Should humans be rational thinkers?

     The immediate answer to that question is normally YES! Of course Many of us like to consider ourselves as rational thinkers. But in reality, most often we are not rational thinkers. The classic model for decision making assumes that humans are rational agents and that we adapt to “maximize outcomes.” This however, is not true for information processors (which is what humans are).

     According to the lectures in Psychology 384 (Behavior & Environment), we (humans) live in an environment that is uncertain where problems are unstable. Living in an unstable environment were daily problems are changing hinders our ability to be rational since speed of decisions is picked over accuracy. Especially in the United States where life is very fast paced compared to other countries. For example, here in the States everyone is on a schedule and always looking for ways to be productive—solving new problems as they approach so they can move on to the next one. Another example of an environment that hinders humans from being rational thinkers is in war zones such as Syria. In these environments survival mode is turned on and more often than others rational thinking is out the window (i.e. when a person’s house is being bombed they are likely to think on their feet to get everyone to a safe spot than to be rational and think as a bomb is about to hit their roof).

     So, should humans be rational thinkers? In my opinion, various aspects come in to play such as environment, type of problem, and even safety. Given that, a person in a low crime, more safe environment can make rational decisions compared to a person in a high crime environment. In a perfect world, humans should be rational thinkers but in a world like ours sometimes it’s safe to be irrational thinkers to be able to wake up another day.  

Rationality and Choice-making

What we commonly perceive of rationality basically agrees with the concepts that we discuss in class. For example, when we think of people who are regarded as rational, we typically attribute the person to make decision by thoroughly going over all the options and cautiously weigh the pros and cons of different options before reaching the final conclusion. This is the common explanation for the concept of expectancy value that we have talked about in class. To make what is called rational decisions, we are based on the formal calculation of net value, which is the product of the chance that a specific outcome will occur and the resulted gain if it does occur. To be a perfectly rational player, we will always choose the option with the maximum net value.
However, as it totally makes sense, there is no such thing as the perfectly rational decision and perfectly rational player in the real life. Because to achieve such perfect rationality, there are a few assumptions to be met which are unrealistic in our real world. First of all, to make such comprehensive and accurate calculations of net value, it requires us to have perfect knowledge, basically to know everything about how the world operates. This sounds utterly insane for people like you and me. We are humans and humans have limited capacity to learn. Perhaps our brain is plastic enough to make that amount of neuro-connections, the problem is our limited capacity of directed attention that prevent us from grasping so much information. The second assumption, equally absurd, is a single metric to measure the value of all things that you could possibly imagine. This is not an economic class, and the world is definitely not a simple economic model where everything is assumed to be measured with a single currency. There are so much that you can not measure. For example, try to give me a dollar value on how much you love your family, your dog, and Michigan football (right, a passion unknown to mankind, don't even dare to measure it!) Last but not least, is the assumption that our ultimate purpose in life is to maximize the net value. So wrong! We live life like party and who cares about the outcome (just kidding!) But there is some truth in it as we live to survive, on the evolutionary level, and to enjoy ourselves, on a more humane perspective, which not always depends on the outcomes and so-called net value.
This leads to my next topic: rational people might not be as happy, or even as successful as people who tend to follow their heart (mind actually). For example, my mom is a much more rational person that my dad. As my mom constantly worries about the sanitation of food when we eat outside (to provide a larger background, food sanitation could be an issue in China sometimes), my dad cannot care less. As she makes that calculation in her head on the net worth of eating her food compared to the potential damage the food could do to her body, my dad is already enjoying his food. As I always tell my mom, instead of wasting your time and energy (directed attention) on outcome you will never be able to know (imperfect information on food composition and body chemistry), why not just go ahead and enjoy like my dad? Like my dad always says, "you're not gonna die if you eat it."
This might sounds funny, but there's something significant about it as I now see it, because it is a pretty reliable instinct. Instinct doesn't come out of nowhere. It can be the essence of our previous experiences and the voice of our evolutionary progress. It is not to say we should unconditionally rely on our instincts, but instincts sometimes do speak some truth. A little instinct and some information-processing would be my recipe for decision-making.

