You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


Program lacks transparency, too

On December 6, 2017 the authors were informed that the input assumption sheets for most finalized MBDP deals will be provided upon request.

In 2011 newly elected Gov. Rick Snyder championed a corporate handout initiative called the Michigan Business Development Program. The program distributes mostly cash grants (and some loans and other favors) to companies that make investments and add new jobs, above some baseline, to their payroll in Michigan. The MBDP was a replacement for the state’s Michigan Economic Growth Authority, which is widely regarded as a multibillion-dollar job creation failure.

The MBDP is very likely ineffective, too, and should be suspended, at least until the state is willing to make public the assumptions that contribute to the credulity-straining claims of the program’s so-called “return on investment.” Ideally, the Legislature would hire some independent academic scholar with no vested interest in the question to assess the value of the program empirically.

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!

email address

There are several troublesome questions about the MBDP. State officials cannot prove that the jobs they are claiming this program is responsible for would not have been created without subsidies. Evidence suggests almost all decisions about business expansion and relocation are not determined by government incentives.

Scholar Timothy Bartik of the Kalamazoo-based Upjohn Institute writes that “the average incentive package … might tip the location decision of 6 percent of incented businesses.” That means that incentives made a difference only 6 percent of the time. The vast majority did not help a jurisdiction’s economy.

The MBDP also lacks transparency. In its fiscal year 2016 annual report, the program’s administrators make outrageous claims that they can’t — or won’t — back up. The report says that the projected return on investment for 2016 projects alone is 10 to one. That is, for every dollar in subsidies distributed by the state, $10 will be returned to it as a result.

They are not even willing to justify their inflated claims. The administrators have refused a request to release the assumptions used to render company ROI results. In other words, the state is saying, “Our program is a huge success but you’ll just have to take our word for it.” It is naive to do so. State jobs officials have every economic incentive to claim success where there may be none. Their own jobs depend on the appearance of job and wealth creation.

How is anyone to know if officials aren’t likewise gaming the model to produce glowing figures if no one is allowed to examine the assumptions fed into the REMI model?

It is worth noting that the state plays a similar game with its Pure Michigan tourism subsidy program. It hires a consultant who claims the program has a ROI of more than $8 for every tax dollar spent but refuses to precisely explain how that figure was generated. The state has made it clear it is comfortable with such secrecy.

The state approved 377-plus MBDP deals, by our count, from March 2012 through June 2017. The total value of the subsidies approved (but not necessarily paid out yet) exceeds $350 million. Not every grant will be paid out. The 2016 report lists nine companies whose deals were revoked and eight of those were for failing to meet at least one performance milestone or parameter. That number might be much higher were it not for the 38 amendments to deals first struck in 2015 or 2016.

Most of the amendments identified in the annual report indicate some type of relaxing of previously established mandates, such as extending the date at which the company had to create new jobs or lowering the job creation threshold.

Most of these dismissed and (eventually) amended deals would have been included in previous projected ROI calculations. As original expectations turned out to be wrong, so too would projected performance. If administrators make incorrect assumptions, their forecasts will be incorrect, as well. It is ironic, but the REMI model cannot predict the future accurately because MBDP administrators cannot predict the future accurately. These and other issues render the ROI pronouncements for this program useless.

The state’s jobs mandarins make outrageous claims for their own success, secure in the knowledge that they don’t have to actually prove it. State administrators can’t or won’t prove that the MBDP is effective and so should stop puffing up the program as if it is. Lansing lawmakers should call on them to justify their claims. People deserve transparency, not unjustified boasts about the results of favored programs.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted,
provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly
cited. Permission to reprint any comments below is granted only for those comments written by
Mackinac Center policy staff.