Have we outgrown our brains?

[Piggy]

What is it you fear will happen?

This will have to be a stand-in for several posts that have posed a similar question.

I'm not an apocalyptic.

What I think is unsustainable is the system itself, not our species -- although, of course, we will eventually go away, as will everything.

But I'm continually amazed at the level of bureaucracy and paperwork that is now required just for average day-to-day livin', and the level of information (good information, at that, in a sea of bad information) required to actually make the proper choices.

Our brains have, over time, developed this web of paperwork, media, and technology which we now live in and which is beyond the ability of most brains (people) to manage effectively.

I do believe that a person has to be smarter than most and better informed than most in order to work the maze we've created for ourselves, that the basic requirements of modern life -- navigating taxes, insurance, decisions about health care and retirement, whether to politically support efforts to stop climate change, etc. -- are not within the means of most people.

Most folks don't have the time, information, or critical thinking skills to make the best choices.

And I do think that's (relatively) new. Yeah, sure, we've always been ignorant and this is just a new flavor of ignorance. But it's a different kind of thing than we've seen before modern times.

What will happen?

Well, on the climate front, I think we're already seeing what happens. Can you really expect that most of us will be able to inform ourselves adequately? I seriously doubt it.

Financially, the rise of 401(k)s and HSA (health savings accounts) to replace traditional pensions and insurance plans is pushing the decision-making away from specialists and onto the rest of us, and I don't know that that's a good thing.

It's like housing. A few hundred years ago, there were a lot more folks who could construct their own housing, or at least understand how it was done. Today, with the wiring and all the regulations and the connections to local utilities... hardly any of us could hope to build our own homes.

Similarly, investing properly is a complex, specialized affair that requires lots of information and a good bit of experience. Yet we increasingly expect regular folks to take on that responsibility. We wouldn't tell someone who works at a desk job to go wire his own house. Yet we expect him to invest his 401(k) funds properly.

We expect folks to manage an unmanageable tax code, to make choices about insurance on the basis of reams of legalese, to be informed voters when the issues are often incredibly arcane and clouded by misinformation, and on and on and on.

It just seems to me that these wonderful brains of ours have created an environment for ourselves that our brains are not actually suited to live in.

 

[Piggy]

Long answer - all you appear to be doing is recognising that as we increase the total amount of knowledge in the world, each individual can only learn a smaller proportion of it themselves. Not necesssarily due to lack of capacity, but simply because of lack of time. This doesn't mean anything has outstripped anything else, it just means that our roles become more specialised.

Sounds to me like the situation you're describing does, in fact, mean that technology has outstripped biology.

This may be a problem in the event of a zombie apocalypse, for example, since many people will lack the general knowledge base necessary for survival without the support of the current system, but that says nothing about how well we can live within, understand and control, the current system.

To be perfectly honest, I think the whole question is rather silly. Clearly people do understand and manage our infrasctructure and taxes, so wondering if it's impossible to do so is just pointless. Yes, we can and do. Next question please.

It's a problem now, for a lot of people. No need to wait for the zombies.

I know plenty of folks who have suffered in very real ways because of, for example, the insurance system which, when you get right down to it, is literally incomprehensible to a lot of folks.

We're balking on climate change because people can't grasp it.

I think you're wrong that "we can and do" manage the system. Plenty of folks can't and don't, and they suffer because of it.

 

[Cuddles]

Sounds to me like the situation you're describing does, in fact, mean that technology has outstripped biology.

I don't see how you could possibly get that from what I wrote.

It's a problem now, for a lot of people. No need to wait for the zombies.

I know plenty of folks who have suffered in very real ways because of, for example, the insurance system which, when you get right down to it, is literally incomprehensible to a lot of folks.

We're balking on climate change because people can't grasp it.

I think you're wrong that "we can and do" manage the system. Plenty of folks can't and don't, and they suffer because of it.

The fact that some people can't understand the system means nothing. Some people can't understand an awful lot of very basic things. There are people who can't do basic multiplication. That doesn't mean maths has outgrown our brains. There are people who don't know how to build a kids treehouse. That doesn't mean construction has outgrown our brains. Some people don't understand that metal gets weaker when it's heated. Some people don't understand that smoking is unhealthy. Some people don't understand that food and water are needed to survive.

You can come up with any number of things that some people don't understand. Claiming that because some people don't understand insurance it must mean that the system has grown beyond the capacity for human understanding is just plain ridiculous. Yes, some people don't understand things. That always has been true and always will be true. It has nothing to do with our current level of technology. Some people are just stupid. Other people don't have the time or inclination to learn about specific things. When it comes to insurance, I'd bet that a fair number of them are just plain lying about their lack of understanding because it would mean admitting fault instead of blaming someone else. Nothing you have said can in any way lead to the conclusion that humanity in general is no longer capable of understanding our own technology or systems.

