June 18, 2025 Hello, and welcome to The Quiet Future Dispatch. I am Kristiina Paju, a foresight facilitator/futurist, behavioral insights explorer, and creator of tools like the Futures Literacy Journal and The Quiet Future podcast. This newsletter is a space for those of us who sense that slowing down, asking better questions, and making intentional choices can change not only our own lives - but the systems we live in. Why This Newsletter? This project began with a quiet nudge. Over the years, working across (vocational) education, business collaborations + facilitation, and social impact, I found myself repeatedly asking: “Why do we keep making the same decisions, even when we want change?” That question led me to study the connections between futures thinking, behavioral economics, and choice architecture. I became fascinated by the invisible scripts and mental shortcuts also known as heuristics that shape our actions - and how we might begin to rewrite them. Now, I bring these ideas together to support individuals and organisations in: Building futures literacy: the ability to anticipate, imagine, and shape multiple possible futures. Applying behavioral insights to real-world challenges: from better choices to more inclusive systems. Navigating uncertainty with reflection, agency, and creativity. What to Expect In each issue, I will share: Stories from the field—insights from clients, learners, or my own messy middle. Reflections and thought tools—from cognitive biases to emerging futures. Gentle prompts and journal entries—to help you connect with your own decision-making and imagination (some might be from the Futures Literacy Journal, keep an eye out!) This is not a space for hustle or hype. It is a space for quiet clarity. And for the kind of thinking that does not shout - but echoes. I am a firm believer in making lasting impacts and the ripple effects creating change. We do not need crowds of followers, we need a seed that will grow when the conditions are right. Thank You for Being Here Whether you are a curious individual, changemaker, educator, strategist - or just someone who wants to live a little more intentionally - I am grateful you’re reading this. I wished to published it under my "Futurist Kristiina Paju" page, but could not do so yet, so I hope you will also follow that page to know what I am currently up to. Let’s begin. — Warmly, Kristiina futuresjournal.eu | The Quiet Future Podcast BEHAVIOURAL INSIGHT #1: The Limits of Logic — Bounded Rationality and the Futures We Do NOT See In behavioral science, bounded rationality refers to the idea that our decision-making is limited by the information we have, the time we are given to make the decision, and the mental shortcuts our brains rely on to make sense of it all. In other words: We are not irrational. We are just not as rational as we think we are. We simplify. We assume. We optimise for good enough, not for all possible options. That makes sense in daily life. But when it comes to imagining the future - or truly expanding what we think is possible - bounded rationality can quietly trap us in overly narrow visions. Behind the Concept: What Is Bounded Rationality? Before we can imagine better futures, we need to understand the limits of how we think—and that starts with the concept of bounded rationality. Coined by Nobel Laureate Herbert A. Simon in the 1950s, bounded rationality describes the simple truth that humans are not perfectly rational beings (as highlighted above). Contrary to the traditional economic model of “homo economicus” - which assumed we always make logical, calculated decisions—Simon proposed a more realistic view: we make choices within the limits of what we know, how much we can process, and the time we have to make whatever decision we need to make. Rather than optimising, we satisfice - a term Simon invented by combining “satisfy” and “suffice.” We settle for options that are “good enough,” because our brains and environments place natural boundaries around what we can consider. This was not just an academic shift - it was a foundational moment that shaped the entire field of behavioural economics. Researchers like Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky built on Simon’s insight, revealing just how deeply our decisions are affected by heuristics, biases, and mental shortcuts. Today, the idea of bounded rationality is more relevant than ever. It helps explain why: We overlook alternatives that do not fit our familiar patterns We stick with flawed systems simply because they are easier to navigate Our visions of the future are often constrained by what we believe is “realistic”. And yet - by understanding our limits, we also gain the power to design around them. Whether we are shaping policy, building tools, or imagining new ways of living, acknowledging bounded rationality opens the door to more compassionate, more adaptive decision-making. The future is not about being more “rational.” It’s about being more aware of how we reason - and more curious about what we might be missing. A Moment from My Own Life Years ago, when I was choosing between two clear career paths—one “safe,” one “exciting”—I made a pro-con list. I asked for data. I plotted timelines and financial outcomes. The problem? That list only reflected options I already believed were possible. It did not account for joy. It did not allow for the hybrid path I am currently carving out - a creative business grounded in futures thinking and behavioral insight, with room for family, autonomy, and experimentation. Rationality gave me a tight lens. Imagination required a wider one. Test Journalling #1: Write down a decision you’re currently facing. Now write down the options you have not considered because they feel too bold, too weird, too unclear. What if those are the options that require a different kind of intelligence - futures intelligence? Let me know how this exercise felt like and if you want more, check out the Futures Literacy Journal that is currently available in PDF-format: www.futuresjournal.eu!

