WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.779 What if I told you that the reason you snapped 00:00:02.779 --> 00:00:04.860 at your coworker this morning and the reason 00:00:04.860 --> 00:00:08.080 you bought that needlessly expensive TV last 00:00:08.080 --> 00:00:10.380 weekend are actually driven by the exact same 00:00:10.380 --> 00:00:12.830 evolutionary machinery? Yeah, I mean, we really 00:00:12.830 --> 00:00:15.330 tend to think of our minds as these pristine, 00:00:15.689 --> 00:00:18.149 completely rational engines. You take in facts, 00:00:18.329 --> 00:00:20.449 you weigh the options, you make a logical choice. 00:00:20.789 --> 00:00:23.269 Right, exactly. But the reality is you are operating 00:00:23.269 --> 00:00:25.870 on this bizarre set of hidden rules, just these 00:00:25.870 --> 00:00:28.390 invisible forces pulling at your mental steering 00:00:28.390 --> 00:00:31.750 wheel every second of the day. It is a profound 00:00:31.750 --> 00:00:34.929 illusion that we're in total control of our decision 00:00:34.929 --> 00:00:37.289 making. If you look at the research, what we 00:00:37.289 --> 00:00:40.469 call rational thought is actually heavily filtered 00:00:40.469 --> 00:00:42.750 through systematic deviations. You see it across 00:00:42.750 --> 00:00:45.329 almost every aspect of human cognition. Which 00:00:45.329 --> 00:00:47.570 is exactly why we're doing this deep dive today. 00:00:47.770 --> 00:00:50.890 We're taking a massive, meticulously sourced 00:00:50.890 --> 00:00:54.149 compilation of cognitive biases drawn from this 00:00:54.149 --> 00:00:57.210 comprehensive Wikipedia database, and we're going 00:00:57.210 --> 00:00:59.270 to trace the chronological life cycle of a single 00:00:59.270 --> 00:01:01.259 thought. All right, instead of just reading you 00:01:01.259 --> 00:01:03.579 a list of academic terms, we're taking you from 00:01:03.579 --> 00:01:05.780 the second you gather information to how you 00:01:05.780 --> 00:01:09.079 make a choice to how you, well, inevitably justify 00:01:09.079 --> 00:01:11.379 it. And finally, how you remember it. OK, let's 00:01:11.379 --> 00:01:13.879 unpack this. Are these biases actually just brain 00:01:13.879 --> 00:01:16.620 bugs or are they features masquerading as bugs 00:01:16.620 --> 00:01:18.540 because it feels like our brains wouldn't evolve 00:01:18.540 --> 00:01:21.459 over millions of years just to be consistently 00:01:21.459 --> 00:01:24.480 wrong? That tension right there is actually at 00:01:24.480 --> 00:01:27.299 the center of modern cognitive psychology. You 00:01:27.299 --> 00:01:30.840 have prominent researchers. like Gurdjieger Renser 00:01:30.840 --> 00:01:33.500 from The Source Material, who actively argue 00:01:33.500 --> 00:01:36.599 against labeling these biases merely as errors. 00:01:36.739 --> 00:01:39.219 Oh, really? Yeah. Gurdjieger's view is that these 00:01:39.219 --> 00:01:42.099 are actually highly efficient mental shortcuts. 00:01:42.540 --> 00:01:45.540 Heuristics. The brain is essentially a cognitive 00:01:45.540 --> 00:01:48.040 miser. A cognitive miser, I like that. Right, 00:01:48.099 --> 00:01:50.000 because it takes a massive amount of biological 00:01:50.000 --> 00:01:52.799 energy to process every single variable in a 00:01:52.799 --> 00:01:56.099 room or in a complex decision. So to survive, 00:01:56.519 --> 00:01:58.480 the brain developed these workarounds to produce 00:01:58.480 --> 00:02:00.840 decisions rapidly. So it's less about finding 00:02:00.840 --> 00:02:03.620 the perfect truth and more about finding a like 00:02:03.620 --> 00:02:05.980 a good enough truth so you don't get eaten by 00:02:05.980 --> 00:02:08.580 a tiger while you're doing the math. Precisely. 00:02:08.680 --> 00:02:11.000 And researchers generally divide these workarounds 00:02:11.000 --> 00:02:13.280 into two categories. You have your cold biases, 00:02:13.800 --> 00:02:16.419 which are just noisy information processing shortcuts. 00:02:16.860 --> 00:02:19.280 Like literal glitches in how the brain handles 00:02:19.280 --> 00:02:21.840 data. Exactly. And then you have hot biases, 00:02:21.939 --> 00:02:23.719 which are motivational. Those are the ones driven 00:02:23.719 --> 00:02:27.379 by your ego, your emotions, or wishful thinking. 