This is an interesting hypothesis. The claim is that people have evolved to think intuitively, rather than purely rationally and logically. We have developed this ability because it is necessary when we do not have much information to make decisions but instead have to reason about unobservable properties. This includes thinking about the nature of objects or observations of people. Normally, this intuitive reasoning works pretty well as we live in the world, allowing us to make decisions that are often appropriate.

But, the argument goes, this same intuitive thinking also makes us susceptible to misconceptions, magical thinking, and superstitions.

Well worth reading.

Evolution keeps us superstitious. Now thats lucky – Britain – Times Online

Religion and other forms of magical thinking continue to thrive — despite the lack of evidence and advance of science — because people are naturally biased to accept a role for the irrational, said Bruce Hood, Professor of Experimental Psychology at the University of Bristol.

There is an interesting debate going on about a new field of “neuroeconomics”, which involves the study of human economic behavior using the tools of brain science. It seems that in recent studies people have been asked to make economic decisions, like making investments or placing bets or trusting strangers with money, while their brains are scanned in MRI machines.

It has long been known that people often make decisions that don’t make any sense from a purely rational, economic sense. Kahneman and Tversky showed that people, for example, often make decisions based on “loss aversion” rather than by attempting to maximize their gains. For example, people will often avoid taking a risk with a good chance of paying off if they can avoid taking even a small risk of having a loss. When people make decisions that are not ideal from a purely economic, rational sense, it is important to understand why.

The results from the brain scans are fascinating because they show that two general areas of the brain are active during these economic decisions, the “rational” prefrontal cortex and the deeper limbic system known to be involved with emotions. Moreover, sometimes the limbic activity is stronger than others, and this is when people make decisions that are not rational from an economic point of view.

A similar phenomenon occurs when people are asked to make decisions involving immediate gratification versus long-term rewards — situations like saving for retirement, or quitting smoking. Again, the brain scans show that the limbic areas of the brain show more activity when people consider the immediate gratification option rather than the long-term option. And, the more activity in the limbic system, the more likely the person is to choose immediate gratification. It seems that reason and emotion often compete in the brain, and emotion sometimes wins out, perhaps to the detriment of the person involved.

The debate begins when you consider what, if anything, should be done with these findings. A paternalistic view would suggest that people can be influenced to their detriment by emotions, and that policies should be in place for “saving people from the vagaries of their limbic regions” (Cassidy). Such policies might include changing retirement savings plans from an opt-in model to an opt-out model to encourage the long-term savings that seems to be so hard. Other practices might involve warnings on lottery ticks or cooling off periods before people make large purchases.

The issue under debate is whether such paternalistic responses are appropriate, or rather they are fundamentally against the principle of free will. Is it really “coercion to force people to do or refrain from something against their will for their own good” (Wilkinson). Wilkinson argues that a distinction between rational and emotional decision making is far too simple, and that thought processes are far more complex than that. Further, he argues that the economic ideals that are used to define “rational” behavior are a “mathematical fiction” that should not be used as a standard for human behavior. He counters that people should be considered to be the best judge of their own behavior, and it is not the role of government to get involved in personal judgments and decisions.

This is an interesting debate on the role of human nature in complex decision making and the implications for individuals and society.

To read more, have a look at:

“Mind games: What neuroeconomics tells us about money and the brain.”
by John Cassidy, The New Yorker, 2006-09-18. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060918fa_fact

“Neuro wine in old bottles.”
By Will Wilkinson, TCS Daily, 27 Sep 2006.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092706A

An interesting article on advances in brain science.

Hysteria is a 4,000-year-old diagnosis that has been applied to no mean parade of witches, saints and, of course, Anna O.But over the last 50 years, the word has been spoken less and less. The disappearance of hysteria has been heralded at least since the 1960’s. What had been a Victorian catch-all splintered into many different diagnoses. Hysteria seemed to be a vanished 19th-century extravagance useful for literary analysis but surely out of place in the serious reaches of contemporary science.

…

Functional neuroimaging technologies like single photon emission computerized tomography, or SPECT, and positron emission tomography, or PET, now enable scientists to monitor changes in brain activity. And although the brain mechanisms behind hysterical illness are still not fully understood, new studies have started to bring the mind back into the body, by identifying the physical evidence of one of the most elusive, controversial and enduring illnesses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/science/26hysteria.html?ei=5088&en=8f2f95356581c38c&ex=1316923200&adxnnl=0&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1159282015-vc5Oku88MCGdEvCOVlUmwg&pagewanted=all