June 25, 2025 In this issue, we explore how the past can sharpen our foresight - and how the present can sometimes cloud it. From Estonia’s seasonal traditions as early foresight tools to the mental shortcuts that shape our sense of what is likely, we examine how culture and cognition intersect in the way we imagine the future. What happens when we mistake what is recent for what is real? And how can looking further back help us look further ahead? Article content Photo by Janek Valdsalu on Unsplash Old Roots, New Futures: What Estonia Teaches Us About Cultural Foresight In an era defined by predictive technologies and strategic frameworks, we rarely pause to consider the quiet, culturally embedded forms of foresight that have guided communities long before the word foresight existed. Estonia, with its deep Finno-Ugric roots, offers a compelling case of futures thinking that emerges not from data - but from seasonal rhythms of the nature, sacred landscapes, oral traditions, and a powerful narrative of collective transformation. This article explores five traditional Estonian practices through the lens of strategic foresight, revealing how ancient wisdom can inform future-oriented thinking in meaningful, modern ways. Interested? Let's dig in! 1. Seasonal Rhythms as Anticipatory Systems Estonian communities historically followed (and still do in a way) a natural calendar rooted in lunar and agricultural cycles. Jaanipäev (Midsummer) was not only a seasonal celebration - it was a signal of community transition and a marker for forward planning. As it was celebrated around the summer solstice, it marked the peak of light and the midpoint of the agricultural year. After Jaanipäev, the days started to shorten, prompting the reflection on harvest readiness, household provisions, and upcoming communal labor when the crops needed to be collected. Thus, it was the signal to start preparing for harvesting grains and hay. Furthermore, the bonfires and village celebrations also brought people together for some informal planning - a place to share news, seasonal strategies as well as resources. Mardipäev (St. Martin's Day) in the other hand, was celebrated in the beginning of November - it marked the end of the agricultural year and the beginning of winter. It coincided with livestock slaughtering, final harvest processing, and the start of the “dark season” when fieldwork ended and indoor crafts and storytelling began. It was a seasonal signal for families to assess food storage, firewood, and clothing to ensure survival through wintertime. Whereas wages and labor arrangements often reset after Mardipäev, which made it a temporal boundary for contracts, debts, or service commitments. Foresight lens: cyclical time awareness supports horizon scanning, anticipatory thinking, and systemic alignment - foundational principles of long-term planning. 2. Proverbs as Heuristics for Complexity Estonian folk proverbs, such as “Tee tööd, siis tuleb ka armastus” ("Do the work, and love will come"), encode lessons on persistence, timing, and ethical conduct - often reflecting a logic of delayed reward and moral causality. Foresight lens: these sayings operate as intuitive decision-making tools or "mental shortcuts," helping individuals act under uncertainty. 3. The Singing Revolution: Foresight as Collective Agency In the late 1980s, Estonia reclaimed its independence not through violence, but through song. The Singing Revolution united people under a shared future vision expressed through national music and symbols. Foresight lens: this represents transformative, narrative foresight: a community envisioning a preferred future and organizing behavior toward it - a real-life example of backcasting powered by shared culture. 4. Sacred Groves and Intergenerational Ethics Estonia’s hiied — sacred forest groves — were protected as spiritual and ecological sanctuaries. Harm to these places was considered a violation of intergenerational continuity and natural balance. Their importance has been preserved since the 1200's , from the pre-Christianity era, when the Estonian people worshipped nature and its spirits - connecting the natural world with the mystical. These beliefs and the respect for nature has been deeply encoded in the Estonia way of thinking - something that a belief system brought by fire and sword could not break. Foresight lens: this demonstrates regenerative and intergenerational thinking - key to sustainability transitions and long-range strategic planning. Nature becomes not a resource, but a stakeholder. 5. Mythology as Moral Scenario Planning Legends like Kalevipoeg offer both cautionary tales and redemptive arcs - functioning as symbolic futures, complete with choices, risks, and consequences. Have you ever thought of the tales that have been passed on from generations to generations - the folk tales - as a format of foresight and futures thinking? Folkore offers a window to the thinking of past eras, but at the same time, one can find systemic ways of "how the world works" that is still present in the modern times. Maybe in an altered state, but present nonetheless. Foresight lens: folklore operates like speculative storytelling or scenario analysis. It offers a pluralistic view of possible futures, filtered through cultural values and shared meaning. Conclusion: Listening to the Futures Within Culture Futures thinking does not begin in boardrooms or policy white papers. It begins in the soil, in rituals, in music, in the stories we pass on. Estonia teaches us that culture itself can be a foresight method - not for predicting what comes next, but for shaping it with care, continuity, and