00:02:28.020 --> 00:02:30.060 OK, let's put this into practice and start at 00:02:30.060 --> 00:02:31.520 the very beginning of the thought lifecycle. 00:02:32.580 --> 00:02:35.669 So, estimation. You walk into a situation, and 00:02:35.669 --> 00:02:38.090 before you can act, you have to gather data. 00:02:38.669 --> 00:02:41.129 According to the 2020 classification by DiMara 00:02:41.129 --> 00:02:43.810 and colleagues, estimation is that very first 00:02:43.810 --> 00:02:45.830 task. Right. So tell me why, when I walk into 00:02:45.830 --> 00:02:48.370 an electronics store, they always put the $3 00:02:48.370 --> 00:02:50.650 ,000 television right at the front of the aisle, 00:02:50.729 --> 00:02:52.530 even though they know almost nobody's going to 00:02:52.530 --> 00:02:54.870 buy it. Well, because they're exploiting a cold 00:02:54.870 --> 00:02:58.120 bias known as anchoring. When your brain enters 00:02:58.120 --> 00:03:01.379 a novel situation, it desperately needs a baseline 00:03:01.379 --> 00:03:03.960 to measure everything else against. Because without 00:03:03.960 --> 00:03:07.099 a baseline, evaluating the price of a TV just 00:03:07.099 --> 00:03:09.680 takes too much cognitive processing. Exactly. 00:03:09.800 --> 00:03:13.560 So your brain grabs the very first piece of numerical 00:03:13.560 --> 00:03:16.840 information it encounters, that $3 ,000 price 00:03:16.840 --> 00:03:20.259 tag. That becomes your anchor. So when I walk 00:03:20.259 --> 00:03:23.379 10 feet down the aisle and see an $800 TV, my 00:03:23.379 --> 00:03:26.939 brain isn't evaluating whether $800 is actually 00:03:26.939 --> 00:03:30.120 a fair price for those specific components. No, 00:03:30.219 --> 00:03:31.860 not at all. My brain is just screaming, wow, 00:03:32.000 --> 00:03:34.639 compared to $3 ,000, this is an absolute steal. 00:03:34.800 --> 00:03:39.180 Yes. The anchor fundamentally skews your perception 00:03:39.180 --> 00:03:42.389 of value. Your brain isn't doing the objective 00:03:42.389 --> 00:03:45.889 math. It's doing relative math based on an entirely 00:03:45.889 --> 00:03:48.189 arbitrary starting point. It's basically a rapid 00:03:48.189 --> 00:03:50.469 processing trick that marketers have completely 00:03:50.469 --> 00:03:53.210 weaponized against us. It really is. And that 00:03:53.210 --> 00:03:55.469 sets up the next phase. You've estimated the 00:03:55.469 --> 00:03:57.930 value, and now you have to make a decision. Okay, 00:03:57.969 --> 00:03:59.889 let's talk about the friction between what I 00:03:59.889 --> 00:04:02.469 plan to do and what I actually do. Because on 00:04:02.469 --> 00:04:04.530 Sunday night, I always plan to eat salads all 00:04:04.530 --> 00:04:06.530 week, hit the gym, and be highly productive. 00:04:06.650 --> 00:04:09.919 We all do. But by Tuesday at 2 p .m., I am eating 00:04:09.919 --> 00:04:13.300 a donut and scrolling through social media. Why 00:04:13.300 --> 00:04:16.720 is my brain actively sabotaging the logical plan 00:04:16.720 --> 00:04:19.360 it just made? You are experiencing hyperbolic 00:04:19.360 --> 00:04:24.899 discounting or present bias. From an evolutionary 00:04:24.899 --> 00:04:27.639 standpoint, abstract future planning is a very 00:04:27.639 --> 00:04:30.459 recent luxury. Because for most of human history, 00:04:30.699 --> 00:04:33.889 tomorrow wasn't guaranteed, right? Exactly. If 00:04:33.889 --> 00:04:36.829 you found a source of dense calories, like honey 00:04:36.829 --> 00:04:40.310 or fruit, you consumed it immediately. So the 00:04:40.310 --> 00:04:42.670 brain heavily discounts the value of a future 00:04:42.670 --> 00:04:45.589 reward in favor of an immediate, tangible payoff. 00:04:45.850 --> 00:04:48.069 That makes total sense, like a theoretical salad 00:04:48.069 --> 00:04:50.250 next week doesn't keep you alive today. The source 00:04:50.250 --> 00:04:52.589 material highlights a classic study on this that 00:04:52.589 --> 00:04:54.750 maps perfectly to your Sunday night salad plan. 00:04:54.879 --> 00:04:57.079 When researchers asked participants to choose 00:04:57.079 --> 00:05:00.040 their snacks for the coming week, 74 % of people 00:05:00.040 --> 00:05:02.079 chose fruit. Because they're operating in that 00:05:02.079 --> 00:05:04.579 abstract, logical, future -planning mode. Right. 