Rational and Gambling

On a typical Friday night in Las Vegas the casino floor is at capacity. Hundreds, even thousands, of excited players peek at their cards, roll dice, spin slots, and most importantly, make bets. Gambling is almost undoubtedly irrational. The odds are rigged in the casino’s favor, and while the potential rewards can be great, the chances of winning are often low. So why do so many people risk their hard earned money on potential outcomes that have such low chances of happening?

            In theory, making the rational decision not to gamble using Expectancy-Value Theory is simple. All one must do is assess the potential winnings of their preferred game and multiply this figure by the chance they will win to come to an overall net value of playing. One popular slot machine, The Jack in the Box, offers players a one in 250,000 chance of winning $37,000. These odds result in a net value of only about 15 cents per spin, ten cents less than the 25 cents it costs gamblers to play the game. It would only seem rational that people would decide not to play this game due to the net loss incurred each time they play. To explain why individuals choose to gamble we can look to the failure to adhere to the three key assumptions of Expectancy-Value Theory.

            First, it is assumed that all things are valued using universal units. In the case of gambling, the clear choice of units is money. Every time a bet is placed, both the potential loss and the potential gain can be valued in a dollar value. However, there are confounding variables to this simple value system. Gamblers may not be gambling for the sole purpose of gaining money; they could be playing for entertainment, as part of a social event or could have a gambling addiction. All these factors contribute to the value of gambling, yet are not valued monetarily. While money can be easily be valued using a dollar value, the emotional and social benefits can be hard to quantify.

            Second, it is assumed that individuals considering possible action possess perfect knowledge. Possessing perfect knowledge includes the chances of an outcome happening, the value of each outcome, and the ability to assess each outcome. In the scope of gambling, possessing perfect knowledge means individuals understands their chances of winning, the value of the winnings and their other options for spending their money both inside and out of the casino. Unfortunately, this is not the case as many players simply do not understand their odds of winning or do not take them into account, instead choosing to focus on the potential prize money. Additionally, players do not have the time, desire, or ability to compare all possible options. Vibrant lighting and loud noises in casinos are inherently fascinating and make it more difficult for individuals to apply the directed attention needed to assess all options accurately.

            Finally, a rational actor makes the decision to choose the course of action that yields the highest value outcome. However, it can clearly not be assumed that actors always want to maximize their value. Are humans simply irrational beings or are there ulterior motives that supersede rationality and impact our ability to make rational decisions? If so, what other factors could compel someone to throw rationality into the wind?

Rationality Robots: a Life Without Reason

When I initially signed up to blog about the topic of rationality many weeks ago, I had expected to learn how exactly humans make decisions and rationalize certain choices. In my mind, one of the key characteristics of humans that set us apart from most other organisms on Earth was our ability to be rational and do things with reason as opposed to running wildly around and relying on instinct.

I now understand that, actually, these concepts of rationality and reason are not at all one in the same. Humans do tend to do things with reason while simultaneously being "non-rational." This term non-rational is preferable to irrational because we don't do things senselessly, we simply do not do them rationally.

The concept of rationality requires 3 primary assumptions:

1. Everything must be evaluated using a single metric to signify value
2. The decision-maker must posses perfect knowledge so as to compare all possible outcomes and alternatives to a situation and their respective values
3. The primary goal must be to always maximize one's outcomes by using the equation presented by the Expectancy-Value Theory. Simply put, this is (probability of an outcome happening) x (value of the outcome) = expected value. 

By definition, this are the principles of rationality that must be considered in a rational decision making model. When this topic was presented to us in class, I really had a hard time wrapping my mind around it because I immediately noticed one thing: these assumptions are highly improbable to occur in humans, and may be downright impossible to achieve the vast majority of the time. In every day life, we do not use the same metric to compare all things for value, humans absolutely do not have perfect knowledge (what is perfect knowledge, anyway?), and we don't always choose the "best" outcome based on expected value. This meant that my delusion about humans being rational actors was 100% that- a delusion.

So that's that then: humans are not rational, and my entire life has been a lie. In all seriousness though, I began to think about what life would be like if we were these highly rational beings I once assumed us to be. For starters, I'd like to think life would be pretty boring. 

