Homo Sapiens — The Storytelling Animal

A couple people recommended that I look at Chris Nelder's Storytelling our energy future (smartplanet, May 30, 2012) after I published about human irrationality this past week. They thought, and rightly so, that Nelder's report on psychologist Daniel Kahneman's work (via Andrew Revkin's New York Times blog) strongly supports my view that humans are not rational problem solvers. Here's a summary from Nelder.

How we think

How we come to believe what we think we know is a key question for those who would guide the future of energy, the climate, and the many other challenges that now face humanity.

It turns out that how we think isn’t quite as rational as we might believe.

Behavioral scientist Daniel Kahneman has an excellent lecture on this subject, which was highlighted last week on Andrew Revkin’s Dot Earth blog. Drawing on the body of scientific research on how we think, Kahneman breaks down our thinking processes into two systems.

What he calls System 1 is how most of us operate most of the time. It’s automatic, and draws extensively and effortlessly on associative memory. It’s what you use when driving a car. It’s what your mind does when you hear “two plus two.” It’s what draws up a wealth of images invoked by “your mother.” It’s intuitive, instinctive, and immediate, and it biases what you perceive toward what you already think you know in order to produce stories that “make sense.” We trust System 1 because it’s fast and efficient and mostly correct. With System 1, the conclusions come first, and then the arguments.

The other way of thinking he calls System 2. It’s what your brain does when you hear “17 times 24.” It’s characterized by deliberate, analytical work. It’s what controls your behavior when you have to make a left turn into traffic, or read a map, or fill out an income tax form. It’s a logical, sequential way of thinking, which is related to control, attention, and rule-governed behavior.

What research has found is that people generally operate by System 1. It comes up with associations which act as suggestions, which are mostly endorsed by System 2.  If your life depends on getting the answer to a question right, Kahneman says, then your System 2 will kick in to double-check what System 1 offers, and possibly correct it. But if your life doesn’t depend on it, you’ll usually go with the suggestions of System 1.

“What we have is a storytelling system, and the coherence of the stories determines how much faith we have in them,” Kahneman observes. “The coherence is associative and emotional. It involves concrete events. You have to assume that System 1 is largely indifferent to the quality and amount of evidence; it is bound more by the coherence of the story than by the evidence behind it.”

You should read Nelder's excellent article and watch the Kahneman lecture at Dot Earth if you want the whole "story". I simply want to make a few remarks on this mostly accurate view of typical human cognition.

I never talk in terms of "stories" on this blog, other than to refer to news stories, which are not quite the same thing. Why not? My preferred approach is talk in terms of acknowledging various realities versus the pie-in-the-sky fantasies people usually cling to. And since no one can know completely what Ultimate Reality is, I talk in terms of what is very likely to be true as opposed to what are very likely delusional beliefs.

My observations of human beings—not my belief about them—tells me that they overwhelmingly prefer happy, optimistic fantasies (especially regarding the future) instead of grim, in-your-face realities. You can often spot these realities in ongoing trends like income inequality in America or overfishing of the world's oceans. Often I try to predict the future by extrapolating these trends, and base their likely continuation on my knowledge of how human beings actually seem to work. In short, there is no good reason to think those deleterious trends will be reversed.

I spend a lot of time on DOTE talking about reality versus fantasy so you too will learn to see how people typically "think" about the Big Issues. It turns out they don't think much at all (i.e. don't engage in rational thought, Kahneman's System 1). Fundamentally, human beings were designed by nature for Faith & Belief, not for rational thought (System 2). I've known that for years and years now because if you actually look as objectively as possible at what goes on in this world, which is what I have tried to do, that's what you see over and over again.

However, the word "story" is neutral, and therefore calling a narrative "a story" effectively divorces it from whatever truth it might contain. Here's a good-enough definition in the intended sense.