00:05:04.860 --> 00:05:06.720 But when those same people were asked to choose 00:05:06.720 --> 00:05:09.560 a snack for the current day, 70 % of them chose 00:05:09.560 --> 00:05:13.939 chocolate. Wow. 70%. Yeah. The immediate visceral 00:05:13.939 --> 00:05:17.980 reward completely overrides the long -term logical 00:05:17.980 --> 00:05:20.439 planning center of the brain. Okay, so I've anchored 00:05:20.439 --> 00:05:22.639 on a bad price and I've chosen the immediate 00:05:22.639 --> 00:05:25.220 reward over the long -term benefit. Now I have 00:05:25.220 --> 00:05:27.740 to deal with the aftermath. Let's talk about 00:05:27.740 --> 00:05:30.259 how we value things after we've put effort into 00:05:30.259 --> 00:05:33.120 them. Ah, the Ikea effect. Yes. The research 00:05:33.120 --> 00:05:35.920 claims we overvalue things, we build ourselves. 00:05:36.660 --> 00:05:38.259 But I want to push back on this a little bit. 00:05:38.480 --> 00:05:40.819 If I spend three hours putting together a bookshelf 00:05:40.819 --> 00:05:43.420 and I feel proud of it, isn't that just a healthy 00:05:43.420 --> 00:05:45.720 sense of accomplishment? Why is that a cognitive 00:05:45.720 --> 00:05:48.199 bias? What's fascinating here is that it becomes 00:05:48.199 --> 00:05:52.079 a bias when that internal sense of pride warps 00:05:52.079 --> 00:05:54.519 your objective assessment of reality. It's a 00:05:54.519 --> 00:05:57.060 form of effort justification. OK, how so? Well, 00:05:57.100 --> 00:06:00.120 if you build a bookshelf and it is wobbly, structurally 00:06:00.120 --> 00:06:03.209 unsound and objectively terrible, but you still 00:06:03.209 --> 00:06:05.050 genuinely believe it's a high -quality piece 00:06:05.050 --> 00:06:07.110 of furniture simply because you tighten the screws 00:06:07.110 --> 00:06:10.290 yourself, your judgment has deviated from reality. 00:06:10.509 --> 00:06:12.589 So I am essentially hallucinating the quality 00:06:12.589 --> 00:06:14.750 of the chair to justify the three hours of my 00:06:14.750 --> 00:06:17.490 life I just lost building it. Exactly. It ties 00:06:17.490 --> 00:06:20.170 into a broader set of biases related to self 00:06:20.170 --> 00:06:23.310 -perspective and baseline comparisons. Your brain 00:06:23.310 --> 00:06:26.329 has a vested interest in proving to itself that 00:06:26.329 --> 00:06:29.040 its expenditure of energy was worthwhile. Because 00:06:29.040 --> 00:06:31.540 if I admit the chair is garbage, I have to admit 00:06:31.540 --> 00:06:34.220 I wasted valuable time and effort. Right. And 00:06:34.220 --> 00:06:36.259 to protect you from that psychological loss, 00:06:36.759 --> 00:06:39.680 your brain alters the baseline of how you evaluate 00:06:39.680 --> 00:06:42.459 the object. We are working incredibly hard to 00:06:42.459 --> 00:06:45.420 protect our own egos, and that transitions us 00:06:45.420 --> 00:06:47.959 into the next phase of our thought -life -cycle 00:06:47.959 --> 00:06:50.790 hypothesis assessment. We've made our decisions 00:06:50.790 --> 00:06:52.829 and now we have to make sense of the world around 00:06:52.829 --> 00:06:55.490 us. How do we test our reality? Very poorly. 00:06:56.050 --> 00:06:58.610 Mostly due to the illusion of explanatory depth. 00:06:58.839 --> 00:07:01.300 We walk around with the profound belief that 00:07:01.300 --> 00:07:03.240 we understand that the world works much better 00:07:03.240 --> 00:07:05.740 than we actually do. And the research notes this 00:07:05.740 --> 00:07:08.420 is specifically true for explanatory knowledge, 00:07:08.620 --> 00:07:10.980 right? Rather than just factual knowledge. Yeah, 00:07:11.079 --> 00:07:14.060 we confuse our familiarity with an object with 00:07:14.060 --> 00:07:16.420 an actual understanding of its mechanics. Here's 00:07:16.420 --> 00:07:18.500 where it gets really interesting. It's exactly 00:07:18.500 --> 00:07:21.000 like thinking you completely understand how a 00:07:21.000 --> 00:07:23.339 zipper works. Oh, that's a great example. Right, 00:07:23.439 --> 00:07:26.139 because you use one every single day. But if 00:07:26.139 --> 00:07:28.079 I handed you a pen and a piece of paper right 00:07:28.079 --> 00:07:30.060 now, told you to draw the physical mechanics 00:07:30.060 --> 00:07:32.680 of the interlocking teeth, you'd probably freeze. 