When I think about some of the greatest things about the human experience, things like relationships, emotions, connections, and intuitions quickly come to mind. If humans were the rational actors we assume them to be, would we be able to enjoy or have any of these things anymore? I would be inclined to say it would be difficult at the very least. Relationships and emotions often make us act incredibly non-rationally, and that's a good thing! Would you want to be friends with someone who would calculate every aspect of your relationship down to a single metric of value, weighing the risks and benefits of continuing to be your friend and what the payoff could be? Most would say no.

Instead, we build relationships and connections with people based on our experiences and emotions, sometimes even causing us to knowingly put ourselves in harms way to protect a loved one. The rational actor would never do that, as it would compromise the expected value equation. One could also argue, I suppose, that the payoff of self-sacrifice is that someone you place great value on would be saved instead of you. I feel this example only helps to further prove that sacrificial behavior is never rational, because it doesn't originate from perfect knowledge. Our "knowledge" can never be perfect because it is highly subjective, so it stands to reason that our values would also be subjective and imperfect; this is the by-product of how we collect and store knowledge in our cognitive maps. It is adaptive, beneficial, and it makes life worth living.

In a rational world, we would all have perfect knowledge so we would all value the same things in the same way. Not only would this be incredibly boring, it would downright erase the power of human passion and innovation, breaking us down into nothing more than rational robots: input data, calculate, output response. Rinse and repeat. Not only is rationality an unattainable goal for humans based on the nature of how we navigate our world using highly subjective experiences, it's a darn good thing we can't achieve it in its entirety, lest we compromise everything that makes the human experience special.

So, would a life full of rationality be a life with reason? I don't think so- it's not what makes us who we are, both collectively as humans and individually as people.

Rationality and the Voting Paradox

Prior to discussing rationality in class this week, I assumed that Professor De Young would be highlighting the fact that, as humans, we inherently act in a rational way. I typically think of myself as a rational person and am used to the positive perception of being rational. So when Professor De Young emphasized the fact that rationality is not necessarily a positive thing in human behavior, but being non-rational actually is because of its adaptive characteristics, I was truly shocked. I feel that people who act in irrational ways are constantly criticized and those who are rational are praised, so initially trying to grasp this concept was difficult for me. However, as I continued to absorb the information and connect it to other course concepts that we have already learned, rationality began to make more sense to me.

Rationality involves three assumptions. The first is that we evaluate everything using a single metric, the second being that we possess perfect knowledge and can know all values and expectancies of an outcome, and the third that we will always maximize our decisions and choose the outcomes that have the best expected value. However, these assumptions of rationality fail to address the fact that we are immersed within an uncertain and rich environment, therefore we cannot make decisions based on perfect knowledge. As well, it is more adaptive for us to behave with cognitive speed and act quickly instead of spending time to seek out all of the information and contemplate for a long time. Finally, we have evolved to have limited information processing capabilities - this means that there are limits to the amount of information we can process because of directed attention fatigue, channel capacity, and the simplification of our mental models. This idea of mental models relates to the concept of heuristics, which are mental patterns that aid decision making based off our past experiences. These unique heuristics that we individually possess often lead to choices that are highly adaptive because they allow us to make speedy decisions, but they often result in non-rational behavior.

As I processed this information about rationality and decision-making, I began to think about all of the big decisions in my life that I have made and am currently making, and whether I am rational or not. Scrolling through these decisions, what immediately came to my mind was my decision to vote, probably the most prevalent situation within my life at the moment. This is the first time I am eligible to vote in a presidential election, so it is something I consider myself to be putting a lot of thought into. However, as the presidential campaign and election takes place during one of the busiest times of the year as a college student, it is often difficult to keep up with all of the policies and events relating to the candidates on a daily basis. As I registered to vote, I hoped to develop the best-informed knowledge over the course of the campaign about the candidates, their stances on every issue, and their plans of actions once they are elected. However, both time and my attention are limited, inhibiting the amount of insight I can truly possess about the candidates.

In Lee Drutman’s online article Ballot Pox, he explains, “Perhaps it is finally time to stop pretending there is such a thing as a rational voter who seeks information to vote based on the issues alone, as decades of political-science research has assumed.” As I read this statement, I came to realize that despite all of the information I actively seek out in terms of the election and the candidates, I will be influenced by my adaptive behaviors to make a decision that is quick and influenced by my past experiences. In Democracy for Realists, Achen & Bartels further address:  "Can ordinary people, busy with their lives and with no firsthand experience of policy making or public administration, do what the theory expects them to do?" Of course not. "Mostly they identify with ethnic, racial, occupation, religious or other sorts of groups, and often — whether through group ties or hereditary loyalties — with a political party."

