I agree with you. I had an email debate with Gary Klein and Daniel Ariely about this in 2009.
This is what I wrote then.
"I would like to use hyperbolic discounting is an instructive example. This is normally portrayed as irrational behaviour or a "bias" (i.e. a deviation from rationality). However in a highly unstable environment it is actually a rational response. For most of our history, human beings have lived in such unstable environments (and many still do). Within that context, it is rational. In a new context (say, the Western world between 1993 & 2007) it is "irrational". The problem is that the patterns of optimal behaviour that human beings develop collectively (what we might call "rationality") tend to lag changes in our environment. A "bias" is not fundamentally irrational, it is simply a piece of rational pattern recognition being deployed in the wrong context.
Classical economics reminds me of nothing so much as classical mechanics. They are approximations that work well in certain defined contexts (although I think that classical mechanics was more successful than classical economics). Classical mechanics might be useful but it is not helpful in all contexts - and attempts to save it required the deployment of "fudge factors" such as "aether". Classical mechanics has been superceded by quantum mechanics and relativity - which is not to say that it isn't still used when required. The use of "bias" strikes me as a very similar fudge factor to "aether".
I think that the empirical findings of Behavioural Economics will stand the test of time but I also believe that its theoretical underpinnings need to be rewritten in the light of Naturalistic Decision Making and other cognitive sciences. What I'd like is some "Grand Unified Theory" (maybe not so grand but certainly more unified) of human behaviour.
I'm kinda strayin' into evolutionary psychology* territory here. Is there a link between NDM, BE & evolutionary psychology? Should there be?"
I broadly agree with your perspective. I think the old homo economicus models relied on secondary assumptions that were unrealistic, such as the notion that information is free to acquire and process. These assumptions were largely due to the lack—at the time—of formal tools to study optimal information acquisition and processing. The empirical findings from BE highlighted that many predictions of these models, which assumed no computational constraints on the human brain, were unrealistic. While these observational results are likely to remain valid for the most part, we will gain a better understanding of their origins through models that revisit the optimisation principles of homo economicus, but with greater richness and complexity. From this perspective, I believe it is reasonable to expect a convergence of NDM, BE, EP, and cognitive and neuroscience research.
How is saying that "Evolution cannot produce perfect designs, only 'good enough' ones" even a critique? To me, as someone familiar with genetic algorithms—models inspired by natural selection—it seems precisely how evolution operates. Evolution is an iterative, never-ending process that doesn't aim for perfection or an optimal endpoint. Every "design" is either destined for extinction (with overwhelming probability) or evolves into a new, more adaptive form. Critiquing evolution for not producing perfect designs feels like critiquing a river for not being straight—it's simply not how the system works.
I think the critique is to say "adaptive" explanations assume the features of an organism are (implicitly best) "solutions" to problems while actually they are not. In a way that is to say that adaptanionists are too optimistic about the outcomes of an evolutionary process.
Excellent. Apart from evolutionary mismatch (we have not evolved "for" this kind of life), I think two other factors (biases?? ;) affect the suspicion of evolutionarily explanations generally and a third one in some especially social science circles.
2) not understanding intuitively the relative aspect of fitness: the adaptation doesn't just needen't to be the best possible, it also needen't to be in any human sense "good". All that matters is that it increased fitness relative to other organisms at the point of a given mutation's (random) appearance. I can't think of an example but I'm sure there are plenty. Loss of function/complexity/what seems like regression offers likely a fertile ground here.
3) this one I think is emotionally more impactful. And it relates to the whole massive naturalist fallacy quagmire. And it's a difficulty many many people have accepting that nothing, and that includes humans, evolves "to be happy" or "to be content" even. Paradoxically, evolution can in theory very easily in some circumstances lead to what utilitarians and especially critics of utilitarianism, call "the repugnant conclusion": more reproduction leading to successful reproduction completely regardless of "quality" of those reproducing lives. And that could make one very sad, especially if invested in the naturalist fallacy at all. But it's also simply hard to accept (as in the example of using "people like to feel good" as the ultimate and not just proximal reason) that nope, we have in no way evolved "to" feel good.
(I'm putting "for" and "to" in quotes to indicate clearly that I'm not really assuming any teleology).
Yes, these kinds of suspicions might well be the main reasons behind the opposition to evolutionary theory, with the criticisms listed in this post being motivated by these underlying reasons. The third post in the series will address these suspicions.