00:07:33.240 --> 00:07:35.600 Your brain gave you the feeling of understanding 00:07:35.600 --> 00:07:39.279 without any of the actual data. That is a brilliant 00:07:39.279 --> 00:07:41.899 visualization, and think about the evolutionary 00:07:41.899 --> 00:07:45.180 utility of that illusion. If we walked around 00:07:45.180 --> 00:07:47.519 acutely aware of how little we understood about 00:07:47.519 --> 00:07:50.560 our environment, we would be paralyzed by anxiety 00:07:50.560 --> 00:07:53.420 and indecision. So the illusion of depth allows 00:07:53.420 --> 00:07:56.040 us to operate confidently in a highly complex 00:07:56.040 --> 00:07:58.879 world without having to process the mechanics 00:07:58.879 --> 00:08:01.579 of every zipper or engine or societal structure 00:08:01.579 --> 00:08:03.879 we interact with. Exactly. But that confidence 00:08:03.879 --> 00:08:06.379 becomes dangerous when we combine it with confirmation 00:08:06.379 --> 00:08:08.759 bias, doesn't it? We have this illusion that 00:08:08.759 --> 00:08:11.360 we understand things and then we actively seek 00:08:11.360 --> 00:08:13.579 out information that proves we are right, while 00:08:13.579 --> 00:08:15.639 aggressively ignoring anything that proves we 00:08:15.639 --> 00:08:18.160 are wrong. Confirmation bias is one of the most 00:08:18.160 --> 00:08:21.040 robust findings in psychology. But if we connect 00:08:21.040 --> 00:08:23.160 this to the bigger picture, we shouldn't just 00:08:23.160 --> 00:08:26.019 dismiss it as a useless processing error. The 00:08:26.019 --> 00:08:28.199 source text brings up a fascinating controversy 00:08:28.199 --> 00:08:30.519 in the scientific community regarding this. Wait, 00:08:30.519 --> 00:08:32.320 really? Some people don't think it's an error. 00:08:32.539 --> 00:08:35.000 Right. Some researchers argue that confirmation 00:08:35.000 --> 00:08:37.299 bias, specifically when interacting with other 00:08:37.299 --> 00:08:40.639 people, is actually a highly evolved social skill. 00:08:40.919 --> 00:08:44.039 Wait, how could ignoring facts to preserve your 00:08:44.039 --> 00:08:47.340 own worldview possibly be a valuable social skill? 00:08:47.480 --> 00:08:50.440 Think about it in terms of tribal cohesion. If 00:08:50.440 --> 00:08:52.899 you meet someone new and you ask them leading 00:08:52.899 --> 00:08:55.500 questions that confirm their own assumptions 00:08:55.500 --> 00:08:58.299 about themselves or the world, you are validating 00:08:58.299 --> 00:09:01.240 their identity. You are reducing friction. Oh, 00:09:01.240 --> 00:09:03.440 wow. I never thought about it like that. Yeah. 00:09:04.000 --> 00:09:06.539 In a prehistoric environment, social cohesion 00:09:06.539 --> 00:09:09.000 and establishing quick alliances were vastly 00:09:09.000 --> 00:09:11.779 more important for survival than objective truth. 00:09:12.639 --> 00:09:15.059 Confirming someone else's bias is an incredibly 00:09:15.059 --> 00:09:18.200 fast way to build a social bond. So, nodding 00:09:18.200 --> 00:09:20.799 along to an irrational belief might have literally 00:09:20.799 --> 00:09:23.240 kept our ancestors from being exiled from the 00:09:23.240 --> 00:09:25.799 group. That completely flips the script on how 00:09:25.799 --> 00:09:28.500 we view these glitches. It really does. But let's 00:09:28.500 --> 00:09:30.299 look at what happens when the cohesion breaks 00:09:30.299 --> 00:09:33.440 down. We've assessed our reality, and now something 00:09:33.440 --> 00:09:36.820 goes wrong. We enter the phase of causal attribution. 00:09:37.419 --> 00:09:40.399 We have to assign blame. And this is where we 00:09:40.399 --> 00:09:43.500 see a massive double standard in human cognition, 00:09:43.799 --> 00:09:47.179 primarily through the actor -observer bias and 00:09:47.179 --> 00:09:49.740 the fundamental attribution error. Meaning we 00:09:49.740 --> 00:09:52.440 evaluate our own actions using entirely different 00:09:52.440 --> 00:09:54.700 metrics than we use for other people. Exactly. 00:09:54.799 --> 00:09:57.039 Give me an example of how that plays out in daily 00:09:57.039 --> 00:10:00.279 life. Okay, imagine you were driving to work 00:10:00.279 --> 00:10:03.460 and you aggressively cut someone off in traffic. 