Humans are optimising machines. We strive to improve and simplify our lives and the world around us. Yet sometimes we optimise for the wrong thing and can make things much worse for ourselves.
In nature, if we examine the paths of evolution, animals seeking food or water flowing from the mountains to the sea fall, we always see the path of least resistance appears. It is natural to optimise towards a goal and quickly neglect other options that are more arduous. The path of least resistance could also be called the lazy option.
Human thinking also follows the exact same laws of nature, wanting to find the “psychological path of least resistance”. The problem is this ‘lazy’ thinking can actually lead us to much worse destinations than if we took the difficult approach.
Imagine you are lost in the woods and need to find your way out before sunset.
You come across two strangers, one who confidently points to the right and says, "That way leads to the highway," and another who shrugs and says, "I'm not sure, but I think it's that way." Which one would you trust more?
Most people would choose the first stranger, even if they had no idea where the highway was because at least they offered a clear answer. But what if the first stranger was a prankster who wanted to mislead you, or if they just wanted to seem helpful or if they are also lost but have false confidence?
While perhaps the second stranger had a better sense of direction but lacked confidence because they like to be completely accurate?
In this case, the path of least resistance would lead you further away from your goal.
There are many ways in which our natural lazy thinking can be our downfall. On several occasions, this also ties into our ego which is, of course, the topic of the series.
Here we will break down the 7 biggest flaws and how to improve them.
1 - The Quick Elimination of Doubt and Uncertainty:
As the example of being lost in the woods. We don’t like feeling uncertain and quickly jumping on a solution that helps us eliminate doubt. After all eliminating doubt and uncertainty is comforting, but it's not always the best solution.
Having strong opinions, even if we have no idea what we're talking about, can lead to misunderstandings, ignorance, and blindness toward risk. It's important to acknowledge that life is complex, and uncertainty is a part of it. Instead of looking for quick solutions, we should learn to embrace uncertainty and be open to different possibilities.
This is especially obvious in media where the reality of many things we want to learn about has a complex answer yet we listen to those who confidently give us a single solution.
Relationships, work, addictions, weight loss. There are many different solutions to whatever situation you are in that will be highly different to each individual.
Anyone that claims to have a single answer to one of these problems will sound confident, but really we should listen to someone who doesn’t guarantee.
We should accept uncertainty with any solution and be open to trying different things.
2 - Single-Cause Explanations for Complex Events:
Suppose you are watching a basketball game, and your team loses by a single point. You feel frustrated and blame the referee for missing a critical call that could have turned the game around. But what if the referee was not the only factor?
What if your team missed several easy shots, committed more turnovers, and lacked cohesion on defence? In this case, the path of least resistance would be to blame the referee, rather than examine the full picture.
It's tempting to assign a single cause to complex events.
However, this rarely captures the full picture. Big things in the world are usually a bunch of small, random, and boring things that compound at just the right time and explode into something bigger and more powerful than anyone imagined.
Understanding the complexity of events can help us avoid making hasty decisions, and instead, take a more nuanced approach.
Jumping on a single-cause explanation makes it easy for us to blame something or someone. This often can lead to us developing anger at something which can cause frustration and escalation of our problems.
It is better to be open to considering many causes and remember that there will be causes we can’t even think of. Then we can instead accept the situation and do the important work of seeking where we might also improve the situation internally through our own efforts.
I recently unpacked my bag and found I broke my new travel screen during the flight. The bag had been full but I squeezed my girlfriend’s book in there which she had forgotten. It pushed too much against the screen protector and cracked my lovely new screen.
It would be easy to blame the final item, the book (and thus my girlfriend for forgetting it). But that would brush over the fact that every single item in my packing contributed to the overall full nature of the bag. Things like my podcasting mic or press-up blocks that most normal people don’t have… Then there was the fact I could have put the offending book in my jacket pocket and I still wouldn’t have a broken screen.
Single-cause blame is a great way to blame others and cause arguments for things we can take more responsibility for. Leading nicely to the next point.
3 - The Justification of Your Own Actions and the Judgment of Others:
Think about the last time you made a mistake or a bad decision. How did you react? Did you accept responsibility, or did you rationalize your behaviour by saying, "I had no choice," or "I did it for the greater good" or “Life got on top of me”?
Now, imagine someone else making the same mistake. How would you judge them? Would you be more forgiving, or more critical? In both cases, the path of least resistance would be to protect your ego and minimize your guilt, while projecting your flaws onto others.
This point is possibly the most interesting and worthy of an entire episode because we are so quick to justify ourselves and yet blame others. It’s no mistake that the bible preaches to “treat others as we would wish to be treated”, because it’s so hard to do, but if everyone were more sympathetic there would be so much less anger in the world.
