<I don’t trust you! Human alertness〉Not Born Yesterday (５)

Hello, hello~ Hello everyone, I am the host Xiao P

Last week we mentioned how we are opening up.

We will first see if the information we receive matches our old understanding.

If so, absorb it.

If not, we will reject it first and then look at its logical context.

Human beings can still be persuaded by reason in most situations.

The world is reasonable.

But not everything we do must be deduced logically, as this would be too troublesome.

So we choose who to believe.

And we will follow three rules.

Listen to those who know more, listen to those who are capable, and finally, listen to the majority.

But if we encounter something that goes against our own cognition, we will still instinctively reject it.

After talking about openness, let’s talk about how to be alert.

In fact, our alertness will increase with openness.

Just like changing from a monovore to an omnivore, the more open the information, the more alert we become.

If we were not alert, the human race would have been eliminated long ago.

However, this vigilance is not just one person's unilateral suspicion.

Do you still remember the very suspicious Mark Polov that Little P and I talked about in my book Decoding Strangers?

We don't want that kind of life.

Moreover, being suspicious like that is not what we mean by alertness.

As stated in Deciphering Strangers, we are very bad at detecting lies, and rightly so.

And we could really misunderstand nervous Sally.

This fits with the idea of ​​evolution, if we can detect lies, then lies shouldn't exist~

Micro-expressions, body movements, lie detectors, none of that works.

We cannot decrypt anyone.

I remember a movie about a world where everyone only tells the truth, and the main character is the guy who accidentally learns to lie, a skill that gives him great advantage.

But do we therefore presuppose it to be true?

No, as I said at the beginning, if this is the case, human beings would have ceased to exist.

Think about it if I told you.

I guarantee that no matter what you say, people will believe you and you will never get caught, what do you think?

I think you should think of a lot of lies~

Being gullible and being able to detect lies is not in line with evolutionary thinking.

So, what about human beings?

We, like the great garden bird, rely on the whole human mechanism to fight misinformation. .

As long as the big garden bird lies and makes a nest that is not suitable for his status, other birds will smash his nest, so that we don't have to engage in unnecessary competition, just tell the truth.

And human beings are the same, but the human system is much more complicated.

Our system is mainly divided into two

relative due diligence and

reputation game

Press... is the reputation of prestige.

Not the fertility you think.

anyway

Let's start with relative conscientiousness.

After verifying the credibility, there is another proper term that sounds complicated but is actually easy to understand.

His point is that we don't want to catch who is lying, but to know who is telling the truth!

Let's first assume that what the other person said is a lie, and then he has to find a way to prove that what he said is true before you can believe him.

Kind of like the burden of proof in law.

Whoever makes a claim must produce evidence.

However, there is an exception to this. If our two interests are the same, then I may ignore whether you have provided evidence and believe you directly.

Like, if Xiao P and I are moving a refrigerator together.

When you shout 1 2 3 lift! I don't wonder if you're lying when you're here. Because our interests were aligned, we both wanted to lift the refrigerator.

Lying at this time will do neither you nor me any good.

Unless you're a cock-breaker.

However, not every scenario is aligned with interests.

Even the mother and the child in her belly have conflicts of interest.

At this time, some people will lie and some will not fulfill their responsibilities.

So what if we catch someone not doing their job?

We will punish him like a big garden bird.

If your friend knows a lot about food, you ask him for restaurant advice.

But he doesn't care about your personal situation at all.

Even though you are a vegetarian, I recommend you a steakhouse.

In such a situation, your friend has failed to fulfill his responsibilities, and you will naturally not trust him so much in the future.

Distrust is his punishment.

Human punishment comes from the reputation game.

The reputation game is really like a game.

He's a bit of a gambler.

Ahhhh, I should say, it's like the prisoner's dilemma we mentioned in the episode "Rationally speaking, you should be a good person" a long time ago. Just added the option of betting money.

He is a game.

In everyday conversation, we say things like, I think, I guess, maybe, maybe.

This kind of statement is controlling expectations.

He's kind of like, how much chips are you going to put down this time to make the other person believe you're telling the truth or lying?