00:10:03.870 --> 00:10:06.289 How do you justify it? I tell myself it's because 00:10:06.289 --> 00:10:07.950 I'm running late, the kids were screaming this 00:10:07.950 --> 00:10:10.429 morning, and I just had a momentary lapse in 00:10:10.429 --> 00:10:12.490 judgment because of the situation. Right. You 00:10:12.490 --> 00:10:15.509 blame the external environment. But if another 00:10:15.509 --> 00:10:18.850 driver cuss you off in the exact same way, you 00:10:18.850 --> 00:10:20.830 do not assume they are having a bad morning. 00:10:20.990 --> 00:10:23.570 No, definitely not. You immediately attribute 00:10:23.570 --> 00:10:26.190 their behavior to their innate personality. Yeah. 00:10:26.350 --> 00:10:28.309 You assume they're just inherently a selfish, 00:10:28.590 --> 00:10:30.250 reckless person. We give ourselves the grace 00:10:30.250 --> 00:10:33.129 of context, but we judge everyone else as a static, 00:10:33.490 --> 00:10:36.230 flawed character. Why does the brain do that? 00:10:36.309 --> 00:10:39.090 Is it just pure ego protection again? It is heavily 00:10:39.090 --> 00:10:42.850 ego protection, yes. Internalizing our own failures 00:10:42.850 --> 00:10:46.389 is psychologically damaging, but it is also a 00:10:46.389 --> 00:10:49.070 matter of cognitive load. Cognitive load? Yeah. 00:10:49.149 --> 00:10:51.629 It takes a tremendous amount of mental energy 00:10:51.629 --> 00:10:55.230 to empathize, to actively imagine the complex, 00:10:55.649 --> 00:10:58.389 stressful situational factors that might be influencing 00:10:58.389 --> 00:11:01.429 a stranger's behavior. It's far cheaper, glorically 00:11:01.429 --> 00:11:03.889 speaking, to just categorize them as a jerk and 00:11:03.889 --> 00:11:05.669 move on. Now, I imagine there are people listening 00:11:05.669 --> 00:11:07.190 right now thinking, well, this is great. Now 00:11:07.190 --> 00:11:09.549 that I know the fundamental attribution error 00:11:09.549 --> 00:11:11.309 exists, I'm just not going to do it anymore. 00:11:11.429 --> 00:11:14.230 I'm cured. Unfortunately, no. The source material 00:11:14.230 --> 00:11:16.590 actually has a specific classification for that 00:11:16.590 --> 00:11:19.769 exact belief. It is called the G .I. Joe Fallacy. 00:11:19.990 --> 00:11:22.470 The G .I. Joe Fallacy. Like, knowing is half 00:11:22.470 --> 00:11:25.389 the battle. Exactly. It's the tendency to think 00:11:25.389 --> 00:11:28.370 that merely knowing about a cognitive bias is 00:11:28.370 --> 00:11:31.190 enough to overcome it. We assume that awareness 00:11:31.190 --> 00:11:34.789 equals control. But these are foundational operating 00:11:34.789 --> 00:11:37.210 systems in the brain. You cannot simply turn 00:11:37.210 --> 00:11:39.490 them off just because you read a Wikipedia article 00:11:39.490 --> 00:11:41.789 about them. It's like knowing about optical illusions. 00:11:42.009 --> 00:11:44.090 Even when you know the two lines are exactly 00:11:44.090 --> 00:11:46.610 the same length, your eyes still force you to 00:11:46.610 --> 00:11:49.549 see one as longer. You can't out -think the hardware. 00:11:50.090 --> 00:11:52.710 Precisely. Which brings us to the most vulnerable 00:11:52.710 --> 00:11:55.509 part of the thought, life cycle memory. The event 00:11:55.509 --> 00:11:58.289 has happened. We've made our choices. We've assigned 00:11:58.289 --> 00:12:01.009 blame. Now we have to store the experience we 00:12:01.009 --> 00:12:03.029 transitioned into the recall phase. And the most 00:12:03.029 --> 00:12:04.590 important thing to understand here is that human 00:12:04.590 --> 00:12:07.169 memory is not a video camera recording objective 00:12:07.169 --> 00:12:10.029 facts. Not even close. It feels more like a game 00:12:10.029 --> 00:12:12.230 of telephone we play with ourselves over time. 00:12:12.529 --> 00:12:14.649 That is an incredibly accurate way to describe 00:12:14.649 --> 00:12:17.649 it. One of the primary mechanisms dictating how 00:12:17.649 --> 00:12:20.669 we store information is the peak -end rule. Okay, 00:12:20.730 --> 00:12:23.210 what is that? Well, we do not perceive the sum 00:12:23.210 --> 00:12:25.750 total of an experience. We do not average out 00:12:25.750 --> 00:12:28.669 every minute of an event. Instead, the brain 00:12:28.669 --> 00:12:31.429 heavily waits just two specific moments, the 00:12:31.429 --> 00:12:33.710 absolute emotional peak of the experience and 00:12:33.710 --> 00:12:36.590 how it ended. So if I go on a two -week vacation 00:12:36.590 --> 00:12:39.029 and the first 13 days are miserable, it's raining, 00:12:39.169 --> 00:12:41.549 I lose my luggage, the hotel is awful, but on 00:12:41.549 --> 00:12:43.950 the very last day the sun comes out, I have an 00:12:43.950 --> 00:12:46.889 incredible meal, and I watch a breathtaking sunset. 