Human Stupidity: Historical: Heuristics

Humans are considered (by humans) as the most intelligent species known (to mankind). And, when we observe how much we have been able to accomplish as a species and compare that to every other species on Earth, that statement makes a lot of sense. One could debate if some big brained animals might be individually as intelligent as an individual human (he question now seems far less absurd than decades ago, as we learn more and more about the abilities of some animals and our own shortcomings). But there is no denying that what we have achieved as a species is without precedents. We have vehicles exploring the deep ocean and other planets, while others are leaving the Solar System; we can communicate almost instantaneously around our world and we understand the world around us in ways that a few generations ago wouldn't even dream. We have been changing the appearance of our planet (for good and also for evil) in a scale not done by an any organism, probably since the appearance of the first plants that could photosynthesize (The oxygen they started producing, while vital for us, was certainly a pollution for most organisms that lived then and must have caused widespread death among the species that didn't adapt to the new environment, much like the widespread death we are causing. Polluting and killing is not our exclusivity at all). And, for the first time since life started on Earth, we have been able to subvert most of the survival rules that apply to other species, changing how evolution applies to us by making it possible for even the some of the weakest among our species to survive and reach an old age, safe from the dangerous and fatal natural environment.

Those are very impressive accomplishments and they do give us the sense that, while we are far from perfect, or even far from good enough, we have been able to do something right. Culturally, we even see ourselves as something apart from the natural world, as if we were somehow superior to nature and not just a very successful species of big apes. While the distinction between natural and artificial makes no sense (one might be tempted to say it is completely artificial), it does reflect the fact that we have, in the local scale, subverted the relation we have with the world around us. And, while there are many reasons to worry about the future, our present is actually almost unbelievably better than we our perception of it. Violent deaths have never been so rare, humans never lived such long lives, all due to the advances in science and in our cultural and political institutions as shown recently by Pinker. The data that show this to be a fact are not so hard to find and we only feel we are surrounded by violence and disasters as an effect of the news focusing on those events. And, since information circulates much better now, we can learn about almost any disaster in the planet. With billions alive, the total number of crimes and disasters is indeed large. Not only we can learn about natural disasters happening at the other side of the globe, now it is very likely that there are people living there who will be affected by it. But what really matters to any of us as individuals is the proportion of people who die or who suffer, not the total number that happens in a larger population and, much less, the total number of cases we can find in the Internet. What matters is the probability that a given tragedy will affect one person. And these probabilities have been steadily going down (with the important exception of the ills associated with old age, as, in the old days, they were quite rare, since basically nobody reached old age), to the point that, even without ever seeing the data, I would personally bet that the life expectation of an Egyptian pharaoh was much smaller than that of a poor and discriminated person, as, per example, a black poor woman living in a crime infested slum in Brazil. That this statement can be surprising to so many is just a consequence of the many problems with our reasoning.

So, what is actually happening? Are we completely stupid incompetents or are we incredible geniuses who mastered the secrets of the Universe and changed the world into a utopia? The answer is clearly that we are neither, even though there is some truth to the notion that we are very dumb and also to the notion that we are actually living in a Golden Age of mankind.

One first partial answer to the question of how we (or any other living being) can actually achieve so much while being quite dumb was suggested by Simon, in 1956. In his paper, Simon investigated if it was actually necessary for a living organism to have a well defined utility function as proposed by the EUT, as well as the intellectual capacity to analyze its environment and make the decisions that maximize that utility. Organisms need to find ways to deal with a multitude of different tasks, from feeding, to defending itself and reproducing if the species is to survive. Actually obtaining and interpreting all available data from observing its surroundings and choosing the best way to obtain the best possible outcome, when all those tasks are considered, is basically an impossible problem. It would require a mental capacity far beyond the one we possess and this basically infinite capacity would also need to happen very fast. You really don't want to sit and think what is the best choice when a lion is closing to you. Since finding the perfect answer is not achievable, organisms had to settle for less.

Assume there are a number of clues in the environment that you could use in a simple way to make some decision. If this decision will give you a better chance to survive than not using those clues, any organism that uses those clues will have an advantage when compared to organisms who don't (as long as processing this information does not consume so much energy that the benefit is smaller than the cost, of course). So, an organism does not need to find the optimum, or, in economic terms, to optimize its utility. It can actually function competently by finding efficient, but not necessarily error-proof, ways to interpret the information captured by its senses. Simon describing this non-optimal behavior as satisficing (Evolution does not requires any species to be the best to survive. Being better than the others would be sufficient, but even being better might not be a good strategy. The real concept is better adapted. Not stronger, or faster, or smarter, sometimes, being weaker can actually mean better adapted. In an environment with scarce resources, being too big and strong might require extra food that is not available. In this case, the weaker organisms, who are able to survive with less, are the best adapted to that environment. This applies to strength, but also to speed, to mental prowess or any other characteristic.).

That is, if simple rules of thumb make you more likely to survive, it makes sense to use them. Per example, if you are looking for the cause of a phenomenon, it makes sense to look for things that happen together with it. After all, if it is the cause, you do expect those things to be related. The fact that many variables can be associated with no causal connection means you will often believe that things are related when they are not.

Suppose you are belong to a family of farmers without any of our modern knowledge. You try to plant your seeds and sometimes things go well and the climate seems to be working in your favor. At other times, it gets cold too soon, or there is not enough water for your plants to grow. After a long time observing, your grandfather observed if he planted the seeds whenever a specific bright star appeared low on the sky just when the Sun went down, the climate would be right for the plant to grow. Your parents confirmed it as well as your own experience. So, you conclude that this star commands the success of your farming. While this conclusion is wrong, there is no cause there, the observation of movement of the stars is indeed associated with the calendar and the seasons. And your decision will indeed be better. If you extend the argument to the belief that the same star will influence the chance of your success in war, you will be very wrong. But, without better information, there is no way you can actually determine the better day to go to war. Going when you believe the stars support you is a costless mistake, from an evolutionary point of view, since it does not improve or decreases your chance of success.

Mistaking association for cause is indeed an incredibly common mistake. My own personal experience with association and causation is actually quite worrisome. I am used to telling my students that their exams are very likely to include a question where variables will be associated and I will ask about causes. And I make it abundantly clear, with examples and theory, that observational studies (I will define these later in this text), one can not conclude that there is cause and effect. And yet, a large percentage of these students make this very same mistake during the exams (of course, this might be related to the fact that I tell my students that, if they do not show up for class but succeed at the exam, I will give them the minimum required attendance, so it is possible that the students who make that mistake were not at those three or four classes when I tell them one of the exam questions. But my best guess is that it is not just that). Outside of the exams, this can be a low cost mistake, so, it is a reasonable rule of thumb, despite the fact that is is logically wrong.