From a more mystical standpoint though, what’s behind the evolutionary pressure? What is it about conditions on our planet in our solar system that cause life to keep organizing in different, more complex ways? So many strategies and combinations failed, but a few that are novel, workable, with greater complexity. These might continue for millions of years until an evolutionary dead end (which homo sapiens might see too). Then it’s back to the “next best thing.”
I’ve gone through a lot of thought about this, both religious and atheist. I just can’t seem to deny that behind this “evolutionary pressure” you mention, something *wants* there to be diverse and amazing combinations of increasingly complex life here on this sphere, in our system. I don’t attribute any more Will or Intelligence or Agency than that: just, “let’s see all the cool stuff we can do/form/be!”
Hi John, I don't think you need any mystical explanation. Evolution is just the non entirely random emerging process from a conjunction of random mutation and selection. The increase in complexity is possible in places where there is a continuous flow of energy allowing entropy to increase locally. This flow of energy is, in our case primarily coming from the Sun. You can easily create other types of evolutionary processes. These are for instance used to train AI programs. I don't think you would ascribe any higher purpose to such processes.
Evolution on Earth is just the same thing on a much larger scale. It makes it harder for us to grasp it intuitively and perhaps tempting to some grander scheme behind it. But I don't think there is any reason to think there is.
This was a good article right up until you advertised your book and then digressed into an unneeded and unwelcome tribute to Darwinism. Evolution is a shitty secular attempt to reject intelligent design and assume materialism a priori, no matter how absurd, impossible, or contradictory the contortions of logic required to do so in the face of the evidence. "Reverse Engineering" is perfectly applicable to biology without any of this special pleading.
Hi Steven, thanks for engaging. I’m afraid that if you hold that view about Darwinism, our priors are very far apart, which may make it difficult for me to present arguments capable of changing your mind. I note that you accuse evolution of engaging in contradictory contortions of logic when faced with evidence. My posts aim to present evidence and logical ideas as clearly as possible to make sense of the world. I hope you will at least find them interesting in that regard.
Like I said, the first part was good. Discussion of psychology and cognitive biases doesn't require or benefit from bringing evolutionary claims into it.
I agree with you. I had an email debate with Gary Klein and Daniel Ariely about this in 2009.
This is what I wrote then.
"I would like to use hyperbolic discounting is an instructive example. This is normally portrayed as irrational behaviour or a "bias" (i.e. a deviation from rationality). However in a highly unstable environment it is actually a rational response. For most of our history, human beings have lived in such unstable environments (and many still do). Within that context, it is rational. In a new context (say, the Western world between 1993 & 2007) it is "irrational". The problem is that the patterns of optimal behaviour that human beings develop collectively (what we might call "rationality") tend to lag changes in our environment. A "bias" is not fundamentally irrational, it is simply a piece of rational pattern recognition being deployed in the wrong context.
Classical economics reminds me of nothing so much as classical mechanics. They are approximations that work well in certain defined contexts (although I think that classical mechanics was more successful than classical economics). Classical mechanics might be useful but it is not helpful in all contexts - and attempts to save it required the deployment of "fudge factors" such as "aether". Classical mechanics has been superceded by quantum mechanics and relativity - which is not to say that it isn't still used when required. The use of "bias" strikes me as a very similar fudge factor to "aether".
I think that the empirical findings of Behavioural Economics will stand the test of time but I also believe that its theoretical underpinnings need to be rewritten in the light of Naturalistic Decision Making and other cognitive sciences. What I'd like is some "Grand Unified Theory" (maybe not so grand but certainly more unified) of human behaviour.
I'm kinda strayin' into evolutionary psychology* territory here. Is there a link between NDM, BE & evolutionary psychology? Should there be?"
I broadly agree with your perspective. I think the old homo economicus models relied on secondary assumptions that were unrealistic, such as the notion that information is free to acquire and process. These assumptions were largely due to the lack—at the time—of formal tools to study optimal information acquisition and processing. The empirical findings from BE highlighted that many predictions of these models, which assumed no computational constraints on the human brain, were unrealistic. While these observational results are likely to remain valid for the most part, we will gain a better understanding of their origins through models that revisit the optimisation principles of homo economicus, but with greater richness and complexity. From this perspective, I believe it is reasonable to expect a convergence of NDM, BE, EP, and cognitive and neuroscience research.
