#150 - The Map of Misunderstandingfleeting
- External reference: https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/150-map-misunderstanding
- External reference:
They speak about reproducibility crisis
system 1 = ideas that come to mind effortlessly,
misleading useful analogy, that helps people think about useful experiences to make.
most of our representations of the world are in system 1
Being surprised is a system 1 activity.
discussion about intuition
intuition is recognition
Therefore, most of intuition are due to repeated patterns.
intuition is “knowing” something without knowing where this comes from
work with Gary Klein to identify skilled intuitions
when the skilled intuition conditions are not met, we still have intuitions
we don’t know whether our intuitions are skilled or not
we tend to trust our intuitions more than we should
it only takes a thought to automatically and effortlessly come to mind and trust in that though
We tend to rely on stuff that are effortless: cognitive ease
studying/knowing about cognitive bias did not change their impact on Daniel Kahneman
you can notice situations were your intuitions are likely to be fooled
on the contrary to moral intuitions, chances are that our cognitive bias won’t evolve, because they are wired into our perceptions
our moral intuitions are not coherent
our moral intuitions are diluted in the number of people
- showing a picture of a poor little girl :: some donations
- the same, with the picture of her little brother :: fewer donations
- the same, with numbers telling they are a lot like then :: almost no donation
See Paul Slovic
In the first scenario, we can imagine “saving” the little girl. The system 1 can recognize something and emotions appear. The more actors in the scene, the more abstract the scene is and the less emotion we can put in it (émotion -> action).
This problem becomes a problem of cognitive morality. You know that you should feel better saving more, but you actually don’t.
moral policies should be done by policy makers
And if people need to be convinced of it, simple examples that seduce the system 1 should be used. Numbers just don’t catch people imagination.
like nudge, you know that the problem will be framed, so frame it in a way that helps people do the «right» thing.
But, this comes with the moral dilemma of paternalism.
Make we also think about should I be a team player or a goal player?
basic rule to make people behave a certain way is to make it easy for them
cognitive ease, things that comes to mind easily are more pleasant, and more trusted (fluency)
we are all in a lazy reality testing and tell ourselves stories to have reasons to believe
when doing post hypnotic experiments, people know the reason why they do stuffs, but still explain their behavior with the induced feeling
people hypnotized to react to a finger clapping by feeling warm and opening the window. When we ask them why they opened the window, they explain that they felt warm, not that the fingers where clapped.
we should not have face to face meetings
Even when we also have other criteria.
our own experience is more vivid that numbers and tend to eclipse them
we tend to trust more our own study results that the ones of our colleagues
With no more reason that our own experience is more vivid.
Not only do people get things wrong, but they also get things wrong reliably
climate change is the storm of behavior chance science
Therefore, making people worry for such a topic is pretty hard. And people that don’t worry enough are likely not to do anything.