4 ms·
I'm not a fan of the "duh, your monkey brain gets everything wrong all the time" vibes that articles like this one tend to give off. The very first sentence alr
by p-e-w 4y ago
I'm not a fan of the "duh, your monkey brain gets everything wrong all the time" vibes that articles like this one tend to give off. The very first sentence already labels this cognitive pattern as a "mistake". It's not a mistake, it's a heuristic. Psychologists would do well to learn the difference between the two. You haven't found a flaw in the brain, you've found a mechanism the brain uses to navigate the world in the absence of unlimited knowledge and cognitive resources.
- amelius 4y agoWhen you learn about a celebrity and then you assume they know you too, you are clearly making a mistake. And the heuristic probably doesn't work well in the digital age.
- p-e-w 4y agoBut the underlying thought pattern isn't a mistake or flaw. It's a perfectly reasonable baseline assumption that's hardwired into our brains for good reason. When you travel to the Sahara and you assume that it's not going to rain, you will sometimes be mistaken. But that doesn't mean the assumption is a mistake.
- amelius 4y agoThe assumption can be a mistake if you have more information.
- cma 4y agoBut if you see it is raining and you are getting wet (you see the celebrity through the tv and know they can't hear you back), it is likely a mistake to think it isn't raining because you are traveling in the Sahara.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI would say that is still applicable and valid. like any huristic, there is opportunity for abuse, but this isn't new. I think what the huristic gets at is the idea of like mindedness and similarity. It would be interesting to explore the opposite effect, whee the information shared is hostile or unrelatable. Would people still feel more understood or less? What would the reaction be if the information shared was "I am from a hostile tribe and hate people like you"
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]