We tend to judge others based on their actions, but when it comes to ourselves, we justify our mistakes and bad decisions. This is because we are keenly aware of 100% of what's going on in our own heads, but blind to 99.9% of what's happening in other people's heads. This can lead to misunderstandings and a lack of empathy.
I find it fascinating that people can justify their actions, even if they are morally questionable, by framing them in a way that seems rational and reasonable to them. This point raises questions about our ability to objectively evaluate our own actions and how this subjectivity can lead to ethical lapses or questionable decision-making.
I’m sure we all relate to these next examples:
A friend who gossips about others behind their backs, but gets defensive when others criticise them.
A driver who yells at other motorists for making mistakes, but justifies their own driving mistakes or times they need to behave recklessly. I love the saying “People who drive slower than you are numb-nuts and people who drive faster are reckless”
Judging politicians for avoiding tax - whilst half the journalists and onlookers are also avoiding tax or trying to avoid tax...
Criticising coworkers who are late to meetings but make excuses for our own tardiness rather than blaming our own incompetence.
Justification of evil acts
Morgan Housel reminds us that;
“most people are either good at filtering their crazy thoughts, or struggle to articulate their nuanced thoughts, we are blind to the vast majority of what people are thinking and how they justify their actions.”
The book “Evil” examines how people can commit heinous acts. It’s important to know that the majority of evil people do not think they are doing anything wrong. It’s just that we aren’t aware of how they justify their behaviour and the path of thinking they used to get there.
Evil usually enters the world unrecognised by the people who open the door and let it in. Most people who perpetrate evil do not see what they are doing as evil. Evil exists primarily in the eye of the beholder, especially in the eye of the victim.
Evil is but rarely found in the perpetrator’s own self-image. It is far more commonly found in the judgments of others.
This means we have a very poor estimation of the odds that we can do evil ourselves.
Morgan Housel further makes the point that ordinary people can be brainwashed into believing outrageous things that, in their minds, justify outrageous actions. Just look at the Russian soldiers given Russian media that Ukraine is led by Nazis and a threat to the Russian nation and all things that are good.
Primo Levi, the Holocaust survivor, said, “Monsters exist, but they are too few in number to be truly dangerous. More dangerous are the common men, ready to believe and to act without asking questions.”
We commonly see the Nazis as evil, but how did an entire country of rational humans become evil? In a book about world war 2, by a German soldier, he recounts being unable to understand why the Americans were so angry at them. Why couldn’t the Americans see that the Nazis were trying to save Europe, they were the good guys.
It’s a painful but important reminder that intentional acts of evil are very rare. In reality, the biggest problems in the world come from a lack of understanding, bad/blocked communication and poor empathy.
4 - The Belief that Your Own Field of Vision is the Same as Everyone Else's:
Consider someone who has never left their hometown and knows nothing about other cultures or languages. They might assume that their way of life is the only right way. But what if they met someone from a different background who challenges their assumptions and offers a new perspective? In this case, the path of least resistance would be to cling to their narrow worldview, rather than expand their horizons and embrace diversity.
Nothing is more persuasive than what we've seen and experienced firsthand. However, our experiences are limited, and we often mistake different opinions for a lack of intelligence.
It's important to acknowledge that everyone's perspective is unique and to be open to different opinions and beliefs. This can help us develop a more nuanced understanding of the world, and avoid making hasty judgments.
Some other examples you might relate to:
A person assumes that their own way of doing a task is the most efficient, and is surprised to learn that other people have come up with different, but equally effective methods.
A group of friends argue about the best type of music, each assuming that their own preference is the most popular and widely liked.
Two people witness an event from different angles and report completely different accounts of what happened.
A child is confused when his friend doesn't immediately notice something interesting in the clouds, not realizing that their different perspectives are the cause.
I love this related quote from Daniel Kahneman: “You are more likely to learn something by finding surprises in your own behaviour than by hearing surprising facts about people in general.”
5 - The Desire to Prioritise Statistics with Stories:
Suppose you are trying to decide whether to get vaccinated against a disease. You read a report that says the vaccine has a 90% success rate in preventing the disease, but also a 10% chance of side effects. You also hear a story from a friend who got the vaccine and felt sick for a day, but then fully recovered. Which one would influence your decision more? Most people would say the story, even though it represents a tiny fraction of the data and could be biased or anecdotal. In this case, the path of least resistance would be to trust emotions over evidence.
People often prioritise stories more than statistics. While stories can be effective at showing us what certain parts of a statistic mean, they can also be dangerous when broad statistics are ignored over powerful anecdotes.
It's important to balance stories with data and statistics and avoid making decisions based solely on anecdotal evidence.
One element of this is that a story might highlight a single cause that has nothing to do with the reality of the result (re: issue 2, desire for a single explanation).
A friend loses weight on a diet but also had hit the point in their life where they were really going to take it seriously and had a great exercise routine with a training partner that kept them motivated.