 

[Piggy]

The fact that some people can't understand the system means nothing.

On the contrary, it means a great deal.

And it means even more when the majority of people cannot reasonably be expected to understand the necessary instruments of their lives.

And I think that's where we are, and we're just going to get more of it as we become more technologically advanced.

 

[Mercutio]

The way Blackmore phrases your question, it is the second replicator (and, perhaps, the third replicator) in its selfish evolution (Dawkinsian selfishness, I mean) that is in the driver's seat now, and its host (us) is not its first concern.

TED talk here.

 

[Piggy]

The way Blackmore phrases your question, it is the second replicator (and, perhaps, the third replicator) in its selfish evolution (Dawkinsian selfishness, I mean) that is in the driver's seat now, and its host (us) is not its first concern.

TED talk here.

Or put another way, the biology (our brains and hands) creates the technology (nuclear weapons, synthetic chemicals, hydrocarbon-based energy production, the Internet, etc.) which eventually cannot be managed by the biology (our brains and hands).

Some of this is discrete (nuclear bombs, for instance) and some of it is dispersed (unmanageable financial systems, interactions of synthetic chemicals in the environment).

Some of it threatens some of us in small ways (incomprehensible bureaucracies, information overload from print and electronic media) while some of it threatens all of us in big ways (climate change, nuclear holocaust).

 

[Prometheus]

OTOH, I work in Adult Basic Education. A lot of my students are far less equipped to deal with these intricacies than most (at least High School educated) adults. I'm often stunned by the little things they don't know, but I'm even more often floored by just how successful some manage to be nonetheless. I know immigrants who've come to the U.S. with barely an elementary education, unable to read even in their native language, hampered by all sorts of magical thinking, and yet they start businesses, purchase homes and sometimes (more often than I like to admit, actually) become more successful than I am in only a few years. I don't think humanity has even begun to plumb the depth of adaptability we're capable of attaining.

 

[CapelDodger]

Og understood saber-tooths the way I understand the tax code: with unbridled fear. Not coincidentally, that's also how Og and I survive our respective threats.

- Dr. Trintignant

It's impossible to know, of course, but I suspect Og and his mates would get together and take out the sabre-tooth. Sure they'd be afraid but they wouldn't want to admit it. That would seem to me to be human nature. In the end we all gird our loins and tackle the tax-return; it does no good to hide from it (or worse yet, ignore it).

 

[Dr. Trintignant]

It's impossible to know, of course, but I suspect Og and his mates would get together and take out the sabre-tooth. Sure they'd be afraid but they wouldn't want to admit it. That would seem to me to be human nature. In the end we all gird our loins and tackle the tax-return; it does no good to hide from it (or worse yet, ignore it).

Sure, we both tackle them in our own way. The fear is combined with a respect for the unknown. There are elements of the tax code which I know I do not understand fully, or at the least cannot evaluate the risk properly (such as the AMT), and as such I make other decisions that allow me to avoid needing to know those things (no exercise and hold for stock options, for instance). I know when I'm outmatched, so I avoid those battles. Og surely did the same thing, if not with sabre-tooths, then with some other danger (he knew to come in out of the rain, at least).

- Dr. Trintignant

 

[CapelDodger]

Humans have always been a social species, hence that's what our brains evolved to deal with. In fact, they evolved more under the selective forces of social environments than the wider environment, primarily because we fare better against nature when we act as a collective.

What's different today is the nature of the social collective. It's extended out beyond the small group, meaning now we interact with unfamiliar personalities.

We extend by projecting the same small-group model into a wider frame. This is probably not the best social model for the new circumstances, but I don't think we've had time to evolve a more appropriate one. We do try to construct them on rational bases - democracy, for instance - but they tend to regress to the norm.

One hangover we could do without is our innate suspicion of strangers. Before we got so crowded strangers were by definition not members of the in-group and an implicit threat to it. This suspicion is easily turned to hostility towards out-groups that may never even have been encountered. After all here we are in the 21stCE, the Age of Reason getting pretty old, and the world is still obsessed with war or the threat of war - even religious war, FCOL.

Mix in the sort of weaponry we've developed and the nursery is awash with hand-grenades.

 

[Piggy]

Speaking of hand grenades, here's one....

This is speculation, I admit. But it's informed speculation, and there are now some experiments that indicate it's not far-fetched.

I believe that the most fundamental parts of our brain don't actually distinguish between reality and virtual reality.

From an evolutionary point of view, there's no reason why they should be able to make such a distinction.

So when our brains are exposed to virtual reality -- television, movies, video games -- even though the outer layers know we're indulging in fiction, the inner core does not.

