Recency bias
Monday Map
"From the beginning it was not so..."
Jesus Christ
Hello reader, you are reading Busyminds Monday Map. I could not publish last week's edition because I was busy laying my grandmother to rest. It was a hectic week. Thank you for staying though.
Please don't forget to subscribe if you are a first time reader.
Today, I wish to touch on something simple; nothing over the top. A mini-essay on recency bias.
Recency Bias
When you untether (or isolate) a current norm from its historical context, you face making the mistake of taking that norm as an objective standard.
Recency bias results from having a narrow scope or perspective on history. When you are totally fixed on how things are in recent memory, you risk judging everything from the past and going forward based on what you see now. I mean that you think that as it is now, so it was from the beginning.
When you fall for the recency bias, you take your situation as the standard, and all others as the odd ones out. Whereas, the reality might be that your situation is the anomaly presented.
A downside to the recency bias is the stifling lack of optionality. When you think that what you have is the best and only way, you will think that there is no other way — albeit deceptively. But if you can look into the past, you may be able to find another workable option to influence your current opinions and decisions.
An Example from Football Strikers
If all you observe about strikers in football (soccer) are people like Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, and Robert Lewandowski, you will be fooled into thinking that an average striker is expected to score 40 goals a season. But if you were to widen your scope, you will realise that these names are exceptions, not norms. Some of the best strikers in history were lauded for pulling off 30 goals or less a season. And it was sufficient. In the same way, you can favour the behaviours in a certain timeline (or generation) as the average or normal one across all generations. When in fact, the favoured behaviour is a recent development.
One notable effect of recency bias is in [academic] philosophy. If you are entrenched in the idea that being a philosopher is about having a doctorate degree in philosophy and getting paid as an academic philosopher in a university to practice philosophy, you will be surprised that from the beginning it was not so.
The academic model that gives philosophy its modern significance and veracity is a recent development (last 2 centuries). It has not always been so. To limit yourself, and hence be ashamed to use the term philosopher, is a disservice to the root words of philosophy which means the love of wisdom (Philo- love, Sophia- wisdom). And today, I found a good word from a random stranger to describe what most academic philosophers engage in: Acumenology- the study and explanation of other clever people.
The terrible downside to possessing (or being possessed by) recency bias is not just poor judgement but harsh judgments.
When recency bias finds expression in a crowd, it (d)evolves into madness. When everyone around you on whom your social belonging depends believes in the recent state of affairs as the only normal state of affairs, you risk looking insane and possible ostracism if you take a different path because you now know and now see better. You face the risk of being forced into the recent mould or being left out because according to them (the crowd), you are a mad man. It takes courage to stand your ground.
Three years ago, I would have mocked any male friend of mine who fancied the idea of getting married at age 23 or even 24. In the words of an insane individual, I would have told them that "getting married by 23, 24, 25 years is the same as leaving a night party by 8 pm." Now I ask, who cares about a night party at all?
The recent development of economic life might make early marriage (not earlier than 18) less fashionable. But it doesn't make it wrong. Yet, there are people who sit comfortably with the idea that a girl at 20 is a child. If you check through history, anybody at 20 is no longer a child. But when I check with some of the men I really admire in history, I see that men marrying early is great and a lot better than the "leaving the night party" balderdash.
To be clear, pointing out historical precedents and recency bias is not an argument to return to the way things were. As I said, the disadvantage of recency bias is in harsh judgements, not necessarily poor or slanted ones. It is in the defiant insistence that this is the way things are and the best way at that.
We may have improved conditions than there were in the past. But it is delusional to think that all advancements have certainly yielded improvement. So, it is only wise to look to the past to pick what they did better than us instead of doubling down on what we already favour.
The aim of learning about biases is to know what might be wrong with our own perceptions, understanding, and cognitive judgements.
For Monday Map today, do well to check if your convincingly held notion is a recent one or if it is something that has rang on for ages. Thank you.
Against Professional Philosophy
Just in case you are in doubt about being a dilettante, read this piece on how the beautiful calling of philosophy was squeezed into the academic bed. I love it.
Of course, here is your picture:
Thank you for sticking around, have a great week.
Yours,
Jegdy