9 ms·
Eight studies reveal a bias in human imagination
- lamontcg 4y agoThere might be a reason why "build a better mousetrap" is a phrase while "build a worse mousetrap" isn't. Although the middle managers who have destroyed things like the e.g. the Discovery channel are kind of doing the latter, but they'd argue they're making it better by increasing profits through cheap paranormal ghost shows.
- Nevermark 4y agoThe universe is highly biased to make most things worse, baring intervention. We call it thermodynamics, Murphy’s Law, and other things. So evolution countered that bias by focusing our attention wherever we might conceivably be able to improve things. Or push others to improve things. That’s my theory
- richardjam73 4y agoI don't think you can get possibly universal measurements on humanity by relying on services like mechanical turk for results.
- danaris 4y agoThis is why they deliberately went out of their way to get some non-WEIRD[0] subjects for the later studies. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias
- Sakos 4y agoBefore all the nitpicking starts I want to point out this part, which I found most interesting: > Everybody knows about the hedonic treadmill: once you’re moderately happy, it’s hard to get happier. But nobody has ever really explained why this happens. People say things like, “oh, you get used to good things,” but that’s just a description, not an explanation. Why do people get used to good things? > Now we might have an answer: people get used to good things because they’re always imagining how things could be better. So even if things get better, you might not feel better. When you live in a cramped apartment, you dream of getting a house. When you get a house, you dream of a second house. Or you dream of lower property taxes. Or a hot tub. Or two hot tubs. And so on, forever.
- IIAOPSW 4y agoBecause there's an evolutionary advantage to thinking you could be happy, not for actually being happy.
- bardworx 4y agoCan you expand on why you think that? (Btw, I agree with you but want to check my priors)
- IIAOPSW 4y agoI'll let the depression turtle elaborate on my behalf. Now You Happy Always Maybe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWkq7btSQvs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWkq7btSQvs
- bardworx 4y agoIf that video is accurate does that imply tool use in other mammals is because they weren’t happy? For example: ravens use sticks, does that imply that they will evolve with unhappiness? Then how come other animals like orcas and dolphins that show signs of a mood didn’t keep evolving their general intelligence? Kinda hand wavy video but maybe that’s the idea? Not sure.
- IIAOPSW 4y agoAre ravens ever happy with what they have? I legit don't know. What I do know is that the innovation of a permanently unsatisfied brain is an incredibly recent fork. So close we don't even separate it from modern humans. So close that you could reasonably argue if its actually biological evolution or if its the principle of natural selection applied on a sociological level instead. The industrial revolution and the great windfall of wealth that came with it didn't make people happier (to the extent we can measure it). But there is one group that does seem to find happiness: the small pockets of civilization which took a different road, never bothering to switch from hunter-gatherer to farming.
- unity1001 4y agoSide info - here is the major recent revelation about human nature that is backed by the largest social study of its kind: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-probe-human-nature-and-discover-we-are-good-after-all/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-probe-...
- int_19h 4y agoThis isn't new - ethologists have been making similar conclusions about altruism for a long time now, including studies on very young children (which show that it kicks in somewhere around 2-3 years of age). The catch is that said altruism is rather strongly affected by parochiality, meaning that it's weaker towards the outgroup, and conflict of interests between the ingroup and the outgroup tends to override it.
- unity1001 4y ago> ethologists have been making similar conclusions about altruism for a long time now However those conclusions were not backed by such a large and objective, replicable study that had a good control group. > The catch is that said altruism is rather strongly affected by parochiality, meaning that it's weaker towards the outgroup, and conflict of interests between the ingroup Nope. If you read the details, you will note that such divisions do not have the importance people think they have. Any group they created from random people behaved the same way. The even more reveling concluson was this: When they gave people time to think, education, upbringing started to kick in and people started making selfish decisions. Which points out that the selfishness that is seen in our society is not something natural or instinctive - its man-made.
- int_19h 4y agoThis one study doesn't show parochiality, but plenty of those preceding it did, including those for young children. So I wouldn't rush to conclusions here.
- 4y ago
- jbotz 4y agoIt might be interesting to check if this effect correlates (inversely) to gratefulness / religious practice. I mean, if you only think about how things could be better you might not be so grateful for the things you have, but if you think at least sometimes about how they could be worse, then you might!
- hacker_9 4y agoThere is a simple explanation for why humans tend to say how things could be 'better', when you ask them how things could be 'different'. It's even one of the core beliefs of buddhism: life is suffering. To unpack that statement, think about someone that does nothing with their life. Literally nothing. They'll quickly suffer hunger, starvation and finally a slow death. These are the defaults of life, you cannot sit still. It is not a choice. Even us who feed ourselves, and live a life, will still suffer old age and death. All one can do is take action in their life to reduce their suffering now, and in the future. You can apply this model to all facets of life, from relationships, work, gym, healthy eating, art and so on. So really the study has just thought about it from the wrong angle. It's not people thinking 'how things could be better', its the brain naturally thinking 'how can I reduce my suffering further'.
- scotty79 4y ago> For instance, why do people hate Congress and love their phones? Obviously the answer is “Congress is bad and my phone is good,” but what’s actually happening in people’s heads when they say that? Congress is a clique filled with old inside traders that hoard money like dragons while the phone is a device which enables me to even know about that. That's what's going in my head.
- syzarian 4y agoIt seems to me that very wealthy people hoard money like dragons. Congresspeople generally aren’t very wealthy. Instead it seems like prostitution is a better analogy. Congresspeople quite often have their votes swayed for relatively small amounts of money. I’m being pedantic on the analogy because I think it’s important for people to have the right framing on a major problem with American politics. Namely, too much money going to campaigns and PACs influencing politicians. Congresspeople generally aren’t super rich. Your point about what goes on in your head still stands.
