Society without reason

"We humans are reasonably gifted, but this is not synonymous with acting sensibly."

Elisabeth Oberzaucher, University of Vienna

If you watch the goings-on, you can't help but wonder whether Carl von Linnaeus has chosen a fitting name for our species: Homo sapiens stands for “understanding, understanding” or “wise, clever, clever, reasonable person”, which does not necessarily reflect our actions in everyday life. On closer inspection, we humans are indeed gifted with reason, but this is not the same as acting sensibly. Where does this lack of consistency come from, which often leads to decisions that are anything but sensible? Are we a society without reason?

The cognition of Homo sapiens is based on more or less evolutionarily old structures. These emerged in the course of evolutionary history and helped our ancestors to cope with the challenges of their living environment. Now, however, the living environment of today's people is massively different from that in our evolutionary past.

Reason in evolutionary history

In the course of our evolutionary history, thinking algorithms have been developed that were used to quickly find suitable decisions. The strength of these algorithms lies in their speed, but not without costs. They work with estimates and uncertainties that make it possible to make a decision in the shortest possible time. This simplification means that not all facts are carefully weighed against each other, but rather spontaneously, quasi from the gut, a little thoughtful judgment is made. This “over-the-thumb direction” is extremely imprecise compared to deliberate thinking and is often completely wrong. Especially when it comes to decisions in areas that are very different from our evolutionary problems, the decisions that are made in this way can be particularly error-prone. Nevertheless, we like to trust and often trust our gut feeling and our intuitive knowledge. And demonstrate daily and over and over again that our brain stands up for itself. Why are we not smarter and question these intuitive considerations?

The Lazy Brain Hypothesis

The cerebral cortex of Homo sapiens is oversized; in size and complexity of the neocortex, we leave other species behind. On top of that, this organ is also very wasteful: it is not only complex to train, but also requires a lot of energy to stay in operation. If we now afford such a luxurious organ, the question arises why we should not use it more purposefully to make sensible decisions. The answer is the "Lazy Brain Hypothesis", the hypothesis of the lazy brain. This postulates that our brain has developed a preference for things that mean little effort in processing. Little effort is involved in processing if you rely on the old, simplified thinking algorithms. It doesn't matter that this doesn't lead to perfect answers as long as the resulting decisions are good enough.

The brain can make it even easier by not thinking at all, but leaving the thinking to others. Socially living species have the opportunity to develop a kind of swarm intelligence by distributing the cognitive tasks among several individuals. This makes it possible not only to divide the brain teasers over several heads in order to save the individual work, but also the conclusions reached by individuals can be weighed against the others.

In the environment of evolutionary adaptation, we lived in comparatively small groups, within which reciprocal exchange systems were well established. In these systems, material goods such as food, but also intangible things, such as care, support and information, were exchanged. Since the individual groups were in competition with each other, trust was particularly geared towards group members.

Fake news, Facebook & Co - a society without reason?

What in our evolutionary past was a reasonable adjustment, leads today to behavior that is anything but smart and appropriate.

We trust the judgment of a person well known to us more than proven experts who are not known to us. This tradition of regulars 'wisdom - which would rather deserve the name of regulars' stupidities - has been massively upgraded through social media. On Facebook, Twitter and Co., everyone has the same opportunity to express their opinion, regardless of their qualifications and knowledge of a topic. At the same time, we have access to more facts and detailed information than ever before.

The information age means that while we have access to information, we are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information because we are unable to understand all of it. That's why we're falling back into a very old way of thinking: we rely on the statements of those we know, regardless of whether they know more than we do. Among other things, this is responsible for making up fiction stories on social media and making it seem impossible to master them. If a false report circulates, it takes a multiple of the effort to correct it again. This is due to two reasons: First, there are false reports so attractive because it is unusual news and our cognition is geared towards paying special attention to things that deviate from the norm. On the other hand, our brains are lazy to learn by reluctantly changing their mind once a conclusion has been reached.

So does this mean that we are helplessly exposed to stupidity and that we have no way of confronting it and thus living up to our name? The evolutionary biological thought patterns do not necessarily make it easy for us, but at the same time not impossible. If we sit back and rely solely on the evolutionary patterns, it is a decision we have to stand for. Because we are actually reasoned, and if we use our brains, we can ultimately become more reasonable people.

Optimism as a solution for a society without reason?
In his most recent book, “Enlightenment Now,” describes Stephen Pinker his view of the state of humanity and the world. Contrary to how it may feel, life is becoming safer, healthier, longer, less violent, more prosperous, better educated, more tolerant and more fulfilling globally. Despite some political developments that seem backward and threaten the world, the positive developments still prevail. It describes four central pillars: progress, reason, science and humanitarianism, which serve mankind and should bring about life, health, happiness, freedom, knowledge, love and rich experiences.
He describes catastrophic thinking as a risk per se: it leads to the pessimistic tendency to fixate on the worst possible result and to make wrong decisions in a panic. Fear and despair make problems seem unsolvable, and one inability to act waits for the inevitable. It is only through optimism that you can get the design options back. Optimism does not mean that you sit back and do nothing, but rather that you see problems as solvable and therefore tackle them. Paul Romer, this year's Nobel Prize in Economics, postulates that optimism is part of what motivates people to tackle difficult problems.
If we succeed in having factual knowledge Optimism the necessary foundations are in place to tackle the challenges of our time. To do this, however, we need to overcome our fears and keep an open mind.

Photo / Video: Shutterstock.