00:12:47.169 --> 00:12:49.429 Your brain is going to average the peak misery 00:12:49.429 --> 00:12:51.870 with that amazing ending, and you will likely 00:12:51.870 --> 00:12:54.850 remember the overall trip as pretty good. Just 00:12:54.850 --> 00:12:57.669 because of the last day? Yes. Because again, 00:12:57.850 --> 00:13:01.149 the brain is a cognitive miser. Storing a minute 00:13:01.149 --> 00:13:03.710 -by -minute emotional ledger of a 14 -day trip 00:13:03.710 --> 00:13:06.450 takes up too much space. Evolutionarily, all 00:13:06.450 --> 00:13:08.129 you really need to remember from an experience 00:13:08.129 --> 00:13:10.929 is the moment of highest threat or highest reward, 00:13:11.330 --> 00:13:14.009 the peak, and the final outcome, the end. Because 00:13:14.009 --> 00:13:16.929 if the outcome was positive, the brain tags the 00:13:16.929 --> 00:13:19.730 entire experience as a net positive to save processing 00:13:19.730 --> 00:13:22.590 power. So what does this all mean for us today? 00:13:22.809 --> 00:13:25.169 Because how is that memory storage changing now 00:13:25.169 --> 00:13:27.149 that we don't even have to rely on our own biological 00:13:27.149 --> 00:13:29.549 hard drives? The sources talk about the Google 00:13:29.549 --> 00:13:32.210 effect, the fact that we are rapidly forgetting 00:13:32.210 --> 00:13:33.710 information because we know we can just pull 00:13:33.710 --> 00:13:37.929 it up on a search engine. Are we actively outsourcing 00:13:37.929 --> 00:13:40.570 our brains? This raises an important question. 00:13:40.809 --> 00:13:43.629 We are outsourcing, but it's an extension of 00:13:43.629 --> 00:13:47.110 a deeply rooted biological process. To understand 00:13:47.110 --> 00:13:49.029 the Google effect, you have to look at what the 00:13:49.029 --> 00:13:52.740 research calls Q -dependent forgetting. Cue dependent 00:13:52.740 --> 00:13:55.259 forgetting. Yeah, our memory is heavily tied 00:13:55.259 --> 00:13:58.480 to context and external triggers If the context 00:13:58.480 --> 00:14:01.080 isn't there the memory is incredibly hard to 00:14:01.080 --> 00:14:04.580 retrieve Furthermore the verbatim effect dictates 00:14:04.580 --> 00:14:07.159 that our brains rarely store exact copies of 00:14:07.159 --> 00:14:09.879 data We remember the gist or the general meaning 00:14:09.879 --> 00:14:12.259 of a conversation Rather than the verbatim wording 00:14:12.259 --> 00:14:14.340 because storing the gist is cheaper than storing 00:14:14.340 --> 00:14:17.740 the exact transcript Exactly. So when you introduce 00:14:17.740 --> 00:14:20.600 a tool like a search engine the brain optimizes 00:14:21.280 --> 00:14:24.059 If the brain knows that the gist is all it needs 00:14:24.059 --> 00:14:27.539 to navigate a situation and the exact verbatim 00:14:27.539 --> 00:14:30.019 data is safely stored on a server that you can 00:14:30.019 --> 00:14:32.860 access in three seconds, it clears the cache. 00:14:33.059 --> 00:14:35.899 Wow. It stops wasting biological energy trying 00:14:35.899 --> 00:14:37.879 to remember facts that the environment is holding 00:14:37.879 --> 00:14:40.360 for you. But outsourcing the facts leaves us 00:14:40.360 --> 00:14:42.919 incredibly vulnerable, doesn't it? If we only 00:14:42.919 --> 00:14:45.779 remember the gist and we rely on external cues, 00:14:46.059 --> 00:14:49.539 how easily can those memories be altered? Alarmingly 00:14:49.539 --> 00:14:52.750 easily. This is the danger of the misinformation 00:14:52.750 --> 00:14:56.289 effect. Because our memories are reconstructions 00:14:56.289 --> 00:14:59.070 rather than recordings, they are highly susceptible 00:14:59.070 --> 00:15:01.149 to interference from post -event information. 