23 Comments

"..alien united them determined to oppose our core symbolic values, making infeasible overly-risky overconfident plans to oppose them"

It interesting when one 'views' such future bias from a pathological altruist context utilising "core symbolic values" your argument is turned on its head.

“The fact is that no-one, right, left or centre, got the true measure of Hitler’s National Socialism, a movement of a kind that had not been seen before and whose aims were rationally unimaginable. Not even his intended victims fully recognised the danger. After the summer election of 1932 which left the Nazi as much the largest party, but short of a majority, the (Jewish) editor of the Tagebuch, a left-liberal weekly we took home, published an article whose headline struck me even then as suicidal. I still see it before me. ‘Lasst ihn heran!’ (‘Why not let him in!’). Source: Diary: Memories of Weimar, Eric Hobsbawn

The fact is relative risk assessment fear/hope is based upon experience.

Your perception appears to me to determine a surface fact such as Australians overestimate the percentage of Muslims within the community as being 18% rather than 2% as determining Australians got it wrong. But psychologically this bias is simply not about surface facts are they, the discrepancy has more to do with the relative threat Australians believe Muslims pose. It is natural in a 'bounded rationality' environment within which humans find themselves to account for potential future extremes given experience to that point in time. It is in a sense a reflection of the developing motivation to turn attention to the risk.

The fact is humans intrinsically understand individuals are not groups and rationally act accordingly - cultures are not benign.

"Communities (cultures) tend to be guided less than individuals by conscience and a sense of responsibility. How much misery does this fact cause mankind! It is the source of wars and every kind of oppression, which fill the earth with pain, sighs and bitterness." (Albert Einstein, 1934)

The fact is the reverse occurs "..alien united them determined to oppose our core symbolic values, making infeasible overly-risky overconfident plans Not to oppose them".

The exact same psychological reduction of risk and distraction regards Islam and the Nazi in the 1930's (given Islam and the Nazi codex contain the exact same construct of Other) to determine as a risk as non-existent or target the very humans pointing out humanity are underestimating a mortal threat because of what are viewed as high up front cost of turning attention to the risk and/or "core symbolic values" preventing the risk being seen as such applies equally to Climate Change.

It would be nice if we could all prance around the camp fires holding hands and The Golden Rule of Cultures did not equal Fools Gold for Other. Given utilizing the existence of the Golden Rule in all cultures codex as proof all cultures can live in peace ignores the fact invariably it is culturally qualified.

Having inter-cultural relations at Maslows level 1 is possible because this is the last breath stuff where one is not too concerned whose hand is reaching down-reciprocity above that all bets are off.

It is not that you are incorrect in specific circumstances but it appears you are suffering from future bias in one major aspect of your analysis. Life sometimes gets worse not better however irrational from our own model view we believe these outcomes may be.

"The attacks - there have been at least four in the busy city in central Iran in recent weeks - appear aimed at terrorising women who dare to test the boundaries of the Islamic dress code.

The crimes coincided with the passage of a new parliamentary bill that allows private citizens to enforce "morality" laws."

Acid attacks in Iran sharpen row over Islamic dress and vigilantism Reuters BY BABAK DEHGHANPISHEH BEIRUT Wed Nov 5, 2014 10:24am

Expand full comment

When "in the moment," we focus on ourselves and in-our-face details, feel "one with" what we see and close to quirky folks nearby, see much as uncertain, and safely act to achieve momentary desires given what seems the most likely current situation. Kinda like smoking weed.

I think weed induces far mode. It takes you out of the moment. That's why someone who is high might be said to be "spaced out."

Is this a difference in our experience of getting high or our conception of construal level?

[Added.] Here's a test. If weed induces near-mode, it would be a remedy for procrastination (if, as I claim, "the whole problem in procrastination is that we resist entertaining concrete construals when we engage in pleasurable mental acts of abstract construal" — http://tinyurl.com/7d2yh6x ).

If it induces far-mode, it would make procrastination worse.

(If I had any money, I'd offer to bet.)

Expand full comment

It is truely amazing that an article on future bias actually is future bias.

This argument appears to believe that 'Critical Thinking' actually works in 'real' life and therefore culturally derived bias can be overcome even though the nature of any percieved notion of 'Critical Thinking' is already determined be how culture determines it to be. It assumes logic can overcome 'feeling' even though it appears actions generated are in the end based on 'feelings' rather than logic.

"Communities (cultures) tend to be guided less than individuals by conscience and a sense of responsibility. How much misery does this fact cause mankind! It is the source of wars and every kind of oppression, which fill the earth with pain, sighs and bitterness." (Albert Einstein, 1934)

Cultural Foundation Codex (genetic, (con) textual authority and exemplar (messianic) templates)=Ethics=Ideas= Motivation=Consistent Cultural/Adherent Behavioral Variance('spectrum')=Cultural Action For and Against Other.