In this case, any diet would have worked, yet the story would have told you the diet was the cause. If you try the diet and ignore everything else you still won’t get the results.
The statistics of all contributing factors to weight loss would be much more accurate than a single story.
6 - Outsourcing your hard decisions to the opinions of pundits, consultants, and experts of various qualifications.
Imagine you're a CEO of a large company and you need to decide whether to invest in a new project that could have a big impact on the company's future. You could spend months researching the project and analyzing the data, but that takes a lot of time and effort. Instead, you decide to hire a team of consultants to do the research for you and give you a recommendation. The consultants come back and say that the project is a good investment, so you go ahead and invest the money. However, the project turns out to be a complete failure, and you lose millions of dollars.
In this case, you outsourced your hard decision to the consultants, thinking that they would make the right call for you. But ultimately, you were the one responsible for the decision, and you didn't take the time to fully understand the risks and benefits of the project before investing.
We often outsource our hard decisions to experts, consultants, or pundits because we believe they have more knowledge or experience than we do. We assume that they have more accurate information or insights that can help us make better decisions.
But the problem with this approach is that these experts and consultants may not always have our best interests at heart, or they may be limited by their own biases and perspectives. They may also be influenced by financial incentives, which can lead them to give advice that benefits them more than it benefits us.
They can also have false confidence when they should be less certain (problem 1, desire to reach a fast decision).
So, it’s important to remember that while experts and consultants can provide valuable guidance, we should also be critical of their advice and make sure that we understand the underlying assumptions and potential biases.
It's easy to assume that other people are smarter than we are and to outsource our decision-making to experts. However, this can lead to a lack of accountability and can make us more susceptible to groupthink. Instead, we should take responsibility for our decisions, and weigh different perspectives before making a choice.
(see previous posts on Why everyone is wrong)
Consultants’ main value added to clients is often letting middle managers justify decisions to senior managers. “We’re doing this project because the consultants told us to do it.”
7 - Overconfidence as a way of shielding against the uncomfortable fact that the world is driven by probability, not black-and-white certainties.
Imagine you're a professional poker player, and you're playing in a high-stakes game with a lot of money on the line. You've been playing well all night and you've built up a big stack of chips. As the game goes on, you start to get more and more confident in your abilities. You start taking bigger risks, betting more aggressively, and making bigger bluffs. But eventually, your luck runs out and you start losing hand after hand. Before you know it, you've lost all of your chips and you're out of the game.
In this case, your overconfidence was a shield that protected you from the uncomfortable truth that the game is driven by probability, not a certainty. You convinced yourself that you were invincible and that you couldn't lose, but in reality, you were just one bad hand away from losing everything. By ignoring the probabilities and taking unnecessary risks, you end up losing everything you had worked for.
We overestimate our own abilities and underestimate the role of luck and chance in our lives.
We assume that our success is due solely to our own skills and hard work and that our failures are the result of external factors beyond our control.
This overconfidence can lead us to take unnecessary risks or make poor decisions, especially when we fail to acknowledge the role of probability and uncertainty in our lives. It can also prevent us from learning from our mistakes and adapting to changing circumstances.
To avoid the trap of overconfidence, it’s important to stay humble and open-minded and to recognize that success and failure are often the results of a complex interplay of factors, including luck, skill, and circumstance. By doing so, we can improve our decision-making and increase our chances of achieving long-term success and happiness.
See my post on Thinking in Bets
We always want to distinguish between the right or wrong decision but ultimately most of life isn’t this distinct. Things are probabilities.
The weatherman says that there is a 20% chance of rain that does not mean 20% of the day will have rain or that there will just be a humid day. It means that 1 in 5 times there will be rain when he gives this prediction and 4 in 5 times there won’t.
So if you never take your umbrella when he says 20% chance of rain. 1 in five times you will get rained on. On the day you were rained on, you 100% experienced rain, it was there, but the weatherman was not wrong.
Conclusion
Most people take the easy option of holding onto their beliefs through denial or over-optimism (and stories) rather than accepting probabilities.
In the first story of the helpful strangers, we had one with certainty and optimism and the other with less certainty and probabilities. It is usually wiser to trust those who lack certainty and talk in probabilities rather than black and whites.
Following this, someone who is open to the possibility of being wrong is much less likely to do evil or assume that others share their narrow worldview.
Your ego wants you to be correct, it is easy to fall straight into the traps of lazy thinking.
As ever, if you don’t learn to control your ego, it will control you.
If you liked this it was very much based on a post by Morgan Housel
Nice piece, as always, Sam! 💪On "The Desire to Prioritise Statistics with Stories", I also had to think of an opposite situation where the statistic says a negative statistic about shark attacks, but most people only have friends have never been attacked by a shark, despite spending lots of time in the ocean... yet we believe the stat and not the story. It seems like there's another nuance here, about believing the thing that satisfies an agenda we have. Kinda like confirmation bias.