- scotty79 4y agoCongresspeople regularly outperform the market with their investment which is called "insider trading" and is forbidden for anyone else but them. I'm not saying that's the biggest issue with them, but that was what came to my mind first.
- geysersam 4y agoMaybe they're smarter and more knowledgeable than the average trader?
- danaris 4y agoThis doesn't pass the sniff test. There's nothing about being a Congressperson that lends itself better to the kinds of knowledge or intelligence that would increase the chances of betting well on the stock market... ...except the knowledge that comes from a) knowing what legislation will be ahead of time, and b) getting "paid" in insider knowledge from companies that want favorable treatment. (And possibly other kinds of insider-trading-type knowledge; I'm not particularly familiar with the specific methods they use.)
- karmakaze 4y agoThe 'possibly universal' came from also conducting a survey with English speaking Polish and Mandarin speaking mainland Chinese people. But what might the results have been if the experiment was done with paranoid people which likely wouldn't have been in these samples? 'Cross-cultural' would be a better description.
- bhk 4y agoBut what about the mundane explanation? It's not about imagination but motivation. When people are asked a question, they generally assume that a "stupid" answer is not what is desired. Where is the nearest grocery store? "Earth." How can your phone be worse or better? "It could not work." There are endless ways, most of them uninteresting, to make something worse. Making something better is interesting.
- lgessler 4y agoYou might be curious to know that philosophers and linguists would see your (good) examples as violations of the Gricean maxim of quantity. More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle
- 082349872349872 4y agoThe way to test this might be to ask about something that's so bad there are fewer (hence more interesting) ways to make it worse than to make it better?
- solarmist 4y agoMy understanding is that all perceptions are done by temporal diff. So comparison of what has changed since the last sample. So using comparison is probably our default way of looking at things. Which is what the studies say.
- SyzygistSix 4y agoExactly. When asked about how something is, people generally don't think anyone wants ideas on how to make it worse.
- prettyStandard 4y agohttps://archive.vn/2XkG3 https://archive.vn/2XkG3
- themodelplumber 4y agoThat's interesting to read. I find that I do imagine how things could be worse in specific situations, the usual example being right before I get what I might want. But in that case I'm almost always comparing hypothetical to hypothetical, i.e. bracing myself before trying someone's first homecooked meal. I imagine that I'm about to eat literal dirt, and this makes even lightly-seasoned sludge taste somewhat fancy.
- tantalor 4y ago> How could X be different? This is great prompt for ChatGPT. I had fun exploring its internal biases. Examples: guns -> add safety & tracking features drug abuse -> decriminalization, safe injection sites national defense policy -> fewer nukes, more cyber & space defense interrogation techniques -> more ethics & sensitivity training, more psychological & non-coercive techniques environmental regulation -> prevention, penalties, accountability, global approach cryptocurrency -> scale up, security features, regulation, integration abortion -> increase access, funding, legal protection racial justice -> more academic, employment & leadership opportunities, intersectionality It clearly has a bias towards lefty, pro-government, pro-regulation positions. I would assume because its training inputs came more from academia, less from right-wing rants.
- np- 4y agoNot directly related to the conclusion but I did find it interesting how they claimed the Mandarin study was identical but also clearly omitted some of the most initially “negatively” viewed topics like coronavirus, government, and politics (probably for obvious reasons, but also seems like it might affect the results too keeping things squarely in the positive category to start).
- twayt 4y agoThis is about language, not thinking. When you use the word could, it usually implies a positive spin on things.
- xvilka 4y agoIt's not a bias, 99.999999999% of things in the Universe could have been better.
- Nevermark 4y agoOr worse! So it is definitely a bias, and I respectfully submit your comment is a strongly expressed example.
- phkahler 4y agoI was heading to my mom's for Christmas when my kid said "we forgot grandma's present". I said I'm glad you remembered now and not later. I could have imagined it differently but worse "wish you remembered before we left". So in this case different was worse for me.
- b3morales 4y agoInteresting observation. There are some people who would have responded in the latter fashion. They're generally quite unpleasant to be around, and perhaps that points to another "cause" for this apparent positivity bias. Persistent negativity might be selected against in both cultural and genetic evolution.
- phkahler 4y agoIt may be that I wanted to make my daughter feel better in spite of her (and my) mistake, rather than blame her.
- causality0 4y agoThis is not mysterious. A preference for imagining improvements is evolutionary beneficial.
- meekstro 4y ago[dead]
- jasonhansel 4y agoSomewhat counterintuitively, people are often more creative when they have more restrictions in place. Being limited in what you can do can make people more likely to find creative solutions. I suspect that this is an example. There are a huge number of ways things could be worse, and a far smaller number of ways things could be better. So it may actually be easier to come up with examples from the latter set, since your options are more restricted.
- isitmadeofglass 4y agoI really doubt the claim that this is independent of the phrasing of the question. I assume strongly that if you phrase the question as “how might your life be worse or better” people will also thing of negative alternatives. The thing is when you only ask “how might your life be different” people will pull on what they have already thought about and most people have plans and dreams for improvements already in their mind.
- int_19h 4y ago"... worse or better" was one of the phrasings that they've tried, per the article, and didn't see any changes in their studies.
- gauddasa 4y agoAlmost all cultures lay emphasis on using positive words than saying negative words. Long ago there was a superstition that spoken words might become true. It is not completely superstition as words do have psychological effects on the listener or thinker. So when encouraged to talk in certain way, it encourages to think the same way.