Why we can't have nice things - cognitive biases

[TBRS1]

No matter how smart a person is, no matter how logical they believe they are, cognitive science says they are wrong. Humans are inherently illogical and can, in fact, only make truly logical choices if they are very, very careful.

This sad truth is demonstrated by examining "cognitive biases." There are lists of these biases, but to explain HOW they work, let me explain just one, named "the Proximity Bias."

"Proximity" means "how near a thing is." The proximity bias is based on the idea that people pay far more attention to things near them than they do to "the big picture."

In the vast majority of human evolutionary history, it was far, far more important to know if there was a predator nearby than it was to know how many predators are within a 40 mile radius.

Because of this, our brains evolved to respond to "near by" rather than "as a whole." This creates the Proximity Bias.

Example: a person may live in an extremely safe place with almost no crime. But "almost no crime" is not the same as "no crime."

So a crime might happen right next door to a person, at some point. When this happens, the person will almost certainly image they are in the midst of a horrible crime wave... because one of the three crimes that occurred in their city happened RIGHT NEXT DOOR!

Showing that person very low local crime statistics is highly unlikely to change their mind.

That's physical proximity. There is also "mental proximity."

"Mental Proximity" means "near by in thought."

Example: A person watches the news. The news combs through all the crimes that occurs in entire countries composed of millions and millions of people to find the three most horrifying crimes to report. This puts those three crimes in a person's thoughts (mental proximity).

The person in this example is highly likely to believe that they are in the midst of a horrifying crime wave, when the statistical reality is that those three crimes were "newsworthy" ONLY because they are so very rare.

Frequently, no matter how one tries to explain this to the person embodying the proximity bias, they will continue to believe that there are swarms of drug crazed cannibals pouring through the country.

Thinking well, accurately, and logically is not natural. Cognitive biases, though, are. Almost everybody is far less logically rational than they believe themselves to be.

Good thinkers take this into account, and check their logic before making a truth claim. They check, specifically, for cognitive biases.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

The first steps in any sort of discussion are: (1) recognizing cognitive biases in the other person and more importantly, (2) cognitive biases in yourself.

Context and perspective. Be aware of others. Be aware of your own. Use as accurate of language as you can.

None of this is an easy thing. You literally have to be thinking of it whenever you communicate.

 

[TBRS1]

Thinking well is like reading a book.

Anybody who can see can open a book a see that there are black patterns on a white background. "Seeing" is natural, anybody with vision can do it.

But if you want to know what those patterns mean, you're gonna have to learn to read. "Reading" is not natural, it has to be learned.

 

[FilterFreq]

Example: A person watches the news. The news combs through all the crimes that occurs in entire countries composed of millions and millions of people to find the three most horrifying crimes to report. This puts those three crimes in a person's thoughts (mental proximity).

It's funny to me how few people are willing to ask who wants to keep them living in fear, too, or why. Simply watching the news and attempting to de-brainwash yourself is utter lunacy, and nearly anybody willing to ask questions about it is likely to end up on the outside of their endless "watch this!" loop.

I think it goes beyond just a few cognitive biases, too. Look at mainstream social media. A lot of humans are excruciatingly manipulable and they don't even realize what they're doing or saying anymore.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

It's funny to me how few people are willing to ask who wants to keep them living in fear, too, or why. Simply watching the news and attempting to de-brainwash yourself is utter lunacy, and nearly anybody willing to ask questions about it is likely to end up on the outside of their endless "watch this!" loop.

I think it goes beyond just a few cognitive biases, too. Look at mainstream social media. A lot of humans are excruciatingly manipulable and they don't even realize what they're doing or saying anymore.

Human metadata is a trillion-dollar industry. Supercomputers collecting and sorting metadata on humans. All in an attempt to control and manipulate the thoughts of the masses. It could be political manipulation, it could be for sales and marketing, it could be for cultural manipulation. It's become a science.

The Divergent movies examined the post-apocalyptic results on society as a result of all of this. The group that was considered "neurodivergent" were the people who were not easily manipulated, and as a result, considered "enemies of the state" because they would put up resistance.

I find it interesting that authors have put out sci-fi books and media (1984, Logan's Run, Idiocracy, Divergent, Eagle Eye, on and on) warning us about all these things, and yet, somehow, many seem to be either ignoring our obvious path or even using them as a "user manual" for their agenda. And we are letting them. Wow. Makes you question humanity. Do we want to be controlled, or is it that a few want to be the controllers and that the masses are too intellectually and psychologically weak to resist? Either way, neither is good.