The whole purpose of our voting system is to allow us, as citizens, to make the most rational and best-informed decisions when giving such drastic power to an individual to lead our country. However, considering what we have learned in class this past week, as well as the information presented in the highlighted article, it is evident that we are innately wired to vote in quite the opposite way. As we mark our ballots, each decision made is influenced by the fact that we inhabit an uncertain environment, our cognitive mechanisms limit how we process information, and we would rather act quickly then weigh all of the options. Our heuristics (or should I say our biases?) will sway our voting decision, no matter how much we try to inhibit our personal experiences and emotions.

As I conclude, I want to emphasize that I am not trying to convey that voting is not important - in fact, I feel quite the opposite. I strongly believe that everyone should go out to vote and play a role in this electoral process. However, what I do want to say is that although we often find ourselves stressed to learn about the entire political system and what the candidates are saying throughout the campaign, we are wired to make decisions without complete knowledge of all of this information anyway. So as you go out to vote and considering this information, do you believe it will be useful for yourself to keep up with the rest of the campaign before you make your decision? Or do you now think that your human tendencies to make a voting decision in a non-rational way will lead you to stop contemplating the facts?

References:

http://www.chronicle.com/article/Ballot-Pox/238131

The Effect of Context on Rationality

When I saw the topic of rationality was going to be discussed in class, I was expecting something different. I never thought to examine rationality from a scientific standpoint. it always seemed to be a more existential function of the human conscience. I was even more surprised when I learned that humans aren't the most consistent with rational thinking. In fact, in many situations, humans are worse at thinking rationally than other non-human animal. 

When we discussed rationality in class, we learned that it should not be considered as the best way of thinking, rather the ideal way. We examined one concept of rational thinking which viewed the process as an equation (called the Expectancy-Value Theory). This concept stated you can compute the Net Value of a decision through the "simple" equation of (Chance of outcome happening) x (Value of the outcome) = Net Value. I put the word "simple" in quotation marks, because while this equation only has two variables, it assumes multiple concepts which are unattainable by humans. First, we would need to assign a single metric that could be universally applied to all things in order to understand "value." Second we would need to be endowed with perfect knowledge of all things and all outcomes to be able to compare the values of all outcomes as well as compute their likelihood. This is clearly not the process that humans take to form decisions. However, while humans do not use the Expectancy-Value Theory, it is still worth noting that the equation represents the ideal way of thinking.

I used to believe humans to be the most able to think rationally in any event. However, after the lecture, and reading up on rationality in Humanscape as well as a journal article by Keith Stanovich, I learned that we can't possibly be capable of true rational thinking all the time. We have learned that true rational thinking means making a decision whose outcome with result in the highest expected value. Unfortunately humans and other complex organism have one more variable than most non-human animals, context. Keith Stanovich, in his article, adeptly explains why the context of a situation makes it harder for humans to think rationally:

Because the strength of each preference—the utility of that option—exists in the brain before the option is even presented, nothing about the context of the presentation should affect the preference, unless the individual judges the context to be important (to change the option in some critical way). This general property of rational choice—context independence—actually makes the strictures of rational preference more difficult to follow for more complex organisms. (Pg. 4)

When discussing the decisions of humans, it is not wrong to say we aren't built for true rational thinking. Not just because of context, but a multiple of other factors important to rational thinking. Humans, are speedy thinkers that, "Place a premium on cognitive speed" (De Young, 10/26). We are also guilty of having limited capabilities to process information and live in changing environments.
Understanding that humans are not built for rational thinking will be important if we begin to transition into a energy descent scenario. We will have to acknowledge that humans won't think rationally when asked to change daily habits or consumption and must take these factors into account when looking forward.

References:

• De Young, Raymond. "Rationality." Environ 360: Behavior and Environment. Dana 1040, Ann Arbor. 26 Oct. 2016. Lecture.
• Stanovich, Keith E. "Why Humans Are (sometimes) Less Rational than Other Animals: Cognitive Complexity and the Axioms of Rational Choice." Thinking & Reasoning 19.1 (2013): 1-26. Web. 26 Oct. 2016. <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13546783.2012.713178>.

