A dramatic black and white illustration of Earth viewed from space, with rays of light shining from a distant celestial city amidst clouds.
Imagine a company discussing whether to use artificial intelligence to do more of its work. One manager sees a chance to save money. An employee worries about losing a job. Another person remembers an earlier technology project that failed. Someone else has already promised the boss that the new system will succeed. They hear the same presentation, but different parts catch their attention. Before anyone studies the results of a trial, each person has reasons to welcome or resist what those results might show.
Experience is useful. We would make poor decisions if we ignored everything we had learned. The problem begins when we judge information differently depending on whether we like its message. We may accept good news with few questions and search for every possible flaw in bad news. Psychologist Ziva Kunda described how the conclusions we want to reach can shape the way we think through information.[1] This can happen without a deliberate attempt to mislead anyone. We may believe we are being fair while giving our preferred answer an easier test.
Our relationships and personal interests add to this problem. Families, friends, coworkers, and communities help shape which voices we trust. Disagreeing with them can feel like risking our place in the group. At work, new information may threaten a budget, a promotion, or a plan we have publicly supported. If admitting a mistake could damage a career, people may keep quiet or explain away warning signs. We need to consider both the information being shared and the pressures that might keep other information out.
Change can threaten things we value: our income, our position at work, our relationships, or our sense of control. Research shows that people often favor keeping things as they are.[2] We may demand strong evidence that a change will help us while asking few questions about the risks of staying where we are. Before judging a proposal, we need to examine both its possible consequences and our reasons for wanting to accept or reject it.
People also differ in how much they seek routine and how they respond to imposed change. Workplace research connects reactions to concerns such as job security and trust in management.[3] Uncertainty can also encourage curiosity and a desire to learn more.[4] A leader needs to ask what a change means for those affected. Concern about losing income, time with family, or control over work may reflect a real cost. Fear may lead us to dismiss promising evidence, while excitement may lead us to overlook warning signs.
Some influences reach deeper into our understanding of life itself. I use the term Journey Path to describe what we believe about where humanity came from and why we are here. Do we see human life as the result of evolution, without a divine plan? Do we believe we were created for a purpose given by God? Do we accept evolution while also believing that God gives life meaning and purpose? These understandings can influence what kinds of futures we welcome and what kinds we find troubling.
For example, a medical treatment that changes human genes might seem like responsible care to one person and interference with something sacred to another. Both bring judgments about what people should become. Those judgments matter, but they cannot establish whether the treatment works or what harm it might cause. Those questions require evidence. The same distinction applies to artificial intelligence: wanting a technology to improve life does not prove that it will.
Our assumptions about time create another set of influences. We may believe the past was better, that people should adapt quickly, that faster information produces better understanding, that immediate results matter most, or that history is moving toward a guaranteed ending. Each assumption can influence our judgment before we examine a particular forecast. It can determine what we compare, which consequences we count, and what information seems worth considering.
In my work, I use five “clocks” to examine these influences: Historically Imagined Time, Human Time, Digital Time, Future Time, and Doctrinal Time.[5] Their purpose here is to help us recognize assumptions that might otherwise remain hidden. For each clock, we need to ask what we already believe, how that belief directs our attention, and what it might prevent us from seeing.
The first clock is Historically Imagined Time. This is the past as we remember and picture it, including the wishes we project onto it. We may want to believe a favored period was better, safer, wiser, or freer. That picture might come from childhood memories or stories about a time we never experienced. Some parts may be accurate; others may reflect what we wish were true.
When we bring the assumption that “things were better before” into a discussion, that imagined past becomes our standard of comparison. Changes that move society away from it may look like decline, even when evidence shows improvement. Our desire to recover something familiar can make us less willing to examine what the earlier period was actually like.
A period remembered as the “good old days” may also have been a time when women were denied opportunities, racial and ethnic minorities faced segregation or discrimination, LGBTQ people could not live without fear, and people with disabilities were excluded from schools and workplaces. Calling that period better or freer leaves out whose freedom was restricted. We need to ask what life was actually like, for whom, and how it differs from the past we want to believe in.
The second clock is Human Time. Our bodies follow circadian rhythms, roughly 24-hour cycles that help regulate sleep, wakefulness, hunger, and other body functions.[6] We need sleep, food, and time for physical and emotional recovery. We also need time to learn, grow, build trust, care for family, and maintain relationships. These needs shape how quickly people can absorb and respond to change.
The assumption that can cloud our judgment is that people should adapt at whatever pace a plan requires. A leader may see evidence that software performs a task faster and assume employees can immediately reorganize their work around it. Reports of exhaustion, confusion, or mistakes may then be dismissed as poor attitudes or resistance. The leader’s expectation about the pace of change influences which explanation seems credible.