imagination. Reflection: what inherited practices or stories in your own culture offer wisdom for navigating uncertainty? Which of them whisper futures worth listening to? Behavioural Insights: When the Recent Feels More Real Than the Likely In a world flooded with information, we often confuse what is most memorable with what is most meaningful. This is the cognitive trap of availability bias and recency bias - two well-documented heuristics that subtly shape our sense of possibility. Availability Bias First defined by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in 1973, availability bias refers to our tendency to judge the likelihood of events based on how easily examples come to mind. The more vivid, emotionally charged, or recent the memory, the more we believe it's likely to happen. Example: After watching a dramatic news story about a natural disaster, people overestimate the probability of similar events—even if the statistical risk remains low. This can affect everything from insurance choices to public policy. Supporting study: In a classic experiment, participants who were asked whether more English words start with the letter “K” or have “K” as the third letter overwhelmingly answered the former - even though the latter is more common. Why? Words starting with “K” are easier to recall. (The study is explained in the article by Tversky & Kahneman) Recency Bias Recency bias causes us to weigh recent information or experiences more heavily than older, yet equally (or more) relevant ones. This can lead to decisions that overreact to short-term shifts and ignore long-term trends. Example: Investors tend to buy stocks after a market rise and sell after a drop—reacting emotionally to recent performance rather than following strategic, evidence-based approaches. Research note: Behavioral economists have found that recency bias is one reason for overconfidence in volatile markets and poor retirement saving decisions. It is also present in organisational settings: newer employees are often evaluated more favorably in performance reviews simply because their actions are fresher in memory, and work colleagues located closer to the offices of the supervisors get more favourable feedback and pay raises due to the same fact - it does not necessarily mean they are performing better, but that they are seen more often. Why This Matters for Foresight and Futures Thinking These biases may be evolutionarily useful - but in futures work, they can distort our field of vision. When the biases are in full action, we... ... plan based on what we have just experienced, not the broader context. ... react to short-term volatility, missing slower-moving structural shifts. ... design systems based on what feels urgent, not what is truly important. In other words, we start imagining the future based on what happened last week - not what is unfolding quietly beneath the surface. Foresight demands that we zoom out, listen longer, and engage not just with the loudest signals, but with the most meaningful ones - even if they are subtle, slow, or unfamiliar. This needs conscious work with challenging our assumptions, the latest topics of discussions and combining different fields and disciplines. Prompt for reflection: Think of a recent opinion or fear you’ve had about the future. Ask yourself: Write down three long-term trends or changes that are easy to ignore - but might matter more than today’s headlines. If you wish, leave your reflections as a comment below! The Reading List: Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psycholo

July 2, 2025 This week’s issue continues to explore the fertile space between foresight and behavioral insight - where our mental habits quietly shape the futures we are able (or unable) to imagine. Last week, we looked at how culture influences futures thinking, not just as a backdrop but as an active force shaping what feels possible. We also uncovered how availability and recency biases draw our focus toward the most vivid and recent events, often at the expense of deeper signals. This week, we begin with confirmation bias, our deeply human tendency to seek out what supports our current worldview and ignore what challenges it. When we only listen for what we already believe, we risk rehearsing the future rather than reimagining it. We then turn to fear - a powerful and protective emotion that, when unchecked, can shrink our sense of agency and possibility. Together, belief and emotion shape what futures we notice, avoid, or allow ourselves to imagine. Ready to dive in? Article content Image: Pexels Comfort in the Known: Confirmation Bias in Strategic Foresight Did you know that even foresight work, us experts are not immune to the mother of all biases also known as Confirmation Bias? Confirmation bias can show up not just in politics or social media, but also in professional foresight work, where experts tend to seek futures that align with their existing beliefs, values, or organizational strategies. We like to think we are collecting facts, weighing evidence, and drawing logical conclusions when we make decisions. But in truth, we are often doing something else: defending what we already believe. Example: When Scenarios Echo Beliefs A national innovation agency ran a scenario planning process to explore the future of work in 2040. Despite aiming for diverse futures, all scenarios revolved around tech-driven growth, varying only in speed and collaboration. Alternative futures like digital backlash, degrowth economies, or skills collapse were dismissed as “unlikely” or “too political.” Why? The team’s deep-rooted belief in technology as progress shaped what