least among st the educated and help them understand the fear associated with a crisis is in itself a result of thinking based upon a probability of an even happening, that too when the event in itself can be avoided if the system is made to function properly.
3. Youth turned out to be in very small numbers, and those who did, wanted to remain. Plus, after the results were out, we saw the Youth blaming the Old, and their participation in the protest was larger.
Therefore, encouraging the Youth to participate more might have helped turned tables of what came as the outcome of the elections. Secondly, about the small scale businesses, a small orientation video about how the membership only benefits these people could've been shown on national television and accordingly, advertised about. Here, as much as both sides of the coin would be shown, the good and the bad, a slight, unapparent inclination in the tone of the narration could've been incorporated.
One can't possibly state numbers and extent of changes, however I do believe the results would've been notably different, as these awareness programs would've not only affected the societal norms that influence a potential voter, but also led to self awareness and therefore, realizations that might have led to different results. Besides, the youth comprise nearly a third of the UK and hence, even 60-80% participation among st the youth would've made a big difference.
If any of this resonated with you, I guess we're connected *literally*, considering our "what if"(s) turned out to be similar.
I’ll have you some time to think about this, and let me know in the comments section whether I was right in radically changing the future of Britain. :P
Until then,
This is Mayul
Stay hydrated :))))))))))))
Socials:
Email: mayul.manav28@gmail.com
Instagram: @mayulmanav
YUHH.. you are doing really well.. bole to "accha content likhta hai tum"...carry on !
ReplyDeleteAll the best!