MONDAY MAP

NO FAVOUR FOR THE ABSTRACT

Action Bias

Here is something shocking about our human nature. We think of ourselves as thinking beings when actually, we are 'doing' beings. We assume ourselves to be species who think before we act, or who find thinking easier than doing. But contrarily, we find it easier to do things, than to think well and think clearly. Let's see how.

First thought experiment.

When you see a person of extreme success in any job or craft (singer, artist, engineer, doctor, investor), what comes to mind as the secret of their success? Their actions or their thought processes- which are you more concerned with? (Take a moment to really think). I bet it is their actions. You probably want to know what they did to get to where they are. You are definitely more concerned with the habits and lifestyle that produced that success. But how many times does it occur to you to adopt their method of thinking and worldview so that you can replicate their persona? When we intend to replicate a person, we do what they do. We hardly think what they think. We quote Rene Descartes for fun that Cogito, ergo sum (I think therefore I am) without acting on it.

Cogito, ergo sum

-Rene Descartes

The need to 'do' is a biological imperative. There is no need to fight it. We evolved by doing, not thinking. The impact of evolution on human survival is such that if you don't act, you die. You have no room for much thinking without performance. Heck, your body cannot survive excessive thinking. But the deception lies in the assumption that for us, thinking is a priority, and action comes second. When in fact, actions come first, and thinking second.

Second thought experiment. 

Between a Company executive (a CEO) and a construction worker, who would you say works harder? I am betting on the construction worker. It is a bias to think so, and it is common. There is a reason why.

Physical work is visible compared to mental work. You can't obviously see the mental effort that goes into a project until you see the results. This feeds directly into our empirical nature of judging things that are visible as more favourable than things we cannot perceive in concrete form. Hence, our abstract world suffers thanks to the need to survive. You don't need abstraction to survive. You need performance to survive.

The need to survive is what drives most of humanity. Hence, complex thinking is a lesser need. It is usually until one rises above the need to survive that one unlocks their mental potential and does abstraction in a wild sense. This is why philosophy is perceived by many as a luxury subject or profession.

Two Systems: Do, then judge

A certain debate topic fascinates me so much. It is the emotions versus logic debate. It is commonly framed that emotions interfere with the logical processing of concepts, and  produce distorted results. While many people insist that it is not true. I insist that it is; it just isn't presented accurately.

There are two systems of decision-making common to man, embedded in our biology. The Reactive System and The Reflective System.

"The Reactive System is quick, impulsive, and intuitive, relying on emotions or habits to provide cues on what to do next." (Source: Openstax.com). It is called "fast and frugal" or "quick and dirty" by cognitive psychologists. It is the most prevalent system in use among human beings, and is favored by evolution. Essentially, it is a biologically informed decision-making shortcut. Every human has it.

"The Reflective System is logical, analytical, deliberate, and methodical." (Source: Openstax.com). This one is the long-thinking, clarity-demanding, computational part of the decision-making system. It is long, tasking, and sometimes attractive and sometimes unattractive. It is the system you use for classroom affairs. It is not favoured by evolution. Every human has it.

Having identified both systems of decision-making, I now clarify the problem as regards the emotions versus logic debate.

Both systems work in such a way that one interferes with the operation of the other. Both cannot perform optimally at the same time. This is because they work from different parts of the brain. It is not that one is better than the other. It is that they have different realms of operation and it would be absolutely destructive to pit them against one another in the same sphere.

The Reactive System works for things that you shouldn't spend time thinking about; where the consequences for action or inaction are low. While the Reflective system works best in conditions where the consequences of action or inaction are high. Execute wisely.

The Reactive system is best for such an operation where you are walking down a street at night and you see a funny looking fellow walking towards you. Or when you see a snake. Don't think too much when you see a snake. Don't compute. Act.

The Reflective system is best for long term operations. Like for formulating policies, choosing what investments to buy, determining where you want to get a house. You should know that choosing to buy a house only on the basis of "I like it, it makes me feel good" is a stupid one, one which I pray you regret it. Execute wisely.

The overall confusion and subsequent destruction results from assuming that you have just used the Reflective System to execute a choice when you have actually used The Reactive System. A lot in life comes from this mistake. And this is where we go deeper.

But a third experiment. 

Why does your mom not take you seriously when you are on the phone all the time even if you are making good money by being on it? Simple answer: she doesn't think you are doing anything meaningful because what you are doing seems effortless. She judges you by results, not process. Your process is invisible.

We are superficial species. I guess that is the summary of all I have been saying. We judge by what is visible; what is concrete. We undermine the abstract. So, we don't spend time refining its use. Do you wonder why people would rather look busy than actually be productive?

My eyes are opened everyday to see that the earth (and the web) is plagued with poor thinkers. With minds that cannot fathom what is empirical or even misinterpret the obvious. We have people who look at metaphors in the eye and cannot read the meaning. There are individuals with large followings who cannot find a proper analogy to prove their point and defend their logic. It is a problem. But you will likely not see it because they have what it takes to blind you. Since we have measurable options such as follower count, money, number of books read, and some other figure that can be traced, we can be fooled into thinking that people are smart thinkers because they have all those. Keep your eyes open; you have been deceived.

Back to the emotions versus logic debate, the real problem lies in being confident in your Reflective abilities when actually you are anchored on the Reactive one. People are vehement in holding their notions and ideas, processing based on how they feel and not on the merits of the issue. We project every emotional distortion upon discussions and immediately praise ourselves for being logical, objective, and without sentiment. Be fooled no longer. It is time to know when you are reacting and when you are indeed reflecting.

When next you find yourself in a debate or a discussion and you are tempted to ridicule your fellow conversationalist with the statement "let's be objective," I suggest that you ask yourself if you are actually being objective or you are masking your sentiment as objectivity.

The laws of logic transcends your emotional attachment to your idea. There has to be a way to judge matters on their merit without messing up the facts. I have been working it out slowly on my own and I am inviting you to do the same. Also, subscribe to this newsletter for more loaded methods come 2022.

Final questions that I need you to ponder on:

-How can you identify proper logic?

-How else are you improving your capacity for the abstract?

-Are you swayed only by the result and are blind to the process?

-In the end, do you think all that matters is money?

Below is a quote from Nicholas Nassim Taleb in his book Black Swans to summarise my point on our low favor for the abstract: 

"We love the tangible, the confirmation, the palpable, the real, the visible, the concrete, the known, the seen, the vivid, the visual, the social, the embedded, the emotionally laden, the salient, the stereotypical, the moving, the theatrical, the romanced,the cosmetic, the official, the scholarly-sounding verbiage, the pompous Gaussian economist, the mathematicized crap, the pomp, the Académie Française, Harvard Business School, the Nobel Prize, dark business suits with white shirts and Ferragamo ties, the moving discourse, and the lurid. Most of all we favor the narrated."

-Nicholas Nassim Taleb

Picture of the day. Use it to learn some heuristics to boost your thinking power.

Merry Christmas,

Emmanuel.