I don't consider these biases "Major Flaws" or flaws at all. IMO these observations are heuristics that actually work amazingly well for most every day situation and one shouldn't be quick to discard them in lieu of some deeper, system-2esque idea. This is similar to how optical illusions don't show flaws in our vision but rather highlight how well we can infer non-trivial information correctly in "normal" situations.
For example, in the linked example of "Conformity", a person taking a test with several other people doesn't immediately leave the room when observing smoke and hearing a smoke alarm. This is IMO, a completely legitimate response: If several other people are calmly carrying on their business it's much more likely to assume they know something you don't rather than them all being just sitting lemmings oblivious to their own demise (or that they are all goons in on a televised hoax at your expense). Just imagine how intolerable life would be if every single person would want to investigate every single request or stated fact for themselves, just to discover the request is usually logical and the fact true (consider for example, a "Dead End" sign with every single driver checking if it's actually true).
Obviously the edge cases of these heuristics (the "illusions") should be examined, and care taken when appropriate, but it's important to remember that these human tendency are basically what allows complex societies (with many individuals with partial knowledge) to function.
> I don't consider these biases "Major Flaws" or flaws at all. IMO these observations are heuristics that actually work amazingly well for most every day situation and one shouldn't be quick to discard them in lieu of some deeper, system-2esque idea.
I cannot agree more. If we determined to point to a "Major Flaw", that I'd propose something like inability to judge difficulty of a task a posteriori. It is the most strikingly could be seen in children:
> For instance, we can show the children a familiar candy box. Anyone who sees it will leap to the conclusion that there's candy inside. When we open it, it turns out to be a trick: there are actually pencils inside. Then we can ask the children simple questions about this series of events. What did you think was inside it? What will your friend Nicky think is inside it, if he sees it all closed up like this?[1]
Three years old children consistently believe that Nicky will think that there are pencils inside the candy box. With age people become wiser, but there are a lot of people who cannot grasp it for more complex setups. They resort to a modified version of a Hanlon's Razor[2]: if we cannot understand why someone had made a mistake, then it is because of stupidity. If a decision led to a mistake, than it was a stupid decision.
I personally believe, that it is a problem of bayesian mind, which updates probabilities after observation. Some patching could help, but only in a limited way. One cannot replay a past state of a mind on a full scale, it would require a bigger mind.
Do you really think that a person can misinterpret a fire alarm with the huge cloud of smoke? Of course, you can assume that others know something about it. But then the logical thing to do is to ask for this knowledge, the knowledge that contradicts yours. Demand a proof, solve your inconsistency. Maybe you're hallucinating. Following blindly is not a reasonable choice, if this contradicts your own feelings.
There is no reason to investigate something if it doesn't contradict your knowledge. It's reasonable to investigate the "Dead End" sign only if every other driver goes under it. Because this is inconsistency. And not to drive just like others, but ask for an explanation first.
Yes, those "heuristics" may be good enough in a lot of situations. Just like instincts, they can be useful too. But we can't let instincts rule over our rational mind. This doesn't work. There would be no civilization in such case.
These aren't flaws but they are biases. They may be right 90% of the time but you should still be aware of them so you don't fall for them 100% of the time.
Not only that, but in many cases conformity to group ideas will lead to better outcomes than individual thinking. The world is complicated, and you as an individual probably don't really have the time or brain resources to figure it all out from scratch. But group norms have evolved over time, incorporating the experiences and knowledge of many people. See [1] for many examples.
Of course, in the modern world group norms may not have caught up with our rapidly changing environment, so there are likely to be more cases where individual thinking can improve things. There should clearly be a balance between following the group and thinking for yourself; neither is good on its own.
> group norms have evolved over time, incorporating the experiences and knowledge of many people
While this can often be true, it's not always true. Furthermore, it's often a testable hypothesis, and in those cases, it should be tested, not just assumed.
Also, the "conformity" case in the article involves a group of people (the confederates trying to manipulate the unwitting test-taker) who are violating a common norm (namely, that the normal behavior of people when a fire alarm goes off and smoke is seen is to get out, not calmly continue going about their business). So that case is not testing "how well do you follow group norms that make sense"; it's testing "how willingly will people follow a group that is doing something that obviously does not make sense". That's a different thing.
I look at it this way: a contrarian opinion is a high risk high benefit thing. A contrarian is more likely to be wrong and it takes more effort to arrive at a correct contrarian opinion than to pick a correct conforming one, but if you are right it’s possible that you can obtain some large payoff such as investing early in a winner or selling near the top of a bubble.
I couldn't watch the ridiculous video all the way through. I am positive that the prank victims would have asked the other folks in the room what was going on. Did they address how people asked and whether/how they were answered?
If you're assured by other people that, "it's fine, this happens", it's even more understandable to not panic in this situation.
Did you watch the video? The scenario it depicts seems fairly ludicrous and one sided. A section of the article is based on this interpretation, so I think it's fair to question it.
To be clear, I scanned the entire video but didn't watch it minute by minute, so I may have missed something. (Different from "I stopped when...") But I'm genuinely curious if anyone knows the context behind whether people asked questions because it really throws the premise into doubt.
Would be interested to get OP's take in particular, but I think I'm nested into oblivion at this point.
I did. Your (weird) insistence on critiquing the study as if it was a thought experiment / hypothetical / work of fiction (i.e. a piece where the author is asking you to believe something that's just too unbelievable)... is a reason altogether to downvote.
The mysterious music and quavering voice over positively scream manufactured drama. I don't think it is just me who would get that impression. In a conversation of 2, it's hard to determine who the weird one is sometimes! ;)
What makes you think this was a study? Is there a published work referenced somewhere that I missed?
For example, in the linked example of "Conformity", a person taking a test with several other people doesn't immediately leave the room when observing smoke and hearing a smoke alarm. This is IMO, a completely legitimate response: If several other people are calmly carrying on their business it's much more likely to assume they know something you don't rather than them all being just sitting lemmings oblivious to their own demise (or that they are all goons in on a televised hoax at your expense). Just imagine how intolerable life would be if every single person would want to investigate every single request or stated fact for themselves, just to discover the request is usually logical and the fact true (consider for example, a "Dead End" sign with every single driver checking if it's actually true).
Obviously the edge cases of these heuristics (the "illusions") should be examined, and care taken when appropriate, but it's important to remember that these human tendency are basically what allows complex societies (with many individuals with partial knowledge) to function.