Why seeing the problem is not the same as acting on it
By now, the pattern should be familiar. People are not entirely uninformed. Political information circulates widely. Yet this awareness does not consistently translate into better decisions.
In the previous part, I argued that information is not enough, that human beings respond more strongly to lived experience than to abstract data. But that explanation is incomplete. It tells us why information fails, not what is missing between knowing and acting.
That missing step is deduction.
Deduction is the cognitive bridge between information and experience. It is the ability to look beyond the surface of information, place it in context, and project its implications into the future. It requires asking not just what is happening, but what it will lead to and adjusting behaviour accordingly.
In practical terms, deduction means recognising that a report on fiscal mismanagement is not just an isolated event, but a signal of future economic problems that could cause you not to afford your favourite beverage or candy. It means understanding that patterns of corruption are not merely moral failures, but predictors of institutional and lifestyle decline. It means treating information as evidence and precursor of what is coming, not just what has happened.
This kind of thinking does not come naturally.
The work of Daniel Kahneman helps explain why (refer to Part II). Human cognition is largely governed by System 1, which is fast, intuitive thinking that prioritises ease. Deduction belongs to System 2; it requires effort, patience, and engagement with complexity. It asks the mind to slow down, connect the dots, and simulate outcomes that have not yet occurred – something many people struggle with in our modern, fast-paced world. This is cognitively expensive.
So most of the time, people do something else. They consume information, interpret it at face value, and react emotionally, but stop short of projecting consequences into future decisions.
In other words, they see the problem but do not move differently because of it.
This gap is especially visible in Nigeria’s digital public space.
Platforms such as GST publish detailed investigations into corruption, mismanagement, and governance failures. These reports are widely shared and debated. Take a look at the comment section and what stands out is; readers engage them actively, highlighting points, debating implications, and expressing outrage.
On the surface, this looks like a politically informed society. But a closer look reveals something more limited.
Engagement is often reactive rather than deductive. People respond in real time, commenting, criticising, sometimes mobilising briefly, but the link between these revelations and future political behaviour is often weak. The same decision patterns persist despite repeated exposure to damaging information.
Information produces reactions. But reaction is not the same as direction. This distinction matters.
A society that reacts to information is aware. A society that deduces from it is prepared.
Without deduction, information becomes cyclical. Each revelation generates attention, followed by a return to baseline behaviour. The structure remains unchanged because information is not converted into forward-looking actions.
To deduce effectively, individuals must:
- recognise patterns over time
- connect present actions to future outcomes
- override immediate emotional responses
- act on consequences not yet felt
Each step requires deliberate effort. Together, they form a demanding process that most people do not readily engage in, bringing us back to the balloon analogy.
Imagine the said balloon drifting through the air, surrounded by invisible signals, changes in temperature, air pressure, and subtle indicators of danger. Now imagine the balloon becomes aware of these signals. It can see and describe them. But it still does not adjust its movement. Because awareness alone is not enough. What matters is whether awareness changes behaviour before contact occurs.
Deduction is what enables that shift. It turns information into anticipation.
At this point, what is clear is that if people can see what is wrong, discuss it, analyse it, and even feel strongly about it, and still fail to act differently, then the issue is not knowledge, but how people respond to knowledge.
And that raises a more important question: if individuals respond differently to the same information, what distinguishes those who act from those who do not?
This concretises the idea of balloons as more than a metaphor. It becomes a way of understanding the different kinds of people within a society, and why only a few ever change their direction. The next part delves into this.