Human needs are real conditions our forecasts must account for. If we overlook them, we may accept an unrealistic picture of the future and reject evidence that reveals its weaknesses. We need to ask whether our expectations about human adaptation come from observation or simply from the schedule we want to keep.
The third clock is Digital Time: the speed at which computers process information and carry out tasks. Digital systems can operate around the clock and produce answers in seconds. Their speed can encourage an assumption that faster answers mean better understanding, or that the newest information deserves the most attention.
That assumption can affect how we judge evidence. We may give a rapidly produced forecast more authority than it deserves because it appears precise and arrives immediately. A warning that requires patient investigation may receive less attention because it takes longer to explain. If we already associate technological speed with progress, we may interpret requests for careful examination as obstacles to moving forward.
Digital Time draws our attention to the difference between receiving information and understanding it. A system’s ability to generate an answer quickly does not establish that its assumptions are sound or that its conclusions are reliable. Before accepting a forecast, we need to examine why we trust it and whether speed has become a substitute for scrutiny.
The fourth clock is Future Time: how far ahead we look when judging a decision. We bring expectations about which results matter and how soon they should appear. A manager responsible for quarterly earnings may enter a discussion looking for immediate savings. A parent may focus on what a decision will mean for children over several decades. Their different horizons direct their attention toward different consequences.
The assumption that “the results within my planning period are the ones that matter” can narrow our view before the evidence is presented. Cutting staff may look beneficial when the calculation includes this year’s savings but leaves out the later loss of experience. Delaying bridge maintenance or home repairs may appear affordable when future repair costs fall outside the assessment. The choice of time period can make a weak decision look strong.
An AI project may similarly look successful if we measure its first three months of output. A longer assessment might examine errors, employee learning, customer trust, and the organization’s ability to handle problems without the system. Future Time asks us to examine which consequences our chosen horizon makes visible and which it leaves out.
The fifth clock is Doctrinal Time: the future our beliefs tell us to expect. Religious groups, political movements, business communities, and technology enthusiasts can have very different expectations about where humanity is headed. Some anticipate divine intervention or life beyond death. Others expect continued progress, eventual collapse, or a future transformed by technology.
The assumption here is that we already know the direction or destination of history. When an expected future becomes a certainty in our minds, new information can become material for confirming it. We may notice events that fit the expected pattern, explain away events that challenge it, and dismiss actions that seem unable to alter the ending.
Different Christian beliefs provide examples of how an expected future might influence present judgments and choices:
Inevitable decline before Christ returns: Some Christians believe the world is guaranteed to grow worse before Christ returns. War, environmental damage, and social conflict may therefore look like confirmation of an expected decline. This may lead someone to dismiss evidence of improvement or see efforts to build a better future as pointless.[7]
An imminent rapture: Believing that Christ could gather believers at any moment can make spiritual preparation feel urgent. It may also shorten the time horizon someone brings to earthly plans and problems that take decades to solve.[8]
Predestination: The belief that God has already determined who will be saved can make ultimate destiny seem settled in advance. It may shape how someone understands the role of human effort and choice in relation to God’s purposes.[9]
Improvement before Christ’s return: The expectation that Christianity will spread and transform society for the better can encourage long-term work in education, culture, and public life. It may also make evidence of improvement seem especially significant.[10]
Responsibility for God’s creation: Seeing people and the earth as entrusted to human care can make protecting future generations a religious duty. This can encourage investment in environmental protection and long-term community well-being.[11]
These expectations are part of how many people understand the world. In a 2022 Pew Research Center survey, 63% of U.S. evangelical Protestants believed humanity was already living in the end times. Pew also found that 44% believed Jesus would return after a period of worsening global conditions.[12] Such expectations could influence how some people interpret wars, pandemics, nuclear threats, environmental disasters, and political instability. Events that others interpret as problems to solve may also be interpreted as signs that a predicted future is unfolding.
Pew found an association between these beliefs and environmental attitudes. Among U.S. adults who believed they were living in the end times and expected conditions to deteriorate before Jesus returned, 40% regarded climate change as extremely or very serious, compared with 62% of those who did not believe humanity was living in the end times. This is an association, not proof that religious beliefs caused the difference.[13]
The central point is that beliefs about how history will end can shape how people interpret the present and what actions they consider necessary. A belief about the future may influence decisions today, even when the predicted future is centuries away or never arrives. We need to examine whether an expected ending has become a conclusion that new evidence is no longer allowed to challenge.
Together, the clocks reveal how much of a judgment can take shape before the evidence arrives. In the company considering AI, one person may compare the proposal with an idealized earlier workplace. Another may assume employees can adapt immediately. Someone else may trust the system’s rapid answers, count only near-term savings, or believe that complete automation is inevitable. Each arrives with assumptions that can make some evidence look convincing and other evidence seem unimportant.
