THE TOOLBOX AND ITS FAULTY TOOLS
In my previous blog post, I wrote about the adaptive toolbox of a decision-making mind, namely heuristics. This post focuses on the other side of the concept.
To encapsulate, heuristics are mental rules of thumb that allow us to make decisions quickly and with significantly less effort by using only part of the information. While quick and easy, some researchers believe that the use of heuristics leads to systematic biases in the human decision-making process.
We know what heuristics are, but what are biases?
To understand biases, two distinct yet similar explanations have been put forth. The first describes biases as deviations from norms. The second, more neutral definition, explains biases as a tendency to slant one way or another. For example, the desirability bias implies a proclivity to overestimate the likelihood of desirable outcomes (i.e. overestimate how likely I am to get a job with my dream company). This bias represents a systematic error in judgment, since it is experienced despite absence of empirical evidence. Though biases have been studied as both causes and consequences of behaviour, the heuristics and biases approach views it as a consequence of faulty heuristics.
So, what is this heuristics and biases approach?
The heuristics and biases approach began with the work of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. Through studying predictions made by people under situations of uncertainty, i.e. when information known is limited, the researchers found divergences between decision-making strategies adopted by people and standards of normative probability. Uncertain situations, according to the researchers, lead people to make decisions based on subjective probabilities (a belief in the likelihood of occurrence) of the events. The subjective probabilities arose out of underlying heuristics and although mostly useful, these sometimes produced erroneous judgments.
THE DECISION MAKING TOOLBOX
After months of hard work, Joyce receives offer letters from two universities in the UK for doing a Master’s degree in cognition and decision making. Joyce is thrilled at the prospect, but also quite nervous. Having never set foot in the UK before, and having no prior expectations, Joyce is at a loss for how to make this important decision. The time to respond to the offer is limited and Joyce is confused…how should Joyce decide?
The question of decision making lies at the heart of much psychological research. Years of research have provided many different concepts and theories. One such concept is that of ‘heuristics’.
In their simplest form, heuristics are mental shortcuts employed by the mind to make decisions. However, whether these decisions are accurate or not has given rise to various definitions of the concept and two distinct schools of thought.
One school of thought believes that heuristics are fast and accurate. A famous proponent of this school, Gerd Gigerenzer defines heuristics as:
“…a strategy that ignores part of the information, with the goal of making decisions more quickly, frugally, and/or accurately than more complex methods.”
THE POWER OF DISGUST
Paul Ekman categorised disgust as one of the six primary emotions. Physical and especially facial reactions to disgust such as, a wrinkled nose or a nauseating feeling are universal and consistent across cultures. The study of disgust can be traced back to Darwin, according to whom:
“…(disgust) refers to something revolting, primarily in relation to the sense of taste, as actually perceived or vividly imagined; and secondarily to anything which causes a similar feeling, through the sense of smell, touch and even of eyesight” (p. 250)
Traditionally, disgust has been considered as the guardian of the mouth. However, with the expansion of societies, cultures, and populations, the notion of disgust took on an extended role. From the rejection of unfavourable foodstuff, it has been theorised that the emotion has branched out to reject anything that is considered ‘offensive’ and has the potential to contaminate. This understanding gave rise to questions surrounding what was considered offensive and subsequent theories providing explanations.
One such theory was proposed by Rozin and Fallon who classified disgust into four categories: core, animal-reminder, interpersonal, and socio-moral. Core disgust elicitors were those that were offensive because they contained a real or perceived threat to contamination such as foods (e.g. spoilt milk), bodily waste products (e.g. faeces), and small animals (e.g. rats, cockroaches). Disgust from the second category, animal-reminder, was evoked upon witnessing behaviours that were reminiscent of our animal ancestry, or those that reminded us of our own mortality. Encountering unknown or diseased individuals evoked interpersonal disgust, while witnessing violations of societal and especially moral rules, such as incest, evoked socio-moral disgust.
THE RATIONALITY OF PROFANITY
An exasperated “Fuck this shit!”
A panicky “What the fuck?!”
An excited “This is fucking awesome!”
A disappointed “I fucked it up”.
Swearing as a phenomenon has become an essential part of daily life. Whether you choose to foul your mouth with it or are just a passive bystander to someone else’s verbal onslaught, there is no escape. What makes swear words interesting however, is that their use exceeds their literal meaning.
Let’s take the example phrases above. As you read these, what images conjured up in your mind? Did the exasperated “Fuck this shit” remind you of a time when you said or witnessed someone else saying these words with the same emotion? Or did you think more literally, of copulating with faeces? Speaking for myself and others whom I asked (after getting might I add, some very strange looks) swear words hardly ever make us think of their literal meanings anymore. The famous Harvard researcher Steven Pinker writes in the Atlantic magazine:
“… I noted that over time, taboo words relinquish their literal meanings and retain only a coloring of emotion, and then just an ability to arouse attention.”
PSYCH STRIKE! 