futures they considered credible. The result was a polished but narrow foresight report, one that failed to anticipate growing tech resistance and fatigue just a few years later. What Went Unnoticed: Despite a formal commitment to explore a wide range of futures, all scenarios reinforced a tech-optimistic growth mindset. Several critical alternatives were left out: A future where digital backlash slows innovation due to privacy, ethics, or ecological concerns A post-growth or degrowth labor economy, where "less work" becomes a policy goal A “skills collapse” future where automation outpaces reskilling infrastructure, especially in vulnerable communities These “shadow futures” were raised briefly in early interviews but were dismissed as “too political,” “low probability,” or “off-brand” for the agency’s mission. That is the quiet power of confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is our tendency to seek out, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms our existing beliefs or expectations, while ignoring or discrediting opposing views. It is not just a glitch in reasoning - it is how we make sense of the world while preserving cognitive ease and emotional comfort. The mother of all biases - it has often been called that, and maybe for that exact reason that it is connected to our sense of the world. "We don't believe what we see - we see what we believe." 1. Foundational work Peter Wason (1960s) conducted one of the earliest demonstrations of confirmation bias using a number sequence task. Participants tended to test rules that confirmed their assumptions rather than ones that might falsify them. → Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2. Bias in how we search for information Klayman & Ha (1987) found that people disproportionately test hypotheses that confirm their beliefs instead of challenging them - especially in ambiguous contexts. → Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.211 3. The neuroscience of belief defense fMRI studies (e.g. Kaplan et al., 2016) show that when our beliefs are challenged, emotional and identity-related brain regions activate, especially the insula and amygdala, suggesting we respond to facts like personal threats. → Kaplan, J. T., Gimbel, S. I., & Harris, S. (2016). Neural correlates of maintaining one's political beliefs in the face of counterevidence. Scientific Reports. DOI: 10.1038/srep39589 Why It Matters in Foresight? Confirmation bias does not just affect individual decisions, it can shape entire strategic conversations. In foresight work, it may lead teams or leaders to: Dismiss weak signals that contradict dominant narratives Design scenarios that reinforce the current worldview Avoid alternative futures that challenge core assumptions This can result in “futures theatre” - planning exercises that look rigorous but simply reinforce what we already believe. It is easier to work with what is familiar and safe, instead of challenging the assumptions that might question our core identities. Very human, but not really supporting deep, transformational futures work. To imagine different futures, we must first allow ourselves to be wrong about the present. Article content Photo by Eva Bronzini Fear in Foresight - Why We Need to Understand It More? Fear is one of the most ancient and intelligent responses we have. It helps us survive by sharpening our focus, speeding up our reactions, and heightening our vigilance. Fear is functional and very necessary. But what happens when fear is too active, too loud, or left unexamined? 1. Fear amplifies perceived risk People consistently overestimate rare but emotionally vivid events such as terrorist attacks, nuclear disasters, or plane crashes especially when these events have been recently seen or discussed in the media. This is known as the affect heuristic, where we let our emotional reactions (especially fear) guide how likely or dangerous we think something is. Slovic, P. (1987): people judge risk not by probability, but by how it feels. The more emotionally charged or recent the information, the more influence it has. → Slovic, 1987, Science, “Perception of Risk” 2. Fear narrows attention and creativity Fear activates the amygdala, prioritizing fast, reactive thinking over slower, more creative or strategic reasoning (Phelps et al., 2006). This helps us survive, but not necessarily envision futures. Phelps, E. A., Ling, S., & Carrasco, M. (2006): Fear heightens sensory attention but impairs decision flexibility and broad information processing. → Phelps, E.A., Ling, S. & Carrasco, M. 2006. Emotion facilitates perception and potentiates the perceptual benefits of attention, Psychol Sci., 17(4), 292-9. 3. Fear reinforces status quo thinking Fear can cause people to double down on familiar patterns, traditions, or authority figures - even when change is needed. This can block innovative thinking, long-term planning, or adaptation. Jost, J. T., et al. (2003): Psychological needs for certainty and security (linked to fear) often lead to system justification - preferring the existing order over uncertain alternatives. → Jost et al., 2003, Psychological Bulletin Together, the affect heuristic and recency bias can cause us to over-prioritize short-term fears and underestimate longer-term or less vivid possibilities. This is especially risky in foresight, where what is urgent is not always what is important. This connects directly to last week’s focus on recency bias: when something happens recently and triggers an emotional response, it becomes doubly influential, shaping our futures thinking more than we realize. But what about foresight? When it comes to foresight