Recognizing those assumptions gives temporal orchestration a practical role. It means coordinating the pace of action with human needs and long-term consequences while examining how our pictures of the past and future influence our choices. Before deciding how quickly to act, we need to understand why a particular pace feels necessary, whose needs it accommodates, and which consequences it leaves out.
This examination requires habits that help us learn from information we did not expect or want. In my work, I call helpful habits for studying the future foresight virtues and harmful habits foresight vices.[5] Humility helps us question a cherished picture of the past or a confident prediction. Patience gives us time to investigate a claim. Looking beyond immediate rewards helps us notice later consequences. Listening to people outside our own group brings in experiences our usual sources may lack.
Honesty means separating what we observed from what we assumed, anticipated, or wanted. Courage means allowing difficult questions to remain in the conversation. Responsibility means asking who benefits from a decision and who bears its costs. Harmful habits appear when we protect our influence, explain away an unwelcome result, or choose reassurance over investigation. These habits determine how willing we are to let evidence change our understanding.[5]
Leaders create many of the conditions in which this thinking occurs. A manager who punishes bad news makes honest discussion harder. One who listens carefully and admits uncertainty makes it easier for others to do the same. An employee worried about feeding a family may need reassurance and a fair process to feel safe enough to speak openly. Clear thinking depends partly on how we treat the people involved.
For the company considering AI, good leadership would begin by making its assumptions open to examination. What evidence supports the proposed implementation schedule? What would show that employees need more time? Which costs might emerge after the first year? What would justify changing the plan? Leaders should also ask whether their belief in inevitable automation has prevented them from considering other ways to organize the work. These questions help turn a discussion built around expectations into one that can learn from evidence.
Our expectations can influence the decisions that shape the future. If leaders say machines will inevitably take over important decisions, they may stop considering ways to preserve human judgment and authority. Their choices then make that outcome more likely. The belief in inevitability then helps construct the future it claims merely to describe. We do not control everything, and events can still surprise us. That makes it even more important to examine what our choices are producing and let the results change our minds.
Thinking clearly about the future begins with recognizing what we already bring to the discussion. We can ask what we believe, what we want, what we fear, and what we have at stake. We can examine the past we use for comparison, the pace we expect, the authority we give rapid answers, the consequences we count, and the ending we assume. Before asking what the evidence says about the future, we should ask what we have already decided the future must be.
Sources and notes
[1] Ziva Kunda, “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin 108(3), 1990, 480–498.
[2] William Samuelson and Richard Zeckhauser, “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1, 1988, 7–59.
[3] Shaul Oreg, “Resistance to Change: Developing an Individual Differences Measure,” Journal of Applied Psychology 88(4), 2003, 680–693; “Personality, Context, and Resistance to Organizational Change,” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 15(1), 2006, 73–101.
[4] Lieke L. F. van Lieshout, Floris P. de Lange, and Roshan Cools, “Uncertainty Increases Curiosity, but Decreases Happiness,” Scientific Reports 11, 2021, article 14014.
[5] Kevin R. Benedict, The Future of Human Leadership: When Intelligence Is Everywhere, 2026. Journey Path and the fifth clock, Doctrinal Time, are developments explored in this essay.
[6] National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, “Circadian Rhythms,” fact sheet.
[7] Billy Graham, “Is It True (as I’ve Heard Some Preachers Say) That the World Will Get Worse and Worse Before Jesus Comes Again?” My Answer, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association; David C. Barker and David H. Bearce, “End-Times Theology, the Shadow of the Future, and Public Resistance to Addressing Global Climate Change,” Political Research Quarterly 66(2), 2013, 267–279.
[8] Assemblies of God, “Rapture of the Church,” position paper, 1979.
[9] Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 3, Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
[10] Ligonier Ministries, “The Millennium, Part II,” discussion of postmillennialism.
[11] General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, “Stewardship of the Environment,” official statement, 1996.
[12] Pew Research Center, “Religious Beliefs About Earth and the Environment,” November 17, 2022. Survey of U.S. adults conducted April 11–17, 2022.
[13] Pew Research Center, “How Religion Intersects With Americans’ Views on the Environment,” November 17, 2022. The climate comparison concerns U.S. adults overall, not only evangelical Protestants. Pew identified political affiliation as the main driver of climate opinion.
*I use AI in all my work.
************************************************************************
Kevin Benedict
Futurist, and Lecturer at TCS
View my profile on LinkedIn
Follow me on X @krbenedict
Join the Linkedin Group Digital Intelligence
***Full Disclosure: These are my personal opinions. No company is silly enough to claim them. I work with and have worked with many of the companies mentioned in my articles.
No comments:
Post a Comment