Strategies to overcome the shortsightedness of the human mind.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
We are terrible at solving future problems before they become big. A friend
of mine who worked for decades as a governmental security advisor was once told
by an official, "Unless there are bodies on the ground, we can't pay
attention to it." This property of the human mind affects us at the
personal, community, and global levels, whether it's dealing with diet and
exercise and debt, or the future of Social Security, or global climate change--all
scenarios where people must invest effort now, to solve a problem that won't
hit until some time passes. Now, it's one thing to complain about how bad we
are at this problem (as psychologists have been gleefully pointing out for many
years). But can we do anything about it? Can we engineer new tools to enhance
our judgment, and to augment our ability to objectively deal with problems?
Easy gimmicks and fixes don't work: this problem might be fundamental to the
human condition. Information is not enough to enable good decision making. We
need to improve how we act on information, and that means utilizing emotion as
a tool. Now, emotions of the moment shape how we prioritize and act, whereas
distant emotions have little or no impact on our current actions. Thus it is
hard to resist that extra cheese Danish or that new car--because we feel
current urges and emotions right now, while the distant emotion that would accompany
a medical problem or a financial problem isn't real to us. Conversely, an
immediate problem is far more painful than a future one: it is easy to
procrastinate about something laborious, or to rush to solve an emergency. So
immediate problems will override future ones, grabbing our attention because of
the immediate anxiety and stress produced.
Thus, one possible principle of prevention is: develop tools to help
yourself feel future emotions now. Create visceral visualizations of the different
outcomes, so that you can feel the feelings that result from each one. Emotions
are shortcuts, and while they can be destructive when gone awry, they can be
harnessed to augment rational behavior, if you understand your mind. It is
possible to make software tools that enable visceral visualizations of the
consequences of current actions. When I schedule future
activities on my to-do list, for example, I often embed appropriate
emotional cues in the list, so that when the time comes to act, it's easier for
me to do what I've planned. Perhaps software that enables additional visual,
auditory, and other-modality cues to enhance this process--and personalizes the
emotion to the individual--could help boost the power of the human mind, to
actively prevent problems. I wonder if such a tool, properly developed, could
be a true cognitive prosthetic to enable better decisions and fewer disasters
in the future.
Cite as: Boyden, E. S. "Averting Disasters, Preventing
Problems." Ed Boyden's Blog. Technology
Review. 9/2/08. (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/boyden/22122/).
Comments
CountZ3ro on 09/05/2008 at 10:07 AM
20
koohii on 09/09/2008 at 1:11 AM
1
One parallel area that you didn't mention is international affairs / global citizenship. I can't say what the best level of empathy for your fellow man is, but I know that too high a level would make life unbearable (Think if you actively mourned along with families of malaria or genocide victims). It's clearer how to manipulate this area though. Oxytocin release seems pretty potent. Shoot. I don't need artificial means. I watched Hotel Rwanda. It gets you and you want to do something. OTOH, maybe an empathy prosthetic is just what is needed for sociopaths. I guess I'm just trying to draw the analogy between temporal distance in your examples and social distance in mine.
skyhighsmile on 09/13/2008 at 1:32 PM
1
My experiences also lead me to believe that aversion to risk (a very strong influence) also comes into play; many people aren't willing to invest the energy and time into a solution without a guarantee that it will work and won't cause even more problems. And since there's no such thing as a guarantee, they prefer the known pain of the problem to the uncertain (and potentially higher pain) of an attempted solution.