and futures thinking, fear distorts our ability to: See a diversity of possibilities Imagine positive or radical alternatives Feel empowered to act when the path ahead is unclear It fuels pessimism, cynicism, or avoidance. And perhaps worst of all: it makes the future feel already decided. “Fear keeps us from touching the stove. But it also keeps us from lighting the fire.” Fear should be welcomed but not obeyed without question. In strategic foresight, we must learn to recognize when fear is protecting us (like it is the case with clear dystopias, but it is a topic for another newsletter)… and when it is preventing us. ✍️ Reflective Prompt Think of a future you resist imagining because it feels too vulnerable, too big, or too unrealistic. Ask yourself: What am I afraid would happen if I let myself imagine this? Is that fear still protecting me or is it holding me back? Write your thoughts down and if you feel brave, share your thoughts in the comment section. Fear is intimidating and sometimes, we feel like it is the only shade of the future. Thankfully, there is also good news: the future is not fixed. By becoming aware of our biases, emotions, and cultural filters, we begin to reclaim the space to imagine differently. That is exactly what the Futures Literacy Journal is here to support, through gentle prompts and reflective structure that help you stretch your thinking and deepen your awareness. And if you’d rather listen than write today, a new episode of The Quiet Future podcast is on its way, offering space to unlearn, reflect, and reimagine, one quiet insight at a time. The tools are here. Let’s use them to stay curious, expansive, and brave in how we meet what comes next. Til next week, enjoy your summer! www.futuresjournal.eu

July 9, 2025 Hello dear reader, As we move through this season of light and warmth, I want to begin by simply saying: thank you. Whether you have followed this journey from the start or you are just joining in, I am deeply grateful you are here being curious, reflective, and walking with me through the quiet yet powerful space where futures thinking and behavioral insight meet. I hope your summertime brings rest, inspiration, and unexpected aha moments! And speaking of clarity: I am currently exploring new professional opportunities. I am open to remote or global roles that align with the work I share here: futures thinking and strategic foresight, sustainability, ethical and inclusive design, participatory futures, behavioral insights, systems change, and impactful communication. If something comes to mind, I would love to hear from you. Now, let’s dive into this issue. This weekly explores the invisible frames that shape how we think about what comes next and some groundbreaking assumptions of futures studies as well. Best Regards, Kristiina P.S. Feel free to connect with me or share opportunities via LinkedIn or directly at [email protected] - I am always happy to explore meaningful collaborations. Just be patient right now as it is the school holidays here in Finland. Article content Photo by Google DeepMind: Assumptions to Build a Future On What if the future is not something that is somewhere "out there" but something we constantly shape through what we believe, what we expect, and what we never even think to question? In futures studies, Wendell Bell (a founding figure in the field, and the author of the fundamental set of books on Futures Studies) laid out nine core assumptions that underpin responsible foresight work. These are not predictions. They are in a way quiet invitations to reflect, to unlearn, and to expand what we believe is possible. Below, I highlight a few of these assumptions in a modified format (also, connecting them to Roy Amara's principles of futures studies (1981)) and explore how they connect to the behavioral patterns that so often shape our decisions more than we realize. 1. The future is not totally predetermined. We tend to act as if the future is a straight line drawn from the present - a trend to follow, not a space to shape. But this assumption reminds us: the future is open. Many outcomes are possible, probable and surprising. Some outcomes have been lingering in the background for decades... But sometimes, "past time may not be a good sample of all time" (Bell 1997, 141). Behavioral Insight: Our brains crave certainty and closure. This leads to narrative bias, we tell ourselves coherent, linear stories about what is likely, even when uncertainty is high. This makes it harder to truly sit with openness and plural futures when we expect for familiar, linear outcomes that are based on extrapolation. The art of making educated guesses is intricate, often being "right" but excluding surprising impacts on the systems. 2. The future is not predictable. Even with data, trends, and models, the future remains unknowable. This is not a failure, it is freedom. Foresight is not about control; it is about preparation and perspective. As the assumption goes: "the future is nonevidential and cannot be observed; therefore are no facts about the future" (Bell 1997, 148). Behavioral Insight: Overconfidence bias and illusion of control lead us to overestimate our ability to forecast outcomes, especially in complex systems. Admitting unpredictability invites humility and flexibility - traits that are essential for adaptive leadership and crucial with dealing with interconnected issues of our time. 3. Future outcomes can be influenced by human choice. We are not passive recipients of the future - we are the co-creators. This belief in agency is the cornerstone of futures literacy and ethical foresight practice. "The masterable future is what people can make of the future by their own acts. There may be some part of the future I can control and another part that I cannot. But even the part I cannot control maybe be subject to someone else's control." (Bell 1997, 154). Behavioral Insight: When we feel powerless, we tend to fall back on status quo bias - believing change is not possible or even desirable. Bell’s assumption challenges this directly: our decisions today, in the present moment, matter. They shape the conditions for tomorrow. 