Cognitive Maps: Where We Know

Have you ever heard someone say that he or she lacks a sense of direction? Despite how frequently this sentiment seems to occur, humans have evolved to be adept navigators—or at least we’re supposed to be.

            When storing information, our brains make connections between clusters of neurons associated with the salient features of an object, and then we link these clusters together, creating an even more complex network of networks. The smaller networks, called internal representations, are constructed from perception, which allows us to recognize objects after encountering them at least once. The larger, encompassing psychological web is referred to as a cognitive map, which provides us with the ability to make inferences about subjects that the individual objects compose. The depth of our understanding of an object or environment depends on the richness of our cognitive maps, which are constantly edited and often rearranged with newly perceived information. The ability to form predictions about a subject is a powerful characteristic of mental maps. This is particularly helpful with way-finding, a skill honed by humans’ need to return to a home base, because it helps us to infer new or alternate paths between places despite never having traveled those ways.

            Humans, as object-based information processors, organize ideas spatially. As an architecture student, I study a field that is all about how people interact with space. In my freshman architecture seminar, we are required to make tracings of floors plans of certain buildings and then match photos of the buildings to locations on the plans. Although most of us had never seen the building we were assigned, we were usually able to deduce the viewpoint of each photo by imagining the flat floor plans as three-dimensional space. This was possible because cognitive maps can be built from indirect experiences such as simply looking at pictures and thus allow us to make connections between partial images of a whole.

             (Here's a plan in which I highlighted the view depicted in the photo.)

While perception lends itself to object recognition, knowing allows us to go beyond the actuality of the object we recognize. For example, a classmate from my seminar class who has directly experienced his or her assigned building may have affective coding (or emotions) tied to the images that he or she traces. These emotions may not be part of the tangible object, but the student’s cognitive map of the building may have links to certain feelings and memories that are triggered by the perception of the building. His or her cognitive map is thus augmented by pre-familiarization and permits his or her knowledge of the environment extend beyond base reality.

            However, these maps have a flaw. Since our brains are limited by channel capacity in how much detail they can hold or recall at once, our cognitive maps are only simplifications of the real objects. This is why when trying to recall information about something, we only remember the most prominent features of it. When my architecture class went on a field trip to take a tour of Cranbook campus on the outskirts of Detroit, my brain only retained fragments of the whole campus to sustain a vague, holistic mental image. Furthermore, I was unfamiliar with the landscape and hence had difficulty piecing together a mental model of the complete environment at first. I did have a burgeoning mental model in place, though, from lectures and pictures given to me in class. This preparation helped me quickly grasp the overall layout of the campus by giving me pre-familiarized object relationships to strengthen through direct experience. Since the environment was so new to me, I would have undoubtedly gotten lost without the tour guide, but perhaps less lost than I would have been without the information from class.

            Understanding the challenges and potential of mental models can not only help people adapt to changing social milieu, but also improve how information is delivered to people. Perhaps it is not our fault that some of us get lost so easily. Such as in the case study of relocating the elderly in which altering how the elderly are pre-familiarized with new environments had the potential to reduce their post-relocation mortality rates,  maybe the difficulty with navigation is not entirely a bad sense of direction.

Navigation: Mental Map or Google Map?

Navigation: Mental Map or Google Map?

      I still remember the first day when my dad and I took a 14-hour flight from Beijing and finally arrived at central campus of the University of Michigan. After we put our bags at the hotel, dad suggested that we should explore the campus. Therefore, starting from the Bell Tower Hotel, we walked along the S Thayer St and got to N University Ave. Then, we walked along N University Ave to the East for a while, turned right at the flag pole, passed by the Chemistry building, kept going South to the Diag and took a photo with the M. Next, we picked the diagonal road on the left of Hatcher, walked through the arch (West Hall), stopped at the Espresso Royale and spent some time there reading Michigan Daily (dad)/browsing mobile phone (me) until dinner time.

