The Proportionality Problem
Decision making: it’s what humans do. Estimates are that the average adult makes 35,000 decisions a day. Of those daily decisions, 226 involve food choice. The fact that you’re reading this suggests that, for the most part, your decisions have allowed you to stay above room temperature, and live your life.
Still: are you the kind of person who tends to make good decisions? How well have you
navigated through the maze of everyday choice? Can you point to at least a couple
of dead ends from your past? In all honesty, if you had the chance, how many
do-overs would you take?
Given that our brains tend to remember our successes while
confining our mistakes to the outer reaches of our minds, many of us probably
think our decision-making is pretty good.
The truth might not be so comforting. After all, there’s a reason Las Vegas can
support over 62,000 hotel rooms on the strip alone. According to PBS, $6 billion are lost every year in Vegas.
Gambling aside, why might our decision apparatus betray us
more often then we’d like to admit? It’s basically a math issue--a problem of false equivalency.
When presented with a binary choice, the human brain displays an interesting
flaw: it does a poor job with proportionality.
Imagine two individuals debating an idea. Subject A cites the testimony of 10,000 scientists
and extensive research to argue that the earth is round. Subject B asserts that
the Flat World Society and its five card-carrying members can prove the earth
is as flat as a pancake. After all, Subject B points out, from 30,000 feet away
in an airplane, the earth appears flat.
You’d think this would be a no-brainer, an easy rebuke of
the Flat World folks. But think again. When presented with two different views,
research shows it’s the two individuals themselves we tend to size up,
shrugging at vast amounts of evidence or bodies of supporting views.
(Especially when the evidence runs counter to our current belief.)
Our brains set up a simple binary exercise: this person
against that person, or this idea against that.
You might have an army of experts who can offer real verifiable proof,
but your opponent only needs to hit an emotional chord and the listener’s brain
levels up the playing field, the weight of evidence be damned.
How has this flaw survived? One theory is that assigning
proportional weight doesn’t necessarily have an evolutionary advantage. Imagine
your ancient ancestor encountering a poisonous snake. Whether they chanced upon
three or thirty deadly serpents, it didn’t really matter. It only takes a bite
from one snake to die. In this scenario, quantitative attributes become less
important. One snake might as well be thirty.
Without the ability to weigh proportionality easily, we become
easy prey for weak and unsupported claims—provided the advocate has good
presentation skills. PT Barnum is purported to have said, “There is a sucker
born every minute.” Although it’s unlikely Barnum actually said that, still if
we’re going to put false words in his mouth, we might as well make a quick
revision: Maybe not a sucker, but someone who frequently has a problem with rudimentary
math.
Check out Robb’s new book and more
content at www.bestmindframe.com.
Comments
Post a Comment