Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Have Humans Evolved to Be Inaccurate Decision Makers?

duboue.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: Have Humans Evolved to Be Inaccurate Decision Makers?

#41

Post by bduerst »

robotcookies wrote: post #29

I don't think humans evolve to be inaccurate - I think a better description is that they evolve to not all be the same. If you look at two species, the one that is very uniform is more likely to die out over the long term than the one that has more variation. That variation can be physical, or in the mind and how it makes choices. But this variation makes the species more adaptable when conditions change drastically.…

That's a stretch, because it implies intent for diversity. Mass extinction through a lack of robustness is definitely something that natural selection selects for, but the inverse is true where too much genetic variability leads to less reproduction, and a drift towards uniformity over generations.

The bigger assumption in this article is in what natural selection selects for with humans. For sole individuals in any species, you typically need only to live long enough to reproduce viable offspring. With humans, we've evolved intelligence that has lead to a tribal culture.

That means that natural selection doesn't apply to the individual, but the majority of the species. The best individual of the entire human species is enough to hold natural selection back for everyone else (i.e. vaccines, engineering feats, etc.). That doesn't mean we've evolved to making bad decisions, it just means that the collective knowledge of our species is now being subjected to natural selection instead.

Re: Have Humans Evolved to Be Inaccurate Decision Makers?

#42

Post by thedrake »

A similar conclusion was made using AI. Here is the video: https://youtu.be/dXQPL9GooyI

The takeaways: - The path to success is through NOT trying to succeed - To achieve our highest goals we must be willing to abandon them - It is in you interest that others DO NOT follow the path you think is right

Re: Have Humans Evolved to Be Inaccurate Decision Makers?

#43

Post by ThrustVectoring »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #15

I do not think decision making is a good model for this concept. Culture is. In particular: Traditionalism vs. Progressiveism as cultural influences: the former acts to not overfit current conditions, while the latter tries to fit current conditions. Both influences have been critical for human survival.

Control theory is a better model for Traditionalism vs Progressivism, in my opinion. Traditionalism works to add damping to the system of cultural expectations, preventing overshoot and oscillation, while Progressivism provides the proportional response necessary to track the cultural ideal.

Crucially, this shows the difference between Traditionalism and just having a lot of cultural context. Culture itself is just weight - more of it is harder to change, but it's the same difficulty no matter how fast you go. Traditionalists, on the other hand, will fight you harder the more quickly you're changing cultural facts.

Re: Have Humans Evolved to Be Inaccurate Decision Makers?

#44

Post by BurningFrog »

rudolf0 wrote: post #39
BurningFrog wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's an argument for racial profiling if certain races actually are more dangerous. It's hard to answer your question, since both ethics and rationality are fuzzy, slippery concepts that need to be nailed down firmly to reason meaningfully about. Or, put less pretentiously, I don't know.

>Well, it's an argument for racial profiling if certain races actually are more dangerous. When you say "more dangerous" do you mean "inherently more dangerous" or "more likely to commit crimes per capita"? Because if it's the latter, then depending on how you define "race" some of these statistics are already known.

The latter is the only one that's of practical interest.

"Known"is a bit strong, since the source for the statistics can be debated.

Re: Have Humans Evolved to Be Inaccurate Decision Makers?

#45

Post by manmal »

thedrake wrote: post #42

A similar conclusion was made using AI. Here is the video: https://youtu.be/dXQPL9GooyI The takeaways: - The path to success is through NOT trying to succeed - To achieve our highest goals we must be willing to abandon them - It is in you interest that others DO NOT follow the path you think is right

Thank you for posting this, it has the potential to change one's outlook to life (planning life vs going with the flow).

Re: Have Humans Evolved to Be Inaccurate Decision Makers?

