Heuristics, or The Brain’s Preference for Shortcuts

In a discussion with Katarzyna Sankowska-Nazarewicz, Dr. Błaszak unravels the complexities of the human mind and elucidates its operations. What exactly are heuristics, and why do they constitute a staggering 95% of our brain’s activity? To what extent are our decisions truly conscious?

What is the purpose of intuition?

It is a remarkable result of evolution, essential for enabling the brain to conserve a significant amount of energy. The human brain is incredibly energy-deficient, having at its disposal an amount of energy roughly equivalent to a 20-Watt light bulb. This means that for about one cent an hour, it not only perceives, processes thoughts, and experiences emotions but also regulates our entire physiology. Hence, it has learned to intelligently allocate energy to specific tasks. If certain processes can be performed routinely following established patterns, it then reduces costs, applies automation, and switches to autopilot.

A: In addition to this unconscious mind, there is another system. Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist and Nobel Prize laureate in economics, discusses it in “Thinking, Fast and Slow.” System 2 involves “conscious thinking” – forming conscious beliefs, making deliberate choices, or analyzing facts. However, there is a trade-off: System 2 operates slowly and consumes a considerable amount of energy.

B: According to Kahneman’s estimates, System 1, which involves heuristics – simplified, innate rules of reasoning – accounts for 95% of our mind’s activity. This is a startling finding because, practically, it implies that we only have access to five percent of our brains. Currently, we are conversing, and these are verbal reports originating from System 2. We are attempting to be sophisticated and substantive, so it may appear that this is the appropriate thinking model for humans. However, the reality is entirely different: in most instances, our behavior is guided by this unconscious mind, which means: not only do I not know you, but it’s even worse – you also don’t know yourself.

A: Could this, therefore, explain why we sometimes behave irrationally? This was the conclusion drawn by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in the early 1970s. They labeled heuristics as “cognitive biases,” meant to denote the repetitive yet incorrect patterns of human responses to problems associated with evaluation and decision-making.

B: To me, this perspective is entirely baffling. Heuristics should not be construed as an error in any way. Because when we err, we say: I apologize, it won’t happen again. However, heuristics are tendencies in our thought processes that stay with us throughout our lives. Therefore, they can essentially be characterized as a biological trait of our decision-making system.

Kahneman indeed inferred that heuristics demonstrate our irrationality, a conclusion he derived from laboratory experiments, not real-world scenarios with myriad environmental influences. He also juxtaposed heuristics with neoclassical economics or rational choice theory. This theory, however, describes a being that is fundamentally different from our species. While it may apply to hypothetical, hyper-intelligent, emotionless, and supremely rational beings from planet Vulcan, it certainly does not apply to any homo sapiens.

Therefore, I believe the appropriate framework here is not neoclassical economics, but evolution theory. In this context, heuristics, as tools for rapid thinking, represent not a flaw or lapse of nature, but a testament to our resilience. Such rules are invaluable in critical situations that demand swift and economical brain processing.

For instance, at a party, I spot an attractive woman. This scenario leaves no room for contemplation; automatic responses take over: my brain swiftly gauges the significance of this stimulus, assessing her age and health. A basic heuristic, the halo effect, kicks in, leading the mind to deduce that if she is attractive, she must also be intelligent.

A: Fair enough, but when searching for a lifelong partner, it would be prudent to engage System 2.

B: Absolutely. However, I only engage System 2 when feasible. Picture this scenario at the party: both of us are single and holding drinks. To put it succinctly: it’s now or never. If I start pondering her occupation or potential viewpoints at that moment, I am essentially sealing my fate as a perennial singleton. Numerous life situations resemble driving: decisions must be swift and instinctual.

System 2 comes into play later, making necessary adjustments. It might, for example, remind me that besides biological traits, other factors like education, intellect, and sense of humor are also crucial.

A: You noted that System 1 is responsible for 95% of our mental activity. However, I believe this ratio is not consistent for everyone. For instance, my friends recently purchased a car. She wanted a compact vehicle suitable for city travel, a parking camera, and a reasonably sized trunk. Her partner, however, added an additional seven features and organized them in an Excel spreadsheet.

B: Selecting three features, as she did, is already excessive. However, what her partner did was calamitous. I imagine that while she was addressing other essential tasks that day, he was ensnared in decision paralysis, deliberating whether a red or silver car would be better.

If he has the time, sufficient energy, and the willingness to spend hours in front of Excel, then that is acceptable. However, we usually lack that privilege. Furthermore, there are circumstances where we can afford such detailed analysis, but utilizing System 2 is not justified; it is incredibly taxing. Additionally, our lives consist of a series of interconnected decisions. Therefore, if you overly concentrate on selecting a car, you will likely neglect another crucial matter. Succinctly, we all must operate within a similar budget constraint.

