We love the tangible, the confirmation, the palpable, the real, the visible, the concrete, the known, the seen, the vivid, the visual, the social, the embedded, the emotionally laden, the salient, the stereotypical, the moving, the theatrical, the romanced, the cosmetic, the official, the scholarly-sounding verbiage (b**t), the pompous Gaussian economist, the mathematicized crap, the pomp, the Académie Française, Harvard Business School, the Nobel Prize, dark business suits with white shirts and Ferragamo ties, the moving discourse, and the lurid. Most of all we favor the narrated. Alas, we are not manufactured, in our current edition of the human race, to understand abstract matters—we need context. Randomness and uncertainty are abstractions. We respect what has happened, ignoring what could have happened. In other words, we are naturally shallow and superficial—and we do not know it. This is not a psychological problem; it comes from the main property of information. The dark side of the moon is harder to see; beaming light on it costs energy. In the same way, beaming light on the unseen is costly in both computational and mental effort. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (p. 132). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.
This is key of part one. Elaborate and internalize
We love the sensational, emotional, narrated. We aren't built to understand the abstract—we need context. Randomness and uncertainty are abstractions because we don't see them, we can't touch them, we can't feel them. We only look at what has happened and not what could have happen; we notice only those who succeeded while ignoring those who lost (survivorship bias); we favor information that confirms our beliefs, while rejecting that which disconfirms it (confirmation bias); we prioritize salient things, inhibiting others (priming/availability bias [is this leading to narrative])what else (?) Why? Because our brains evolved in a way simpler environment in which abstract thinking wasn't as necessary as it is now—most things were tangible, sensational, emotional: we were living in Mediocristan. Further, computing both what is seen and what isn't is way more costly.
And because of that we fall for the ludic fallacy—we simplify reality, ridding it of the uncertainties and randomness. (We also simplify it through the narrative fallacy, right? Or is the ludic an outcome of narrative fallacy?) Btw., list out all principles
Btw., is this one of the main laws that govern our brain? And is this a trace to building a new model to understand our psychology (opposed to biases).
WYSIATI is the ludic fallacy, right? It uses narrative fallacy to make it truer?
Can it be somehow related to tk P: Lazy brain
Maybe what's here is the energy saving propensity—the unseen and random is costly cuz it's bigger than the seen. And the proximity is what's responsible for priming, availability, confirmation.
Intuitives, especially thinking types, have an advantage in our world, haven't they?
Think about this shit hard cuz it's one of the cores of this book.
Internalize this and elaborate
we are skewed towards sensing. Thats why Ns are moreopen minded
open mindedness is willingness to face the unknown