00:15:01.309 --> 00:15:03.269 Like someone suggesting a detail that wasn't 00:15:03.269 --> 00:15:05.929 there. Right. If you witness a car accident and 00:15:05.929 --> 00:15:07.889 later someone asks you a leading question like, 00:15:08.210 --> 00:15:10.169 how fast was the car going when it smashed into 00:15:10.169 --> 00:15:12.730 the other car? Your brain might take the word 00:15:12.730 --> 00:15:15.370 smashed, weave it into the reconstruction, and 00:15:15.370 --> 00:15:17.389 actually alter your memory. To make the cars 00:15:17.389 --> 00:15:19.809 appear to be moving faster than they were. Yes. 00:15:20.029 --> 00:15:22.730 You will vividly remember a sequence of events 00:15:22.730 --> 00:15:25.269 that never actually happened simply because the 00:15:25.269 --> 00:15:28.129 cue changed. We're basically retroactively editing 00:15:28.129 --> 00:15:30.570 our own history without realizing it, and that 00:15:30.570 --> 00:15:32.809 brings us to the final task in our life cycle 00:15:32.809 --> 00:15:35.710 opinion reporting. We've taken this heavily edited, 00:15:36.149 --> 00:15:38.549 warped memory, and now we're going to communicate 00:15:38.549 --> 00:15:40.870 our beliefs to other people. And this is where 00:15:40.870 --> 00:15:44.289 we run straight into naive realism. Naive realism. 00:15:44.529 --> 00:15:47.750 Define that for me. It is the profound, unshakable 00:15:47.750 --> 00:15:51.679 belief. that we see the world objectively. We 00:15:51.679 --> 00:15:54.179 assume that our perceptions are direct reflections 00:15:54.179 --> 00:15:57.039 of reality. And the dangerous corollary to this 00:15:57.039 --> 00:15:59.860 is that if we believe we are entirely objective, 00:16:00.419 --> 00:16:03.159 then anyone who disagrees with us must be uninformed, 00:16:03.559 --> 00:16:06.399 irrational, or heavily biased. Exactly. It creates 00:16:06.399 --> 00:16:08.980 an impossible barrier for communication. Because 00:16:08.980 --> 00:16:11.480 if I think my warped memory is object to fact, 00:16:11.639 --> 00:16:13.259 I'm not going to listen to your perspective. 00:16:13.620 --> 00:16:15.740 Which leads right into the ultimate blinders, 00:16:15.799 --> 00:16:17.720 the bias blind spot. Oh, the bias blind spot 00:16:17.720 --> 00:16:20.450 is fascinating. It's incredibly easy for us to 00:16:20.450 --> 00:16:22.570 spot all these glitches in other people, right? 00:16:22.879 --> 00:16:25.820 I can clearly see when my coworker is anchoring 00:16:25.820 --> 00:16:28.440 on a bad number or falling for the fundamental 00:16:28.440 --> 00:16:31.639 attribution error. But you are physically incapable 00:16:31.639 --> 00:16:34.740 of seeing those exact same biases operating in 00:16:34.740 --> 00:16:36.980 your own mind. And when you do finally share 00:16:36.980 --> 00:16:39.740 your opinions, you are further constrained by 00:16:39.740 --> 00:16:42.679 social desirability bias. Yes, because your memory 00:16:42.679 --> 00:16:46.779 is just a flexible representation, you will unconsciously 00:16:46.779 --> 00:16:49.919 warp the details as you speak to fit your current 00:16:49.919 --> 00:16:52.100 social needs. You highlight actions that make 00:16:52.100 --> 00:16:54.250 you look good to the group and suppress the details 00:16:54.250 --> 00:16:56.730 that make you look bad. The reporting itself 00:16:56.730 --> 00:16:59.269 becomes another layer of distortion. When you 00:16:59.269 --> 00:17:02.159 lay it out sequentially. It's a miracle we managed 00:17:02.159 --> 00:17:04.640 to function as a society at all. It really is. 00:17:04.759 --> 00:17:06.740 So let's pull all the way back and look at the 00:17:06.740 --> 00:17:08.539 terrifying life cycle we've just mapped out. 00:17:08.960 --> 00:17:11.660 It starts with your brain grabbing onto an arbitrary 00:17:11.660 --> 00:17:14.380 anchor just to save energy. Right. You make a 00:17:14.380 --> 00:17:16.579 choice based on immediate gratification because 00:17:16.579 --> 00:17:18.759 your ancient biology doesn't care about tomorrow. 