instinct vs statistics

Post Reply New Topic

I'd like to expand on something I wrote earlier

It's like ... your gut tells you to do one thing ... and then decision theory tells you to do something else. Why do people consistently make the wrong choice? Can they be rectified? If not, can we at least leave snares and tiger pits for people who insist on behaving like animals?

Its called populism. People do not like to think to deeply about a great many issues, in fact most don't want to think past the weekends activities. Your comment on saving lifes would be correct if the government was really having a war on terror instead of carrying out Imperialist expansionism. You raise the question of WHY do people believe the BS served up by their governments.

Good one

The major problem I have had in life is this: so many questions, so few answers

my major problem is why do so many people ask so few questions

It's the availability heuristic; explained in any intro psychology book. Basically a failure to logically and rigorously analyze something because it is more convenient to go for the obvious answer, and the obvious answer is right often enough that this has been a successful approach. Aspies, however, seem to like reinventing the wheel for ourselves every time, but that approach, while more cumbersome in everyday activities, can result in better insights where the availability heuristic causes a lapse in judgment. There's not really any decent way around the availability heuristic- it is the way the normal human brain is wired. People will continue to believe that terrorism is a major issue when, in fact, it really isn't a big deal.

3000 Americans have been killed by terrorist aggression during the Bush administration. (I will not count troops killed overseas, as that is a military conflict and the insurgents in many cases simply wish to be rid of a foreign occupier) So, 8 years, 3000 deaths comes out to just over one person per day dying of terrorism. Of course, there was also significant property damage. (Too lazy to check the stats now) The response to one death per day was clearly disproportionate, and cost us far more than it was worth in terms of finances and in terms of human lives lost as a result of our response- both American soldiers and a ton of foreigners have died for this. I will guarantee that far more people died of hunger on the streets than died of terrorism, and that problem would be cheaper to deal with. I would also bet that more people died from lack of affordable medical care, which again would be cheaper to provide than the war on terror.

So, basically, stop paying for the war, start paying to feed the hungry and treat the sick. We'll save money and less people will die. Plus, we'll greatly enhance our international standing, among quite a few other benefits. Seems like a winner.

To back up this plan, I humbly submit a quote from General Dwight David Eisenhower: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

Yeah me too

Actually, I've also thought a lot about what happens to you after death recently. The only conclusion I've reached so far is that I don't want to come back here, but for all I know that might happen.



I have a more blunt saying, to wit: "Whatever it is, we have it coming."

I firmly believe the human race will collectively get whatever is coming to it through its own designs, whether that is good or bad.

Last edited by chever on 06 Oct 2008, 3:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

A combination of stupidity, curiosity, and the sense that the risk is worth the potential reward (greed)?

I'm not sure, has the more obvious answer been right often enough. Last century we had two world wars, several major wars, a severe depression, the introduction of many cancerous chemicals, global warming, hunger and famine across the planet, many genocides..............................Many obvious answers were so obviously wrong, and yet so few questions were raised to the behaviours and rhetoric of our leaders.

I dont quite understand the term 'availability heuristic'. Heuristic means enabling a person to learn for themselves, so does 'availability heuristic' refer to lack of education?

A 'heuristic' is a fast way of finding suboptimal (but good) solutions.

All of our heuristics were pretty much valid in the Stone Age.

(Generally speaking, they aren't anymore.)

Even in bringing up those examples, you are employing the availability heuristic because no one much noticed all the times it got results that were good enough.


A heuristic is a quick way of finding an answer that may or may not be correct, but will usually work. As opposed to an algorithm, a more time-consuming way of finding the correct answer. The availability heuristic is when you use whatever data is most prominent and memorable- with terrorism, some buildings got knocked down; that tends to stick in people's minds. That means that that data will be given more heed than it merits in most considerations because it happens to be on people's minds. Wikipedia it if you want a more detailed and lucid explanation.

Most people prefer not to have to think and solve problems, because it's easier to have someone else do the thinking. Maybe it has to do with leadership. If a leader says something is true, most will fall in line and believe. The ones who challenge what the leader says probably has leadership tendencies and so he must either push his way through and change the consensus, or fall into line. Propaganda is the government's most useful weapon.

It's easy to get annoyed with this, but remember that most people just want to live a simple and peaceful life and not get involved.

It is a shame that the ones who would most likely make the best leaders do not wish to have such a position.

Hmm, this sounds like what Ascan and I were just discussing on the Why do people hate America thread, in regards to gun control. People let an emotional reaction to some sensational event override their common sense and the actual facts, like what happened in England following two high profile shootings. I wonder if their is any way to overcome that instinct, as it seems to lie at the heart of a lot of bad politics.

Yeah I agree

I am in favor of upholding the Constitution. Until it is amended, let it be as it is!

Not just bad politics. I have to admit I am guilty of allowing emotional reaction to overcome logic. It is not that I prefer not to see the logic; it is just like Chever said...your gut starts talking. Sometimes a gut can be right too. I do not know what to think about this topic.

Self interest is the heart of politics. Lobbyists control the so called leaders. Only great leaders can awaken the conscience of the individual and inspire them to act ethically and intelligently. Right now, it suits their best interest to have followers who don't think.
Greed is an insatiable desire and stupidity is contagious.