Cultural 'education' (Cultural Foundation Codex) the core problem and solution.

Therefore there will be until the relavent cultural codex are replaced humanity will rationally see:

"history as an inevitable march toward a theory-predicted global conflict with an alien united them determined to oppose our core symbolic values, making infeasible overly-risky overconfident plans to include them in our societies on the basis of culturalist relativism - we are all human afterall surely we can get along.

Do you understand what a genocide cultural foundation codex actually looks like - or even actually informs in time qand space despite the ever existent liberal/moderate?

http://citizensfirstasnau.b...

Expand full comment

Looking at The Use of Knowledge in Society (www.econlib.org/library/Ess... through the lens of the ideas presented here, I see one of Hayek's points as being "when thinking in the large, don't forget the aggregate significance of all the smalls".

(I think it's somewhat similar to Rosa's point, at http://www.overcomingbias.c..., but of course applied to a different aspect of life.)

Expand full comment

It strikes me that perhaps one reason cryonics does not sell so well is that survival (and medical treatment in general) is a near-mode concern whereas the advent of future technology required for reanimation or uploading is far-mode. Furthermore, it tends to attract "outliers" who think differently from normal about what is far versus near.

Expand full comment

This post should be tagged near/far, as it is hard to find, and I believe it is the seminal post on the near mode/far mode dichotomy.

Expand full comment

This relates, albeit tangentially, to something I wrote on my Ernst Jünger blog, "Living in no man´s land".

http://ernst-juenger.blogsp...

Karl Fraser

Expand full comment

"Far thinking" includes abstract goal-setting decisions in general. "Near thinking" includes the decision-making for actions for now. When near thinking goes on, lots of realities and even other goals, come into play, at the time and opportunity when the decision must be made.

So in the far/near example of "lose weight", each decision instance of eating, and each instance of not exercising, must win (in significant numbers of instances) in the context of consistency with every other goal which might influence decisions in the moment. Such as: seek cameraderie with other donut-eating colleagues, get to work on time, make an elderly relative feel appreciated, keep a domestic relationship tranquil. These are all goals which are not apparently in conflict with "lose weight" - in far thinking. A decision in the moment, though, might well contribute to the aggregated behaviour results of "don't exercise more or eat less".

So rather than two minds, it's one mind struggling to apply ALL of the sparse abstract models called by the component complexity of the specific reality at hand. I guess the models must be weighted.

Expand full comment

Roko, if by "interdisciplinary" you mean you will work decades to connect two familiar disciples that have neglected each other, you have a chance. If you mean you won't focus at all, and just pop from subject to subject as it strikes your fancy, yes that is hopeless.

Expand full comment

"More bluntly, we seem primed to confidently see history as an inevitable march toward a theory-predicted global conflict with an alien united them determined to oppose our core symbolic values, making infeasible overly-risky overconfident plans to oppose them.

And we'll neglect feasibility, taking chances to achieve core grand symbolic values, rather than ordinary muddled values. Sound familiar?"

- Would you say that this sums up the singularitarian and transhumanist movements?

Robin, I agree that this is an important insight into biases.

I am beginning to think about how this kind of bias might affect my thinking in my personal and academic life; for example it worries me that you predict that scientific progress is set to be dominated by very narrowly focused, highly specialized research. I have always liked the idea of cross-disciplinary research, and this seems to imply that I am pursuing an implausible end. I have also always been attracted to the prospect of fame and success through academia, "at some point" in the distant future, whereas in my immediate actions I have become somewhat lazy and risk-averse. Unfortunately for me, I seem to have become a victim of this near/far = feasible-safe/desirable risk-taking bias. "I'm going to become a famous scientist through radical interdisciplinary research in 10 years time, but right now I can't be bothered to finish my presentation/report/read that paper..."

Expand full comment

Robin, I agree with that estimate.

Expand full comment

I agree, Robin. It's extremely useful. You're getting to the meaty nut of where some of our biases are arising from -a neuroanatomy of cognitive bias. And since we're aware of these biases in the first place due to abstract thinking, and we derive our practical applications from awareness of these biases due to thinking about the non-immediate future, this area of research has the potential to be at least a little recursively self-improving. When you wrote "sound familiar?" I thought you were going to go in a self-critical direction. It might be good to review old writings on anticipating and counteracting global catastrophic risk (including unfriendly AI) with abstract/non-immediate future bias in mind.

Expand full comment

I agree with that summary, but it's not obvious that a new method of identifying biases is so useful. We already list more biases than we know what to do with. Maybe it will be easier to tackle these as a class than individually?

Expand full comment

I estimate this post to be the most dense with useful info on identifying our biases I've ever written. It seems most readers don't agree.

Expand full comment

Phil, yes, you've read that right.

Expand full comment

"alien united them" is a noun phrase with 2 adjectives, and we are the ones making overconfident plans, I take it.

Expand full comment