4. The value of studying the future lies in decision-making today. Foresight is not escapism, it is a way to make wiser, more informed, and more intentional choices in the present. We study the future to act better now. To make decisions that are aligned with our values and our ethical compass. "We cannot consciously act without thinking about the future. Although we might be able to "react" without images of the future, we cannot "act" without them. Action requires anticipation. People have reasons to act." (Bell 1997, 143). Behavioral Insight: When overwhelmed, we default to short-termism. Our attention is hijacked by the immediate - today’s inbox, tomorrow’s deadline. Futures thinking asks us to zoom out, to hold complexity, and to resist reactivity. 5. Ethics matters. Futures work is never neutral. Who gets to imagine the future? Whose stories are considered valid? Bell insisted that any serious futures practice must take values, justice, and inclusion seriously. As he wrote: "Some futures - and presents and pasts too - are more desirable than others." He also mentions that values should be judged/reflected against the time and conditions - some traditional

July 19, 2025 Hi friends, As summer gently unfolds (well, it has not been that gentle these days with a heatwave that previously rattled West and South Europe, having now reached the North), I have been reflecting on the tension between belonging and imagination. So many of the decisions we make, and the futures we allow ourselves to see, are shaped not just by information, but by the people around us. This week’s issue explores what happens when group dynamics subtly steer our thinking from the quiet pull of social approval to the deeper patterns of herding, in-group bias, and even groupthink. I am sharing stories from recent foresight work, behavioral science, and a few gentle provocations to notice how we can think more bravely, together. Wherever you are, I hope you are finding moments of pause to regain your perspective and perhaps also a new question to carry forward. Warmly from the midst of the northern heatwave, Kristiina 📩 [email protected] 🌍 futuresjournal.eu and kristiinapaju.eu When we think about the future, we often imagine ourselves as independent thinkers freely exploring possibilities and forming unique visions. But the truth is, we rarely imagine nor create the futures alone. Our ideas about what the future might look like are deeply shaped by the people around us: our colleagues, our communities, and our cultural frames. In this issue, we explore how social belonging and group dynamics influence the futures we are willing to imagine and which ones we quietly avoid. On the behavioral side: herding and in-group bias. On the foresight side: the quiet but radical act of collective dialogue Collective Foresight in a Fragmented World: No One Creates The Future Alone Foresight work often emphasizes trends, uncertainties, and systems thinking. But underneath those tools lies something more fundamental: the capacity to think together. Futures are not neutral projections, they are socially constructed - they emerge through dialogue, through tension, and through the presence of diverse worldviews. Too often, strategic foresight efforts are dominated by homogenous groups with similar backgrounds, similar roles, and similar incentives. The result? Futures that are polished but narrow, reinforcing dominant narratives (growth, tech-solutionism, efficiency) while excluding alternative values (care, sufficiency, interdependence). Participatory foresight methods such as citizen assemblies, community-based scenario planning, and plural futures workshops aim to counter this trend. They are based on the belief that inclusive dialogue leads to more resilient, just, and actionable futures. As Riel Miller and colleagues argue in UNESCO’s work on futures literacy, the capability to imagine the future otherwise is a critical skill for democratic societies (Miller, 2018). Yet dialogue is not easy. It requires more than just mere tools and someone to facilitate it. It also needs from the participants emotional safety, structural openness, and a willingness to listen beyond agreement. Inclusion does not mean smoothing over disagreement - it means designing for friction, and seeing it as fuel for deeper insight. Active listening is key here. "Dialogue is not about consensus. It is about expanding the space of the possible." Behavioural Insight: Herding & In-Group Bias — When Belonging Shapes Belief Article content We often assume we make decisions based on logic or evidence. But social context is a powerful influence. In uncertain environments - especially when the future feels ambiguous - humans tend to follow the crowd. This is known as herding behavior. In behavioral economics, herding is defined as individuals aligning their choices with the majority, not because the majority is objectively right, but because social agreement provides a shortcut to safety (Banerjee, 1992). This is especially common in markets, politics, and organizational settings where risk is reputational. Closely linked is in-group bias: the tendency