If what you say is what I think I guess, then you have very few chips, and even if what you say is wrong, you will not lose too much chips, that is, trust. However, the other party may not necessarily believe you because you are not responsible enough.

If you say it, I'm sure! I promise! I swear! Then the stakes you place are very high, and the other party has a high chance of believing you. However, if you make a mistake or lie, you may make everyone distrust you.

Put it this way, it really feels like gambling, haha

And as mentioned in the episode You Should Be a Good Guy, as long as you don't know when the game will end, as long as it seems like an infinite game, you should choose to cooperate.

To sum up, we rely on some mechanisms to prevent people from lying.

First, the interests are consistent. If the interests are consistent, there is no need to lie.

The next step is to provide evidence. The person speaking must try to convince the other party as much as possible, and must use the chips of trust, otherwise it will be regarded as a lie.

Finally, there is reputation. People who lie will be punished by not being trusted. Because of this punishment mechanism, we will use "I think" or "I guarantee" when speaking! To control the chips we want to bet and manage the expectations of the other party, because not every time, we can do a complete proof.

However, if there is a person who has no common interests with you, and other people don't care about his reputation, will he lie everywhere?

Yes, he will, but he is the one to worry about, not you.

You don't have to trust him at all, and he won't be trusted by anyone else.

When you are not trusted at all, you cannot survive in this society of strangers, or in the ancient village of acquaintances.

Banks will not lend you money, and villagers will not distribute food to you.

This is why, under normal circumstances, interactions between strangers are conservative. We will test each other. We will not directly trust that the person holding the love pen is really a college student in the design department. We are just forced to Just bought it.

Well, what is openness and alertness, we have finished it in four lectures.

In the next episode~ I will share the conclusions of Hugo analyzing several events with open vigilance.

They are

Political propaganda, rumors, fake news and superstition.

And look what time it is now.

Let me tell you what I think about this book

First of all, why does this book use so many proper nouns?

It's a credibility check, and it's a relative due diligence check, and these words are thrown out without any superficial explanation.

And unlike any other book, Sapolsky's writing is really good, and I love his humor.

Hugo is... yes, you can see it when you look at it.

Moreover, the chapters are very messy, and some places should be talked about consecutively. For example, the openness of the previous episode is actually two chapters. I connected them, and this time the vigilance is only one chapter. Speaking of festivals...

In short, I really want to complain about his sorting.

But can an open mind be able to better explain behavior?

I think it’s ok!

If it is true by default, is it really as wrong as Hugo said?

I don’t think so!

What? How can these two opposite ideas be both right?

Because the scope of application is different!

That line I've said several times on the show.

The symbol of first-class intelligence is someone who can hold two completely different ideas at the same time and still act normally.

Every model and every discipline can only be as close to the truth as possible, but at present, and possibly in the future, there will not be a unified explanation. Every model has a range of applicability.

The following are my personal thoughts. I have no academic background, and I have not done research. It is just pure judgment.

In most daily situations, familiar environments, and matters of stake, people are very rational and open-minded. You may be open and wary, or you may be closed and stubborn, but trusting someone you trust too much is consistent with being open and wary.

In these situations, we are rational.

However, in those situations that we don't often face, such as the scene of a herd experiment, a group of strangers collectively go crazy and say that line A is as long as line B! Or, are intelligence officers who have been doing well all along spies? A large fund is a Ponzi scheme? In this unfamiliar situation, we tend to default to true.

We are driven by emotion.

And in modern times, there is another situation.

Due to the Internet, our openness has been maximized without warning. However, our vigilance has not yet caught up. Therefore, during this window period, it is easier for us to believe false information. For example, it started a few years ago. When using e-mail, there should be people who are all kinds of people. If you don't forward it, you will die! Let the cursed letters burst!

I think this is the incident that the vigilance has not kept up with the opening.

IG . FB . Buy Book. Listen. : https://linktr.ee/cuisineoffreshbook

The above are Xiao P's views on these two statements.

In fact, whether the third situation exists or not, I don’t know.

But I hope there is.

Because if it doesn't exist, and humans are rational, it means only one thing.

That is, the side that human beings try to escape from is much darker.

Well, if you like my show, please subscribe, press like, and share my show with five stars.

See you in the next episode!

Goodbye~