While a standard economic approach bases rational reasoning on a fully-informed, unbiased agent, there are of course instances in which we misbehave, as Nobel-winning economist Richard Thaler would argue. This view of economics represents innocuous convention often unsatisfactory in describing human behavior. Through a normative lens it becomes evident why 35% of Canadians still don’t save enough for retirement and why there was an outstanding credit card debt of $94.2 billion in the fourth quarter of 2016. People clearly don’t always make the most rational choices.

Similarly, in the “kids vs cookies” YouTube video here, you’ll find a researcher presenting kids with the option of eating a cookie now or, if determined enough to wait, receive two later. You see the anticipation and their mouths undoubtedly salivate at the delicious baked good on the table. Their internal struggle is evident, and the majority of them give into a temptation which supersedes the prospect of future satiation. Do we not as adults face the same battle on a daily basis? Certainly the glass pane separating you and the donut display is not nearly as obtrusive as the mental barrier between you and the treadmill. What’s amazing, and perhaps disappointing is that we will jump physical hurdles to do a bad thing, but be reluctant to perform the simple good.

While as adults, we often look back on our lives and wonder when our brains ceased operating as a child’s. While the stakes grow as we age and decisions become more complex, how could clear, unbiased, yet inexperienced insight be applied to solve today’s most vexing problems? Uri Gneezy, a frequent contributor to the ‘Freakonomics’ saga, signifies the importance of addressing bigotry early on. Gneezy suggests the best way of closing the gender-wage gap is through investment into education. While I can recall as a child questioning why my best friend had different coloured skin, I did so out of curiosity. Whether discriminatory against gender or race, animus is an unfortunate disease contracted through social-environmental contamination.

The point is; we have evolved from a primordial process of cognition and we retain a similar pattern of though throughout our lives. Clearly there is a disjoint in that we as adults cannot fathom the thought processes of a child. Since we often seek the advice of an impartial third party in our decision making process, how could involving children in developing policy be a bad thing? It’s an impudent strategy requiring little investment, besides time and patients necessarily, but a simple scheme nonetheless. Perhaps we could all benefit from policy makers honouring the ‘Take our Kids to Work Day’ tradition.

To conclude, the studies mentioned provide a salient framework from which future academics may evaluate the extent of a child’s comprehension of real world problems and the underlying mechanics of potential policy measures. The great thing is, there will always be a readily available population of 5-8 year olds ranging across every demographic and socioeconomic background willing to weigh in.

Despite your intuition and academic prowess, sit at the kids table and listen. You just may learn something.