00:17:19.359 --> 00:17:21.599 You build a terrible chair and hallucinate that 00:17:21.599 --> 00:17:24.180 it's a masterpiece to protect your ego. Yep. 00:17:24.480 --> 00:17:27.069 Effort justification. You blindly assume you 00:17:27.069 --> 00:17:29.390 understand how zippers and complex systems work, 00:17:29.470 --> 00:17:32.049 and you aggressively ignore any data that threatens 00:17:32.049 --> 00:17:35.089 your worldview. When things go wrong, you blame 00:17:35.089 --> 00:17:37.329 the universe for your mistakes, but you blame 00:17:37.329 --> 00:17:40.069 your friends' personalities for theirs. The classic 00:17:40.069 --> 00:17:42.509 fundamental attribution error. You store all 00:17:42.509 --> 00:17:45.470 of this in a deeply flawed memory bank that only 00:17:45.470 --> 00:17:47.750 cares about the best meal you had and the flight 00:17:47.750 --> 00:17:51.569 home. And finally, you confidently explain your 00:17:51.569 --> 00:17:54.049 perspective to the world, utterly convinced that 00:17:54.049 --> 00:17:56.599 you are the only objective observer in the room. 00:17:57.019 --> 00:17:59.039 It's a lot to take in. So why should you, the 00:17:59.039 --> 00:18:01.480 listener, care about this massive catalog of 00:18:01.480 --> 00:18:04.220 glitches? Because while you cannot outsmart your 00:18:04.220 --> 00:18:07.079 own biology, the G .I. Joe fallacy guarantees 00:18:07.079 --> 00:18:09.059 that just knowing this stuff won't cure you. 00:18:09.460 --> 00:18:11.740 Understanding this framework gives you a diagnostic 00:18:11.740 --> 00:18:14.559 tool. Absolutely. When you feel yourself reacting 00:18:14.559 --> 00:18:17.519 defensively to a coworker or when you catch yourself 00:18:17.519 --> 00:18:19.839 judging a stranger's character instead of considering 00:18:19.839 --> 00:18:22.000 their situation, you can hit the pause button. 00:18:22.279 --> 00:18:24.599 You can recognize the mechanism in real time. 00:18:24.839 --> 00:18:27.339 you step out of the illusion of objectivity. 00:18:27.609 --> 00:18:30.589 even just for a fraction of a second, to acknowledge 00:18:30.589 --> 00:18:32.529 the evolutionary currents that are pushing your 00:18:32.529 --> 00:18:35.049 decisions. It fosters a tremendous amount of 00:18:35.049 --> 00:18:37.690 intellectual humility. I completely agree. And 00:18:37.690 --> 00:18:39.829 I want to leave you with one final provocative 00:18:39.829 --> 00:18:42.250 concept from the source material to mull over 00:18:42.250 --> 00:18:45.690 on your own. As we've discussed, the brain relies 00:18:45.690 --> 00:18:48.369 on these shortcuts because it is constantly trying 00:18:48.369 --> 00:18:51.769 to offload cognitive effort. Well, buried in 00:18:51.769 --> 00:18:54.029 the research is something called automation bias. 00:18:54.269 --> 00:18:57.759 Ah. Automation bias. It is the human tendency 00:18:57.759 --> 00:19:01.400 to depend excessively on automated systems. It 00:19:01.400 --> 00:19:04.180 is so powerful that humans will actually override 00:19:04.180 --> 00:19:06.700 their own correct decisions just because a machine 00:19:06.700 --> 00:19:09.240 told them otherwise. It is the ultimate manifestation 00:19:09.240 --> 00:19:12.039 of the cognitive miser. If a machine offers an 00:19:12.039 --> 00:19:15.160 answer the brain accepts it to save energy. even 00:19:15.160 --> 00:19:17.779 if the answer defies logic. And as we move into 00:19:17.779 --> 00:19:20.180 a world where artificial intelligence is increasingly 00:19:20.180 --> 00:19:22.720 doing our estimation, our hypothesis assessment, 00:19:22.779 --> 00:19:25.480 and our recall for us, what happens to our critical 00:19:25.480 --> 00:19:27.500 thinking? That is the million dollar question. 00:19:27.779 --> 00:19:30.839 If our brains are biologically hardwired to take 00:19:30.839 --> 00:19:33.599 the path of least resistance, will the AI tools 00:19:33.599 --> 00:19:36.559 we build simply amplify our existing biases? 00:19:37.420 --> 00:19:39.660 Or will they eventually become the objective 00:19:39.660 --> 00:19:42.259 baseline we've never been able to achieve? Something 00:19:42.259 --> 00:19:44.279 for you to keep in mind the next time you blindly 00:19:44.279 --> 00:19:47.059 trust a GPS system that tells you to turn your 00:19:47.059 --> 00:19:49.779 car directly into a lake. We may be running on 00:19:49.779 --> 00:19:51.960 ancient hardware, but we are the ones writing 00:19:51.960 --> 00:19:53.920 the code for what comes next. That's our deep 00:19:53.920 --> 00:19:56.140 dive for today. Keep questioning the code, and 00:19:56.140 --> 00:19:57.579 we will catch you on the next one.