#46

Post by robotcookies »

bduerst wrote: post #41
robotcookies wrote: post #29

I don't think humans evolve to be inaccurate - I think a better description is that they evolve to not all be the same. If you look at two species, the one that is very uniform is more likely to die out over the long term than the one that has more variation. That variation can be physical, or in the mind and how it makes choices. But this variation makes the species more adaptable when conditions change drastically.…

That's a stretch, because it implies intent for diversity. Mass extinction through a lack of robustness is definitely something that natural selection selects for, but the inverse is true where too much genetic variability leads to less reproduction, and a drift towards uniformity over generations. The bigger assumption in this article is in what natural selection selects for with humans. For sole individuals in any…

"but the inverse is true where too much genetic variability leads to less reproduction"

Two ant colonies A and B. Sugar is abundant in the area and all ants in colony B prefer sugar. 95% of the ants in colony A prefer sugar while 5% prefer peanut butter. The ants that like peanut butter have a higher risk of getting killed because peanut butter is scarce and they must travel further. They also use more energy in getting food. One day a truck drops sugar near the colonies that is poisoned. Colony B is wiped out. Colony A survives on because of the 5% of ants that prefer peanut butter. The queen may die but the surviving ants reproduce.

We all know someone who hates a particular food that most people love. We all know someone who loves a food we think is disgusting. Why don't we all like the same healthiest foods?

I'm not an expert on genes but it's possible that in one species, taste or some other variable is determined by 1 or 2 genes. In another species it may be determined by 8 or 9 genes. This complexity in taste determination may cause more variation in how it manifests. Maybe that complexity causes odd variations to occur over generations. Even as other factors select for sugar in one species, individuals keep popping up that like peanut butter.

Re: Have Humans Evolved to Be Inaccurate Decision Makers?

#47

Post by bduerst »

robotcookies wrote: post #46
bduerst wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a stretch, because it implies intent for diversity. Mass extinction through a lack of robustness is definitely something that natural selection selects for, but the inverse is true where too much genetic variability leads to less reproduction, and a drift towards uniformity over generations. The bigger assumption in this article is in what natural selection selects for with humans. For sole individuals in any…

"but the inverse is true where too much genetic variability leads to less reproduction" Two ant colonies A and B. Sugar is abundant in the area and all ants in colony B prefer sugar. 95% of the ants in colony A prefer sugar while 5% prefer peanut butter. The ants that like peanut butter have a higher risk of getting killed because peanut butter is scarce and they must travel further. They also use more energy in gett…

The problem with evolutionary behavior hypotheticals is that it's too easy to craft them to fit a narrative - even with yours the inverse is still true.

The next generation of the species is all PB-seeking high risk ants, which expend more energy & die off faster, reproducing less. Diversity shrinks over generations as natural selection picks off most of the high risk individuals, leading to a uniformity.

This still doesn't apply to humans, because even food preferences weren't really subject to natural selection (outside food neophobia in children), because pre-agricultural humans ate whatever they could get their hands on.

Re: Have Humans Evolved to Be Inaccurate Decision Makers?

#48

Post by oldmanjay »

bduerst wrote: post #41
robotcookies wrote: post #29

I don't think humans evolve to be inaccurate - I think a better description is that they evolve to not all be the same. If you look at two species, the one that is very uniform is more likely to die out over the long term than the one that has more variation. That variation can be physical, or in the mind and how it makes choices. But this variation makes the species more adaptable when conditions change drastically.…

That's a stretch, because it implies intent for diversity. Mass extinction through a lack of robustness is definitely something that natural selection selects for, but the inverse is true where too much genetic variability leads to less reproduction, and a drift towards uniformity over generations. The bigger assumption in this article is in what natural selection selects for with humans. For sole individuals in any…

I'm not sure which you are using to form your hypothesis, but I find the notion that intelligence is unnatural, or that the application of intelligence is unnatural, or that the products of intelligence are unnatural to be rather unsatisfying. I take it as a capitulation to marketing forces more than any sort of scientific perspective.

Re: Have Humans Evolved to Be Inaccurate Decision Makers?

#49

Post by badminton1 »

There's a tradeoff between accuracy and speed.

For survival reasons the brain needed to evolve to make both quick decisions and well thought decisions.

If a predator appears in front of you you might not be able to give a lot of thinking to the decision of what you need to do.

If you are a nomad during the ice age and you need to collect food and prepare a shelter, or track a prey for long distances, you probably need to give it some thought.

Post reply on HN