       It was a nice walk on a beautiful afternoon. However, at the time I bought coffee at Expresso Royale, I had no idea how far was I from our starting point of the journey, or how should I get back to our hotel without Google Map or dad. Precisely, I was lost. I can only try to describe our trip to you right now by looking at Google Map and stimulate our route by connecting the objects that I recognized during the walk:

hotelà flag pole à a square (the Diag) à an arch (West Hall) à a “non-Starbucks” coffee shop

      
       If you ask me to find my way back using the original route, I may give a try by connecting the objects in reverse order, but I cannot guarantee you on it. When my dad suggested us to get back to the hotel using a different route, all that I could do was just following him. I found it amazing that my dad can always navigate us back even if he only walks or drives through these places for once. It used to be a puzzle bothering me over the last 20 years, but after listening to the lectures of ENVIRON 360, I finally get to understand how my dad did it. I remember that every time I ask him where should we go, he moves his index finger in the air like drawing a route on an invisible map. That invisible map is his mental map! When he observes an object, he develops an internal representation of the object and then organizes all those internal representations in a logical order in his cognitive map. By building the mental map, he remembers not only the features of the objects but also their relative positions to each other. Later when he recognizes some of the features of an object, he is sure about what that object is and recalls its internal representation, which stimulates a part of his cognitive map.

       An interesting phenomenon is that sometimes when he tries to show me a route to some locations, he kind of forgot many details and thus would draw on a piece of paper only a few rectangles representing some most recognizable buildings and only a few lines representing the most important roads for me to remember. Although his hand-made maps contain very few details, they are still good enough for navigating me to the destination. This would happen because he is so familiar with the map that his brain further simplifies his mental map and only keeps the most useful information.

   Not like this: 

       Later at the new student orientation, I got a package of useful information and guides, including an elegant paper map of the campus that made me want to spend some time studying on it. Doing that made me much more confident when finding an academic building on the first day of class. At first, I sometimes still need to take out the map to find a building. But as I repeatedly do that, I became more and more familiar with the map and finally remember it all in my mind. By the help of the paper map and with the repeated experiences of finding certain buildings, I eventually built a relatively complete mental map of central campus. Next time when navigating myself from one building to another, I am able to "open" that map in my mind, draw a couple of routes on it, and even choose an optimal path by considering the distance or other conditional factors (for example, if it is raining outside, I would choose a route that spends more time indoor, like passing through the chemistry building to get to Ruthven Museum from the Diag). I may not have walked along that route in person before, but my cognitive map allows me to generate new knowledge on that.

       Here comes an interesting question: why is my dad doing much better than me at developing a cognitive map for navigation? I have heard some people claiming that men are better at navigation than women do. Personally, I do not believe so. After taking ENVIRON 360, I think that the real reason is the different amount of attentions we paid to build our cognitive maps. As a parent, dad subconsciously feels responsible for our safety, leading to his investing more attentions in building his mental map while we passed by some recognizable objects. In contrast, I was so excited about exploring my new college that I was distracted a lot by focusing too much on taking pictures of beautiful structures, observing squirrels, etc. rather than building my cognitive map. I knew that my dad would navigate us back and I knew that my phone is fully charged so I can use Google Map whenever I need. Therefore, I did not feel necessary to remember the route and most of my directed attention was paid to enjoy the beautiful campus.

       It is a commonly seen phenomenon that, while many young people, including myself, very much rely on Google Map or other technology for navigation, older people like my dad, who are not as comfortable using new technologies as young people do, generally show a better ability of navigation without the help of technology. We may ask: is it a good phenomenon that people nowadays are relying on technology more and more in different aspects of life? There are many voices of criticism. But should we still think of technology as a separate thing from our mind or body? If our friend Tom just got a pair of new glasses, is he still the Tom that we know? Yes, he is. If Tom then got a hearing aid to help him hear better, is he still the Tom that we knew? Yes, he is. Then what if Tom got a chip installed in his brain to help him remember things faster and longer? What if that chip allows Tom to download a Google Map and therefore he will never get lost anymore? On that day, should we consider Google Map as a part of our mental map? Maybe technology is the ongoing evolution of human…


References:
1. http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=15440
2. http://file2.mafengwo.net/M00/CF/B0/wKgBm04KfA2N7IBcAAKwcEPB2bQ18.jpeg