One of the people who has made a most interesting and persuasive contribution to psychology is the Israeli American psychologist, Daniel Kahneman. His work is best known for its approach to economics and back in 2002 he won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. By investigating human decision-making, he confirmed the importance of evolutionary psychology - the theory that all human behaviours reflect the influence of physical and psychological predispositions that helped our human ancestors survive and reproduce. As an anthropologist interested in evolutionary psychology, I often quote Kahneman as he has scientifically demonstrated the power of emotion in decision-making even when, for example, where finance is concerned, we might expect the dominance of rational judgement.
Kahneman and his collaborator Amos Tversky developed what is known as 'prospect theory', which resulted from their research into human decision-making and judgment. They examined how individuals make decisions when there are no certainties of the outcome. Prospect theory demonstrates that people think in terms of expected benefit "relative to a reference point (e.g. current wealth) rather than absolute outcomes". On the whole, they were able to prove the emotionally risk-averse options win rather than the unknown rational opportunity.
They were also able to identify the different types of cognitive biases that affect human judgment, such as heuristics: derived from the Greek verb that means to discover ‘, it is about someone being able to discover or learn something for themselves. In prospect theory, heuristics describes a rule or a method that comes from experience and helps an individual think through things, like the process of elimination, or trial and error. However, such judgement is instant not thought through or balanced by investigation and deliberation. Kahneman identifies two thought processes in making a judgement: one based on instant reflex and emotion and the other on reflection, research and evidence. It could be simplified as emotion versus rational thought and, no surprise, emotion tends to win every time. Even when we think we are being rational cognitive biases subvert our judgements.
Linked to our tendency to rely on heuristics there are many other cognitive biases that warp our judgement: for example, there is the so-called ‘framing effect’. The framing effect is a cognitive bias in which the brain makes decisions about information depending on how the information is presented. It is often used in marketing to influence decisions on purchases.
Alongside the biases that Kahneman and Tversky evidenced as dominating economic decision-making, there is a whole range of other cognitive biases that can influence our judgements, such as ‘confirmation bias’: this describes the tendency to seek out information that confirms pre-existing beliefs. We see this a lot on social media where echo chambers are created by like-minded participants, often reinforcing prejudice and conspiracy theories that can be both farcical and idiotic. Another is hindsight bias: here the tendency is to view events as both more predictable and determinable than they really were. It is part of the wonderful wisdom of hindsight phenomenon: for instance, every turn of the year the media like to assemble panels of ‘experts’, who are not only asked to predict the future but to give their thoughts on past events, and without fail the wisdom of hindsight is applied to avoid the embarrassment of judgement failure. I remember, in particular, the hindsight bias playing out after the financial crash of 2008. There is also the ‘availability bias’ which is when there is the tendency to overestimate the importance of information that is easily recalled rather than the more complex evidence that requires research and deliberation.
These cognitive biases can affect our judgment and decision-making in a variety of settings, including in personal relationships, business and financial decisions, as well as in political and social contexts. Recognising and understanding cognitive biases can help us all, whether as individuals or in groups, to make more informed and objective decisions.
This brings me to the nature of stupidity as often displayed by idiots. Being stupid is usually understood to be a lack of intelligence, understanding, or, as so often declared, a lack of ‘common sense’. It generally refers to an individual's inability to comprehend or understand facts, and/or to their tendency to make what can be described as foolish decisions or behave in idiotic ways. Often these foolish and idiotic decisions can be seen to be the result of cognitive biases that distort the judgement of the idiot.
Of course, the concept of stupidity can be subjective and relative. What I consider stupid may seem perfectly reasonable to another person, and vice versa. However, this is where the importance of education and an open mind plays a significant role in determining what is ‘stupid’. Like the use of the word idiot, stupid is a derogatory description and tends to be used in a pitying or hostile manner. However, there is no doubt that stupid people or idiots are most frustrating to deal with as such are their cognitive biases they do not listen to rational arguments and any reasoning with them only plunges you into a mire of insult and despair as their closed minds will not be opened. As the French psychologist, Jean-François Marmion states in his book, The Psychology of Stupidity:
And here’s a bitter truth: justified self-defense is a trap. If you try to reason with an idiot or to change his mind, you’re lost. The moment you decide it’s your duty to improve him, the moment you think you know how he should think and act (like you, of course), the jig’s up. There it is; now you’re the idiot—and you’re naïve to boot, since you think you’re up to the challenge. Worse, the more you try to reform an idiot, the stronger he gets. He delights in seeing himself as a victim who annoys others—and who must for that reason be in the right. In reproving him, you allow him to believe in good faith that he’s a hero of anticonformity, someone who ought to be defended and admired. A member of the resistance . . . Tremble before the vastness of this curse: if you try to reform a moron, not only will you fail, you will also strengthen him and encourage imitators. Before, there was only one moron: now there are two. Fighting against stupidity only makes it stronger.
I am sure we all know people like this!
Note: I recently came across this quote from Adam Rutherford, a geneticist, author, broadcaster and President of Humanists UK:
There is a natural tendency for scientists to think that because we have set up these methodologies (i.e. scientific analyses), we’re not influenced by politics, psychological biases, or historical and social contexts. That is a noble aim, but it’s impossible. Mainly because science is done by humans, and it’s very difficult to extract our own biases.
Comments