How is saying that "Evolution cannot produce perfect designs, only 'good enough' ones" even a critique? To me, as someone familiar with genetic algorithms—models inspired by natural selection—it seems precisely how evolution operates. Evolution is an iterative, never-ending process that doesn't aim for perfection or an optimal endpoint. Every "design" is either destined for extinction (with overwhelming probability) or evolves into a new, more adaptive form. Critiquing evolution for not producing perfect designs feels like critiquing a river for not being straight—it's simply not how the system works.
I think the critique is to say "adaptive" explanations assume the features of an organism are (implicitly best) "solutions" to problems while actually they are not. In a way that is to say that adaptanionists are too optimistic about the outcomes of an evolutionary process.
Excellent. Apart from evolutionary mismatch (we have not evolved "for" this kind of life), I think two other factors (biases?? ;) affect the suspicion of evolutionarily explanations generally and a third one in some especially social science circles.
2) not understanding intuitively the relative aspect of fitness: the adaptation doesn't just needen't to be the best possible, it also needen't to be in any human sense "good". All that matters is that it increased fitness relative to other organisms at the point of a given mutation's (random) appearance. I can't think of an example but I'm sure there are plenty. Loss of function/complexity/what seems like regression offers likely a fertile ground here.
3) this one I think is emotionally more impactful. And it relates to the whole massive naturalist fallacy quagmire. And it's a difficulty many many people have accepting that nothing, and that includes humans, evolves "to be happy" or "to be content" even. Paradoxically, evolution can in theory very easily in some circumstances lead to what utilitarians and especially critics of utilitarianism, call "the repugnant conclusion": more reproduction leading to successful reproduction completely regardless of "quality" of those reproducing lives. And that could make one very sad, especially if invested in the naturalist fallacy at all. But it's also simply hard to accept (as in the example of using "people like to feel good" as the ultimate and not just proximal reason) that nope, we have in no way evolved "to" feel good.
(I'm putting "for" and "to" in quotes to indicate clearly that I'm not really assuming any teleology).
Yes, these kinds of suspicions might well be the main reasons behind the opposition to evolutionary theory, with the criticisms listed in this post being motivated by these underlying reasons. The third post in the series will address these suspicions.
From a more mystical standpoint though, what’s behind the evolutionary pressure? What is it about conditions on our planet in our solar system that cause life to keep organizing in different, more complex ways? So many strategies and combinations failed, but a few that are novel, workable, with greater complexity. These might continue for millions of years until an evolutionary dead end (which homo sapiens might see too). Then it’s back to the “next best thing.”
I’ve gone through a lot of thought about this, both religious and atheist. I just can’t seem to deny that behind this “evolutionary pressure” you mention, something *wants* there to be diverse and amazing combinations of increasingly complex life here on this sphere, in our system. I don’t attribute any more Will or Intelligence or Agency than that: just, “let’s see all the cool stuff we can do/form/be!”
Hi John, I don't think you need any mystical explanation. Evolution is just the non entirely random emerging process from a conjunction of random mutation and selection. The increase in complexity is possible in places where there is a continuous flow of energy allowing entropy to increase locally. This flow of energy is, in our case primarily coming from the Sun. You can easily create other types of evolutionary processes. These are for instance used to train AI programs. I don't think you would ascribe any higher purpose to such processes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWfSJfftDvU
Evolution on Earth is just the same thing on a much larger scale. It makes it harder for us to grasp it intuitively and perhaps tempting to some grander scheme behind it. But I don't think there is any reason to think there is.
Thanks! Love that perspective. Whatever that force or phenomenon is, I feel it in my cells.
This was a good article right up until you advertised your book and then digressed into an unneeded and unwelcome tribute to Darwinism. Evolution is a shitty secular attempt to reject intelligent design and assume materialism a priori, no matter how absurd, impossible, or contradictory the contortions of logic required to do so in the face of the evidence. "Reverse Engineering" is perfectly applicable to biology without any of this special pleading.
Hi Steven, thanks for engaging. I’m afraid that if you hold that view about Darwinism, our priors are very far apart, which may make it difficult for me to present arguments capable of changing your mind. I note that you accuse evolution of engaging in contradictory contortions of logic when faced with evidence. My posts aim to present evidence and logical ideas as clearly as possible to make sense of the world. I hope you will at least find them interesting in that regard.
Like I said, the first part was good. Discussion of psychology and cognitive biases doesn't require or benefit from bringing evolutionary claims into it.