So, if evolution were personified and asked them at the end of the day, “How much energy have you expended?” your friend would respond, “One-third.” Evolution would then address her partner, “Indeed, you have a superior car, but the energetic outcome is dismal. And you still have five significant decisions to make today.” At this juncture, he would begin to defend himself, “But I am drained.” Evolution would have only one response, “Regrettably, you have failed.”

Barry Schwartz, an American psychologist and author of “The Paradox of Choice,” conducted a related experiment. He organized a tasting event featuring a variety of exquisite, imported jams. He displayed them on two tables – one offering 20 different flavors, and the other, just six. Naturally, during the tasting, a larger crowd gathered around the table with more options. However, once the tasting concluded and participants were invited to purchase, the sales from the table offering six flavors were tenfold higher.

A: This situation is reminiscent of the tactics employed by travel agencies. They never offer us a selection of 15 trips; they narrow it down to a maximum of three because that’s the only way we are likely to make a decision.

B: Indeed, and it’s also well understood how the relationship between these three ‘menu’ options typically works – we often opt for the middle one, or it might persuade us to go for the most expensive one. Take this everyday scenario: you are buying coffee at a station. You can choose from small, medium, or large. The medium usually costs $2 less than the large and is half its size. Hence, no sensible person would opt for the medium. Its sole purpose is to steer us towards choosing the largest and most expensive option.

A: While it makes sense to use shortcuts for simple consumer decisions, as the cost of a thorough analysis far outweighs any potential loss, there are instances where depending on heuristics is perilous. For example, decisions made in courtrooms. A few years back, there was a widely publicized case where a group of people killed a small bear during a mountain hike. They claimed it attacked them and posed a danger. However, the media only reported about the ‘little bear cub’ and the wicked tourists. A psychologist friend of mine was certain about the outcome of the case.

B: That’s because the term ‘little bear’ is synonymous with a child. And at that moment, that’s a strong enough signal for the brain: do not harm, do not touch! Nobody took into account that it was a predator and could have caused permanent injuries. Have you ever wondered why teddy bears are so beloved? Because stuffed bears don’t resemble little bear cubs; they have the proportions of a baby.

This example of the bear cub, along with countless other daily occurrences, illustrates that judges, being human, find it challenging to remain objective when society has already passed its judgment. I foresee a future where artificial intelligence will replace judges, as it will be capable of emotionlessly analyzing facts and determining guilt. The role of humans will then be confined to merely supporting its decision with a human touch.

A: Another instance where heuristics can mislead us is in our belief in fake news. 

B: The problem lies in the fact that the creators of fake news are adept in the workings of heuristic thinking and are aware that it operates identically in everyone. Hence, they employ a broad spectrum of heuristics. One of the most prevalent is the availability heuristic, which dictates that when information is reiterated frequently, our mind begins to regard it as significant and more probable. 

A: Is that the reason many of us fear flying? 

B: Precisely. Because we don’t take into account that, statistically, airplanes are one of the safest means of transportation. Instead, we are influenced by recent dramatic media coverage of an airplane crash in Colombia. 

Returning to fake news – the confirmation bias is another common heuristic, which posits: that if the facts do not align with my beliefs, then the facts are unfortunate. This reveals that our brain resembles more the profile of a politician than a scientist. When we collect information from others, we often “fall for” fake news because, firstly, we lack the time or desire to think critically, and secondly, we yearn to hear precisely what corroborates our worldview. Because the mind seeks regularity; it aspires to believe in a consistent and logical world. Hence, it dismisses information incongruent with our convictions. From a scientific standpoint, these characteristics depict a rather bleak portrait of Homo sapiens, but from an evolutionary perspective, everything is as it should be. Because evolution is primarily concerned with ensuring the brain propels its possessor towards reproduction, not towards becoming a professor.

A: Since conserving mental energy isn’t a form of laziness but a measure to prevent overwhelm, what additional steps can be taken to avoid overloading our System 2?

B: First and foremost, it’s crucial to learn how to prioritize, as pursuing perfection in all aspects of life is a significant drawback. I’ve learned that, during lectures, only two things truly matter: content quality and a welcoming atmosphere. Administrative details are best left aside.

A: But isn’t there a risk in that approach?

B: Certainly, there is. Yet, if I were to meticulously monitor everything, checking attendance and inquiring about a student’s absence, even when they’re explaining a personal matter like a relative’s funeral, it would cost me more in the long run. Processing such information later and making space for new data is a resource-intensive process for the brain.

Dr. Hab. Maciej Błaszak 

Cognitive Scientist, Biologist, Doctor of Humanities, and Researcher at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań. Former Fellow at Kiel University, the University of Edinburgh, and the University of Berkeley. Specializes in Universal Design Psychology, Neurodidactics, and Brain Fitness. Author of three scholarly monographs and numerous articles.