An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious, as:

a.  An account or report regarding the facts of an event or group of events: "the witness changed her story under questioning."

b.  An anecdote: "came back from the trip with some good stories."

c.  A lie: "told us a story about the dog eating the cookies."

The whole point of science, which led to human "subjugation" of the natural world as a desired side-effect, and whole point of data-based analysis of current and historical events, was to contruct narratives (called "theories") which were based in fact & observation, and subject to change based on new evidence. A good theory should be falsifiable, i.e. subject to testing. Otherwise, it is merely a story which may be true or fictitious (see below). The whole point was for some humans to stop telling such stories about how the world works, about events and about each other. Such stories don't need to be grounded in anything. They can be fabricated from whole cloth, and often are.

Right up until the 16th century, all humans had been telling each other stories, often self-justifying, self-serving stories, for tens of thousands of years. Surely it comes as no surprise that the overwhelming majority of people still do that. Economists tell stories. Politicians tell stories. Your neighbors tell stories. Conspiracy theorists tell stories. That guy on the stool next to you at the bar tells stories. Investors tell stories on CNBC. Liberals tells stories. Conservatives tell stories. Oil industry executives tell stories. Environmentalists tell stories. The writers at Salon tell stories. That's what people do!

It doesn't matter that often times some small part of those stories are grounded in reality, that they are partially based in observation & analysis. I assume you've heard the phrase a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, or that some story contains a grain of truth. Now you know what those adages mean. Even what appears to be total bullshit is often not complete bullshit. Some small part of the narrative is true, and that's what makes the bullshit seem plausible. The rest is typical human spin. That's why humans are so frustrating to deal with. You could spend your whole life trying to separate the wheat from the chaff in typical human stories.

So, that's why I hardly ever use the word "story" to describe the things people say or the "analyses" they offer. What they say is either substantially based in what is known or it is not, and we can tell the difference if we are familiar with what is known. And thanks to science, data-based analyses in general and historical experience, we do indeed know things.

In cases of obvious bullshit, which is everywhere of course, I'll talk in terms of delusional fantasies, or obligatory hope or unwarranted optimism or just plain nonsense. As I said, people are built for Faith & Belief, not rational thought. As Nelder's essay touches on, the stories humans tell are almost invariably based in emotional responses and group dynamics. And this is only one side of the coin, for as Nelder discusses, what people are willing to believe is also based on these factors and assorted other cognitive processes (e.g. the classic psychological defense mechanisms like denial or compartmentalization). See my posts The Optimist's Brain and Ignorance Is Bliss. Most of the interesting stuff with humans takes place outside of awareness. You might also read my post The Kingdom Of The Blind.

For example, emotional ties and shared beliefs are the cement which holds human groups together, i.e. beyond the obvious social ties, shared beliefs promote group coherence, which is often more important for humans than anything outside personal survival. It is only important that the beliefs are shared. It doesn't matter so much what those beliefs actually are. That's politics in a nutshell, and that's why I say politics makes you stupid. In fact, being a group member in good standing was tantamount to personal survival for tens of thousands of years. You could not survive outside the group.

As to the question of human rationality, I have for many years considered that question closed. If you are still laboring under the delusion that humans are in the general case rational decision-makers, or problem-solvers, or, in Kahneman's terms, System 2 thinkers, you need to take a long, hard look at the story you're telling yourself because it is quite obviously wrong and you are living in a fantasy world.

Comments

[T E Cho]

It's amazing how few really good plausable stories there are warning about possible catastrophic futures. I'm referring to 1984 and Brave New World and maybe Farentheight 491. Any others I can think of are too much science fiction and can be very easily dismissed as such. Waterworld, Terminator, and all(?) others can be dismissed as unlikely fantasy. And the 'Plausable 3' above have been around for over 50 years and get reused over and over as warning examples. Nothing new since the 1960's. And how much power have they had to serve as warning examples and prevent or resist our slide into techno-corporante-slavery ? I'd argue they are greatly under appreciated.

Only 3 books in 50 years, civilization is hanging by a thread.