to favor the views, decisions, and preferences of those we identify with. Studies show that we are more likely to trust, adopt, and repeat information shared by in-group members, even when it is less accurate (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Kahan, 2017). This is closely connected to the social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) which explains how humans tend to identify themselves through group memberships. While in-group bias and herding describe how individuals tend to align with their social group or follow the majority, groupthink goes a step further: it is a collective cognitive trap that emerges within cohesive groups (Esser, J. K., 1998). In groupthink, the desire for harmony or conformity leads to poor decision-making when teams suppress dissent, overlook alternatives, and avoid conflict to maintain unity. Unlike herding, which can happen even without strong internal bonds, or in-group bias, which is often unconscious favoritism, groupthink involves active self-censorship and a false sense of unanimity. In futures work, these tendencies can narrow our vision. They cause us to: Echo dominant narratives within our sector Silence outlier ideas in group settings Design strategies based on what is socially acceptable, not on what is transformative Groupthink can produce futures that feel smooth and consensus-driven, but lack critical challenge, edge, or diversity of thought. Understanding these dynamics helps us become more intentional about how we design foresight processes. Instead of defaulting to "what we have always done," we can actively invite cognitive diversity, epistemic friction, and intergroup dialogue. "Belonging is powerful. But when it becomes invisible, it limits what we believe is possible." Real-World Example: A Shared Map of the Future with Shared Blind Spots In a recent multi-stakeholder foresight process, we invited staff across the organization as well as the decision-makers, to explore signals, uncertainties, and hopes for the future. The outcome at that point was a collectively generated set of 12 future-oriented statements ranging from AI and sustainability to wellbeing, education reform, and climate resilience. Rather than beginning with a traditional top-down PESTEC analysis (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, Cultural), we made a conscious choice to create the environmental scan a little bit differently. We drew from the results of staff-led futures workshops that utilized PESTEC or the Futures Table, as we futurists like to call it, and analyzed the themes using Sohail Inayatullah’s Futures Triangle - a method that explores: The pull of the future (visions, aspirations) The push of the present (drivers and trends) The weight of the past (barriers, inertia, legacy systems) See content credentials Article content This approach helped us identify what people are actually imagining, what is driving that imagination, and what may be holding it back. It allowed futures thinking to emerge organically from within, rather than being imposed through external scanning alone. Then, the findings were compiled into a report, together with full examples of the workshop results for pre-reading before the facilitated workshops. Still, this process was not received without critique. Despite it having generally being welcomed as a fruitful approach, some feedback noted that we “did not do it the usual way” - the report itself lacked the traditional PESTEC structure seen in renowned strategy processes elsewhere. Yet, PESTEC was there, but done in a different order, with a different stakeholder group, and with a different goal in mind - to really find out where the strategic bets for the future would have to be. In hindsight, this divergence was intentional: we were not just scanning the environment - we were listening to the cultural and emotional landscape within. Behavioral Dynamics in Collective Futures This example also illustrates key behavioral insights: The statements reflected strong consensus overall - but that same consensus may have suppressed uncomfortable or divergent views. Familiar themes like digitalization and reform rose quickly to the surface. But more sensitive or complex issues, like inequality, ethical dilemmas, or power relations, were less emphasized and got less votes, despite being present in quieter layers of the discussions. This is a classic case of herding and in-group bias in action: when people align with perceived group norms, they often self-censor or underplay novel or dissenting views, even in participatory spaces. One often does not dare to disagree, for the fear of being shunned from the group. Collective foresight is at its best when it embraces difference, not just agreement. The Futures Triangle method helped us surface these layers. And moving forward, we hopefully will continue refining our approach - blending analytical models with participatory insight to keep asking: whose future are we imagining and who is missing from the conversation? Reflective Prompt: Where Am I Confirming? Article content Think of a recent discussion or project where you contributed ideas about the future. Ask yourself: Whose approval was I unconsciously seeking? What idea did I hesitate to share because it felt out of the scope? What might become possible if I invited more disagreement or included voices I rarely hear? Was I confirming too much to the industry framing? Use your Futures Literacy Journal to unpack your own positioning in group decision-making (Futures Literacy Journal - Get Yours!) The future is not a fixed path and it is not a popularity contest either. It is something we build together, through friction, story, memory, and trust. When we become aware of our need to belong, we can start choosing our conversations with more care. Let’s make room for futures that are truly co-created. Stay tuned for Sunday’s new podcast episode, where I will walk you through a reflective journey again - but along the lines of this week's newsletter themes - co-creating collective futures and being aware of the cognitive traps. With gratitude, Kristiina

