Have Humans Evolved to Be Inaccurate Decision Makers?
1–10 of 54 posts
Re: Have Humans Evolved to Be Inaccurate Decision Makers?
#2The argument seems essentially similar to theories on the evolution of aging that suggest we age because senescence improves evolutionary fitness when the environment changes on a comparatively short timescale [1]. The world changes, therefore a race to the bottom arises for ways to improve fitness that also happen to make life miserable and short for individuals. Miserable and short outcompetes hydra-like immortality or naked-mole-rat-like negligible senescence in the vast majority of niches.
Re: Have Humans Evolved to Be Inaccurate Decision Makers?
#3maybe a hybrid computer / human solution will fare better
This is the purpose of technology. To enhance our skills. From fire to machine learning, tools are built to make our lives easier and help us make decisions better.
In the end we're better off with more empirical computing in our decision loops. Eventually hopefully we totally replace ourselves with better, more consisitently optimized decision making systems.
Re: Have Humans Evolved to Be Inaccurate Decision Makers?
#4Well it would make sense if that were the case.
You have some system that tried to balance bias, variance, and utility. Sometimes that best way to do that is to have some bias. The classic example of this is you may jump when you see something that looks like a predator, but then turns out not to be. The cost of being wrong (see nothing when predator, see predator when nothing) means it's optimal to sometimes see danger that isn't there.
Re: Have Humans Evolved to Be Inaccurate Decision Makers?
#5Interesting argument presented in the paper, though I wouldn't frame it as "we've evolved to be inaccurate": it's really that the world can be so suddenly unpredictable that setting up strong, working paradigms of decision making in the short term can be worse in the long run than just winging it.
It's worth considering, especially in light of the authors' suggestion that we use computer/human decision-making systems to improve performance, as the world is still unpredictable, and can still break our paradigms. The biggest danger of setting up a good system to improve knowledge is that you'll think you've got a perfect one--we could improve our rationality and decision-making with computers for a long time, before an unexpected case cracks the system, and we're left floundering.
Re: Have Humans Evolved to Be Inaccurate Decision Makers?
#6Yes, of course we are inaccurate decision makers.
Although there's so many factors and chance that influence the results of every decision and you can only have so much information and perspective, so you can only do the best you can.
The map is not the territory. We work with models of how the world works when deciding things, not the actual world, so it's bound to not be 100% accurate.
Computers do the same, although they can crunch a lot more data than we can, they still work with models of the world, not the world itself.
Re: Have Humans Evolved to Be Inaccurate Decision Makers?
#7Well it would make sense if that were the case. You have some system that tried to balance bias, variance, and utility. Sometimes that best way to do that is to have some bias. The classic example of this is you may jump when you see something that looks like a predator, but then turns out not to be. The cost of being wrong (see nothing when predator, see predator when nothing) means it's optimal to sometimes see dan…
That's the argument for racial profiling. Not making any argument for or against, just pointing out something interesting. I didn't think about the topic in this context before, as to whether or not it's rational. It's always only been a question of ethics to me. So the natural follow-up question: are various ethics irrational? Again, only a theoretical exercise, not putting my personal views into this.
Re: Have Humans Evolved to Be Inaccurate Decision Makers?
#8maybe a hybrid computer / human solution will fare better This is the purpose of technology. To enhance our skills. From fire to machine learning, tools are built to make our lives easier and help us make decisions better. In the end we're better off with more empirical computing in our decision loops. Eventually hopefully we totally replace ourselves with better, more consisitently optimized decision making systems.
While it does make our life easier, machines also brought our down our physical abilities. In modern countries, people are usually not as strong, have less stamina, and their immune system is less potent.
We also see a decrease in the ability to focus with people using a lot devices with screens.
I'm quite concerned of what AI is doing to our brain skills: pattern recognition, memory, data processing and summary... Al that stuff, left untrained, could lead to regression.
We already see a lot of people going to the gym, doing artificial exercice to keep their body in shape. And now we got those popular games to "train your mind" on phones and consoles.
It's a issue IMO, but not an easily solved one. Who don't want to use innovations bringing confort, productivity and increased lifespan ?
Re: Have Humans Evolved to Be Inaccurate Decision Makers?
#9Well it would make sense if that were the case. You have some system that tried to balance bias, variance, and utility. Sometimes that best way to do that is to have some bias. The classic example of this is you may jump when you see something that looks like a predator, but then turns out not to be. The cost of being wrong (see nothing when predator, see predator when nothing) means it's optimal to sometimes see dan…
That's the argument for racial profiling. Not making any argument for or against, just pointing out something interesting. I didn't think about the topic in this context before, as to whether or not it's rational. It's always only been a question of ethics to me. So the natural follow-up question: are various ethics irrational? Again, only a theoretical exercise, not putting my personal views into this.
Are various ethics irrational? Quite probably.
Being more specific on which ethics you mean might give more to chew on.
Humans are notoriously great at pattern matching, and seeing things that aren't there simply based on a prior mental model. Stereotypes of all kinds are a result of this.
Re: Have Humans Evolved to Be Inaccurate Decision Makers?
#10Asked and answered decades ago[0,1].
[0]: https://people.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/Ec101/JudgementUncer... [1]: http://www.math.mcgill.ca/vetta/CS764.dir/bounded.pdf