This image terrifies me.
In one glance it explains how even the most intelligent, trustworthy, honest humans are completely deranged.
Discussion
And so are we šš
Well we got brains, not to grasp reality but to survive itā¦ but yes itās a little terrifying š
We are not in as much control of ourselves as we believe. There are powerful heuristics and evolutionary motivators that we simply aren't aware of at the conscious level.
How often do we retroactively create a reason for our actions after they've already been taken? A reason that is internally consistent with our personal narratives about who we are as people.
I've always been intrigued by this study out of UNSW. They could predict a subjects choice up to 11 seconds before the the subject was consciously aware of it by examining brain function.
#tardstr
It's a good reminder no one really knows anything and the rules are made up as we go.
Watch, someone will find a flaw in this chart and confirms its much worse than we initially thought!
https://video.nostr.build/d5e8cb4d1f203e40b5903cb7678fa83b4a399685d322c0bddf099ab768e8f4a4.mp4
Read Humankind by Rutger Bregman and youāll be amazed that evidence points to our default settings being better than you think. Then nurture those default instincts, they are the true you.
I donāt trust that guy. Heard him speak one time and I couldnāt believe people werenāt getting up and leaving
Really? Interesting. I just finished the book last night and the evidence he presented was very compelling and a much more hopeful framing of human behaviour than other similar work.
I am willing to give him another shot š
Maybe it was just one subject I didnāt agree with ā¦ weāll see.
Fair enough. I think from purely deconstructing misleading sociological/ psychological/ news narratives about how people naturally behave it is worth a read.
Literally had someone last night telling me they know how I think.
Do you have a high-res version?
That chart is cognitively biased against all the other parts of the body that help facilitate consciousness in yourself š
Human consciousness and reasoning are emergent phenomenon. The closer we get to unconscious instinct, the more deterministic and homogeneous we get.
As we go "up", the interactions between perceptual layers and feedback systems in our brains (like memory) produce chaotic outputs (which simply means too complex for us to find the pattern, not necessarily random). But we can always trace any decision back to our two fundamental instincts as living organisms: survival and propagation in time and space.
Species-level generalizations and predictions are possible at the base fundamental level (which is abstract), and get muddy as we approach the concrete level: first community level which is a bunch of individuals whose aggregate behavior may not coincide with any individual's, and finally the individual, consciously deciding level itself, which is in practical terms unique and unpredictable.
That's why we get wildly diverging social and cultural institutions among human groups that in reality solve for exactly the same issues everywhere: how to use natural resources, how to protect genetic inheritance, how to deal with death, etc.
Wow! Thatās something to think about.
Should I not attend bitcoin meet-up tonight? Only not to feed my own bias?
š
Why be terrified? Why not see it as a tool to better understand how complex it is to be a human being? Why not see as a tool to build better?
That's why nostr is great. When things are censored, all the evils can get out of the box. Nostr is at least a check for (almost) all that
Wow this is cool š§
I want to buy the poster sir
Yeah, doing the same. Here you go: https://www.designhacks.co/
This isnāt terrifying, itās fascinating!
āBiasā is just the name for one side of the coin. The other side is āencoding, simplifying and understandingā - we use all these techniques to process the world around us and filter out noise. Almost all of it happens subconsciously, so being aware of whatās going on inside our head (and others) is a superpower!
I would say it's about semiotics as a mean to overcome Shannon capacity theorem limitation, but it's lossy by default (that's the whole point!). Mind the difference between "simplifying" ("naming", as a matter of fact) and "understanding". From slightly different angle, it's an old good nominalism vs. realism debate.
š what he said
Well, basically humans were never "designed" to process vast amounts of information unless it's social (or somehow projects to social dimension). Dominant encephalization theory is that neural capacity was required specifically to handle interactions in the group. It's kinda "hardware level".
No need to be terrified. Certainly the person who made this chart was subject to all the biases and effects so the chart is probably wrong.
Just go outside and touch grassš
The bias blind spot bias is my favourite.
As a UX Designer you have to stay on top of all these as much as possible when doing your job.
My friend (designer) made this app about it https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/cognitive-biases/id1535402725
The world is a complicated place. People are even more so.
Adding this to my #TFQFavorites.