I suspect that future studies will confirm that these media have a much more profound effect on our sub/un/pre-conscious brains than most folks imagine.

 

[CapelDodger]

The fact that some people can't understand the system means nothing. Some people can't understand an awful lot of very basic things.

Many people don't need to. The go to work, get a paycheck, and but what they need or want in shops where it's all laid out for them (lottery tickets by the check-out). Social behaviour they learn from their peers. They needn't have a clue where the things they buy come from, nor even what the job they do actually means.

Nothing you have said can in any way lead to the conclusion that humanity in general is no longer capable of understanding our own technology or systems.

The current economic crisis suggests that things have got out of hand. Nobody's on top of it : not politicians, not industrialists, not bankers, not academics. Globalised finance and a globalised economy has turned out to be beyond sound management (at least with the tools currently available).

It's not really the dumb schmucks at the bottom that's the problem, it's the limitations of the smart schmucks at the top.

 

[Piggy]

It's not really the dumb schmucks at the bottom that's the problem, it's the limitations of the smart schmucks at the top.

I'd say it's head-to-toe....

But yes, let's remember that the reason default swaps weren't regulated was a deadly combination of a truth and a falsehood:

1. No one in the governmental regulatory system actually understood these instruments; therefore, it was assumed that no effective regulation was possible -- i.e. that regulation was as likely to screw things up as to improve the situation.

2. It was assumed that the folks who invented and dealt in these things did understand them and were smart enough to keep the situation under control.

I would argue that something similar is going on in many other areas of our lives which are dominated by technology and artifact, such as nuclear technology, water management, industrial agriculture, the health and beauty industry, insurance, transportation, food production and distribution, and energy, just to name a few.

The result of this is that there is no effective mechanism available to rein in the potential gremlins which these tech-based systems (and let us not forget that even writing is a technology) engender.

Consider, for instance, the very serious problems we're now having to deal with that stem from something as simple as processing grains.

The fact is, folks like us, who can have these conversations via our computers, live in a hybrid world, part real and part virtual, part organic and part techno-synthetic.

And it seems fairly clear to me that our brains are not adapted to live in this kind of environment.

 

[fuelair]

OK, I admit up front to some poetic license with the thread title, so I hope folks don't get too focused on that, but here's the thing....

Consider some of the great issues of our time:

• Climate change
• Energy
• Environmental degradation
• Nuclear power and weapons
• The global economy
• Stem cell research
• Evolution
• Theism and atheism
• Party politics

Consider also what citizens of modern industrial economies such as the US are asked to deal with on a regular basis:

• Health care, including insurance and prescriptions
• Investing in the markets (or choosing not to)
• All the various forms of taxes
• Regular bureaucratic requirements and paperwork, from automobile registration to death certificates
• Public education and its alternatives

Consider the virtual inundation of media we're exposed to:

• Talk radio, docudramas, and other forms of infotainment
• Advertising
• Television, print, and Internet news
• The blogosphere

It just seems to me that we've created a situation in which it's become quite literally impossible for your average person to effectively deal with the basic requirements of modern life.

I'm single and well educated, I make a decent living, and my job affords me access to a variety of research tools, which means I have all the advantages of time and resources.

But I still can't figure out the full complexities of the tax system.

My medical bills and insurance statements often baffle me.

I don't know, in any sort of useful detail, what all the local, state, and federal laws are which actually apply to me.

I can't hope to evaluate the relative merits of scientific and medical research funded by my tax dollars -- or, equally important, the research denied funding.

I don't really know what my elected officials are doing.

I often get riled up at folks around me who deny evolution, insist that global warming is some kind of fiction embedded in a political plot, claim to be "Bible believers" while misunderstanding even the most basic facts about the scriptures, are dangerously misinformed about the current economic situation, believe that Obama is a commie, and so forth.

But, heck... what else do we expect?

I suspect that we've actually outgrown our brains. In other words, we've created this extremely complex social, technological, and bureaucratic enviroment which -- when you get right down to it -- none of us are able to navigate.

This puts us at the mercy of specialists, experts, and organizations such as parties, unions, and media outlets. Because there's no way we can figure it all out for ourselves.

And it sets us up, collectively, for eventual failure. Because how can a system endure when no one in the system fully understands what's going on?

In short, have we reached the point where technology has outstripped biology? Where our marvelous brains have finally created a network of physical and technical infrastructure, coupled with a Byzantine labyrinth of regulations and paperwork, together with an impenetrably dense info-sphere, which is fundamentally unmanageable for the brains that created it?

Or put more simply, do we now live in a world of our own creation which is beyond the ken of the average person? And perhaps even the best and brightest among us?

No, just keep finding ways to use them for processing rather than merely storing information.