It used to be that humans would be controlled by force. Comply or die. Millions of people in mass graves. Now, it's a more insidious and treacherous method. Subtle manipulation over decades.

 

[TBRS1]

Well, if a person wants to know more about how people are manipulated, George Orwell is a must. Not Animal Farm or 1984, but most especially Politics and the English Language.

But even more useful is the knowledge that, since 1960, much, much (times 10) more money has been spent learning and experimenting with the psychology of "advertising" than has ever been spent on finding ways to help people with psychological issues.

It's that knowledge that became the basis of the electronic manipulations of data and metadata that is the norm today.

 

[FilterFreq]

many seem to be either ignoring our obvious path or even using them as a "user manual" for their agenda.

That is such an interesting observation, too. Maybe we've all become so prepared for a significant downturn that we (not us, but the collective) decided to welcome it. Whether that's our intrinsic nature or not is probably one of the most open-ended questions to come out of all of this.

It's that knowledge that became the basis of the electronic manipulations of data and metadata that is the norm today.

I think once there's a blatant (and successful) attack on truth itself, nothing is off the table anymore. And if someone can use machines to their advantage in this way, they absolutely will. This more ore less has probably gone on since the inception of mankind (without said fancy machines), but directly obscuring previously-known truths seems like a radical shift.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

That is such an interesting observation, too. Maybe we've all become so prepared for a significant downturn that we (not us, but the collective) decided to welcome it. Whether that's our intrinsic nature or not is probably one of the most open-ended questions to come out of all of this.

"Do we want to be controlled, or is it that a few want to be the controllers and that the masses are too intellectually and psychologically weak to resist?" I am thinking the answer to this is BOTH.

As a species, we can easily be manipulated by:
1. Fear
2. Convenience
3. Greed

This is why authoritarianism is even a thing. Most say they want freedom, but only IF it means safety, convenience, and "more". Most are quick to embrace "control" if those three things become a priority.

 

[TBRS1]

IMHO - the problem seems to be that people want multiple contradictory things all at the same time.

This makes them vulnerable to all sorts of exploitation by those who profit off exploitation.

The exploitation, then, is subject to "counter exploitation," leading to repeating cycles of "this" fighting "that."

But it's all for "the people," of course...

Theoretically, this should result in some form of "compromise," but when "compromise" itself is vilified, the result is bad.

 

[Roisin]

Being controlled by someone or something has been a feature throughout history though, it's familiar?
If life remains mostly comfortable then many will bumble along, while looking out for opportunities to increase their comfort.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Being controlled by someone or something has been a feature throughout history though, it's familiar?
If life remains mostly comfortable then many will bumble along, while looking out for opportunities to increase their comfort.

In most societies within the animal kingdom there are leaders. However, within the context of humans and primates, this also means an element of control that goes beyond that of safety and security, where dissent is seen as a threat, and not tolerated. Worst case, comply or die. "Everything will be just fine if you'd just conform."

People wonder why I get a bit concerned about authoritarianism. My mind refuses to conform. I walk alone. Myself and others like me would be the first to be rounded up and gotten rid of in an authoritarian society. Plenty of historical examples in our history.

 

[TBRS1]

In most societies within the animal kingdom there are leaders. However, within the context of humans and primates, this also means an element of control that goes beyond that of safety and security, where dissent is seen as a threat, and not tolerated. Worst case, comply or die. "Everything will be just fine if you'd just conform."

People wonder why I get a bit concerned about authoritarianism. My mind refuses to conform. I walk alone. Myself and others like me would be the first to be rounded up and gotten rid of in an authoritarian society. Plenty of historical examples in our history.

Chairman Mao's "cultural revolution" is an illuminating study.

 

[Roisin]

In most societies within the animal kingdom there are leaders. However, within the context of humans and primates, this also means an element of control that goes beyond that of safety and security, where dissent is seen as a threat, and not tolerated. Worst case, comply or die. "Everything will be just fine if you'd just conform."

People wonder why I get a bit concerned about authoritarianism. My mind refuses to conform. I walk alone. Myself and others like me would be the first to be rounded up and gotten rid of in an authoritarian society. Plenty of historical examples in our history.

This dissent is a part of me that I cherish, I rarely fear walking alone. Sometimes I've managed to bring others with me, where the risks for them were lesser than for me.
it was deeply uncomfortable for them.