[T E Cho]

Also, it's unclear why he doesn't call System 1 'induction' and System 2 'Deduction'.

Logical induction and deduction can be at odds with each other, the exception to the rule thing, happens often enough.

And it is possible someone will find a way to generate cheap fusion energy, great VR environments so no-one wants /needs to leave home, and a machine to create healthy gormet meals from raw sewage, just damned unlikely. so if induction says that most of history shows technology rescuing mankind from bad things at the last moment, why won't it continue? But why should it?

If you're on a roller-coaster that's been going uphill in pitch blackness, it's too easy to believe it'll keep going up. until it doesn't.

And don't forget all the experts and PhDs with vested interests giving very complex reasons why they are the
correct ones, and also at opposite ends of the spectrum on issues. Economists for example.

[xraymike79]

What is the narrative of the elite's to whom the rest of humanity are captive slaves? As far as I can gather, it is that perpetual economic growth must and will continue and that the excesses(crimes) of the elite(corrupt financial speculation, tax evasion via control of legislation and offshore tax havens, hollowing out of the economy via off-shoring manufacturing, the buying of political power via an army of lobbyists and campaign bribes, etc.) will continue as the normal way of running modern industrial civilization. And the narrative of the elites further holds that everyone else in society will pay for this status quo situation(a corrupt too-big-to-fail mentality protected by a bought and paid for government) through austerity.
This narrative ignores the fact that the debt will never be repaid and that growth will not go on forever in a finite planet. Why do they tell this story?.... The bottom line is that they push this narrative to protect the social hierarchy of capitalism of which they are the primary beneficiaries.
For these reasons, the future is frightening. Decisions are not being based upon reality.

[brett]

Excellent post today Dave...I am sitting across from my boss at a pizza delivery place now whom is a prime example of system 1 thinking. Today he started talking gossipolitics about Jeremiah wright. My boss is a fundamentalist Christian so he dislikes Obama and wright obviously. I decided to prod and ask if he thought there was any truth at all in "chickens come home to roost" as a reason for Arab aggression.

He dodged the question till I reminded him that one time I asked him if he thought people all over the world just wanted to get through the day. He said no...that they were taught to be evil and hate America from a young age. He has said before that "they" are "evil." So I asked him if he thought it was conspicuous that any country with surplus resources is exploited. He didn't understand. I gave Saudi Arabia as an example...saying protecting or instilling dictatorships is more of a guarantee then an unstable democracy.

His response was scathing saying "I've heard this theory that dick Cheney rules the world and gets kickbacks from oil money before." Then he just walked off. Clever. He thinks I am a liberal pansy I'm sure.

[Ben]

President Obama understands how important story telling is to the human animal, after all he ran his 2008 campaign on Hope & Change, and the restoration of America's standing in the world. Nothing that he said had any relation to reality, but since we're wired to be optimists many bought into it, electing him, and now many are scratching their heads in confusion that he didn't keep the majority of his campaign promises.

[Mudduck]

The thing is, Language is story. A noun, verb, and object are a short story. Our memories are codified in language, and are as shifty as the meanings of words. As you say, in the 16th Century, some began checking the stories against evidence and experience. Note the discomfort of progressive religionists as they try to accept science while maintaining the "values" of the old, unverifiable, implausible tradition. But it's worse than you suggest.

In the past 200 years, human beings have used up the cheap, easily obtained fossils energy, as well as the metal ores used to build industrial civilization. Our stories imagine that this bonanza will continue, and that creatures like us populate the universe. No, we're probably the universe's one shot at an intelligent civilization, and we've blown it. Feudal ages are returning; what of our knowledge can be retained? Here's a book review with details:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/bluecollaratheist/2012/06/02/book-review-alone-in-the-universe-why-our-planet-is-unique-part-4/

Life tends to multiply until it drowns in its own waste (see: yeast). We didn't get smart enough, soon enough.