July 9, 2025 Hello dear reader, As we move through this season of light and warmth, I want to begin by simply saying: thank you. Whether you have followed this journey from the start or you are just joining in, I am deeply grateful you are here being curious, reflective, and walking with me through the quiet yet powerful space where futures thinking and behavioral insight meet. I hope your summertime brings rest, inspiration, and unexpected aha moments! And speaking of clarity: I am currently exploring new professional opportunities. I am open to remote or global roles that align with the work I share here: futures thinking and strategic foresight, sustainability, ethical and inclusive design, participatory futures, behavioral insights, systems change, and impactful communication. If something comes to mind, I would love to hear from you. Now, let’s dive into this issue. This weekly explores the invisible frames that shape how we think about what comes next and some groundbreaking assumptions of futures studies as well. Best Regards, Kristiina P.S. Feel free to connect with me or share opportunities via LinkedIn or directly at [email protected] - I am always happy to explore meaningful collaborations. Just be patient right now as it is the school holidays here in Finland. Article content Photo by Google DeepMind: Assumptions to Build a Future On What if the future is not something that is somewhere "out there" but something we constantly shape through what we believe, what we expect, and what we never even think to question? In futures studies, Wendell Bell (a founding figure in the field, and the author of the fundamental set of books on Futures Studies) laid out nine core assumptions that underpin responsible foresight work. These are not predictions. They are in a way quiet invitations to reflect, to unlearn, and to expand what we believe is possible. Below, I highlight a few of these assumptions in a modified format (also, connecting them to Roy Amara's principles of futures studies (1981)) and explore how they connect to the behavioral patterns that so often shape our decisions more than we realize. 1. The future is not totally predetermined. We tend to act as if the future is a straight line drawn from the present - a trend to follow, not a space to shape. But this assumption reminds us: the future is open. Many outcomes are possible, probable and surprising. Some outcomes have been lingering in the background for decades... But sometimes, "past time may not be a good sample of all time" (Bell 1997, 141). Behavioral Insight: Our brains crave certainty and closure. This leads to narrative bias, we tell ourselves coherent, linear stories about what is likely, even when uncertainty is high. This makes it harder to truly sit with openness and plural futures when we expect for familiar, linear outcomes that are based on extrapolation. The art of making educated guesses is intricate, often being "right" but excluding surprising impacts on the systems. 2. The future is not predictable. Even with data, trends, and models, the future remains unknowable. This is not a failure, it is freedom. Foresight is not about control; it is about preparation and perspective. As the assumption goes: "the future is nonevidential and cannot be observed; therefore are no facts about the future" (Bell 1997, 148). Behavioral Insight: Overconfidence bias and illusion of control lead us to overestimate our ability to forecast outcomes, especially in complex systems. Admitting unpredictability invites humility and flexibility - traits that are essential for adaptive leadership and crucial with dealing with interconnected issues of our time. 3. Future outcomes can be influenced by human choice. We are not passive recipients of the future - we are the co-creators. This belief in agency is the cornerstone of futures literacy and ethical foresight practice. "The masterable future is what people can make of the future by their own acts. There may be some part of the future I can control and another part that I cannot. But even the part I cannot control maybe be subject to someone else's control." (Bell 1997, 154). Behavioral Insight: When we feel powerless, we tend to fall back on status quo bias - believing change is not possible or even desirable. Bell’s assumption challenges this directly: our decisions today, in the present moment, matter. They shape the conditions for tomorrow. 4. The value of studying the future lies in decision-making today. Foresight is not escapism, it is a way to make wiser, more informed, and more intentional choices in the present. We study the future to act better now. To make decisions that are aligned with our values and our ethical compass. "We cannot consciously act without thinking about the future. Although we might be able to "react" without images of the future, we cannot "act" without them. Action requires anticipation. People have reasons to act." (Bell 1997, 143). Behavioral Insight: When overwhelmed, we default to short-termism. Our attention is hijacked by the immediate - today’s inbox, tomorrow’s deadline. Futures thinking asks us to zoom out, to hold complexity, and to resist reactivity. 5. Ethics matters.