Beyond Instinct

Upgrading Our Risk Judgment OS

Our world is growing more complex and uncertain by the day. Institutions we once trusted are now doubted. Disinformation and conspiracy theories bombard us from all sides. Our environment is vastly different from the one in which we evolved as hunter-gatherers, yet the fundamental human need to survive and thrive remains unchanged. To meet this need in today's landscape, we must evolve more sophisticated abilities to assess and respond to risks.

The COVID-19 pandemic offered us a stark illustration of this predicament, with a global response marred by innumeracy, bias, conflict and tribalism. We find ourselves on similarly shaky ground in the heated debate around risks posed by Artificial Intelligence (AI). On one end of the spectrum, tech luminaries like Elon Musk and Geoffrey Hinton warn of AI posing an existential threat to humanity, likening it to "summoning the demon." At the other end, experts like Andrew Ng and venture capitalists like Marc Andreessen dismiss these alarms as akin to "overpopulation on Mars," arguing that AI will actually save the world.

Recognizing our shortcomings prompts an important question: How can we adapt to make wise survival choices in this climate of confusion and fear? It's high time we reevaluate our conventional methods of assessing potential harm and risk, and consider whether they are still up to the task.

In the face of uncertainty, where do we turn for guidance? Some suggest that our instincts and gut feelings hold the answers. They argue that these primal responses can keep us safe and help us make rapid, often accurate decisions. But in our modern world, is this approach enough or even suitable? However compelling, evidence suggests it falls short. As thinkers like Paul Meehl, Paul Slovic and Daniel Kahneman have shown, biases, mental shortcuts and flaws in human judgment can skew how we perceive risk.

Our risk judgment is often clouded by an instinctual bias towards the dramatic and memorable. Terrorist attacks, for example, despite their relative rarity, loom large in our collective consciousness. This is a result of the 'availability heuristic,' a cognitive shortcut where we inflate the likelihood of events that are eye-catching and easily recalled, while we downplay or disregard the risks associated with more common but statistically more hazardous situations.

Similarly, our judgment is frequently skewed by 'base rate neglect' - a tendency to ignore broad statistical information and instead focus on specific, anecdotal accounts. With this bias, our recent experience visiting a foreign city, for instance, can feel more significant than (more predictive) violent crime or road accident rates.

In each of these instances, our instinctive risk assessment falls short, underscoring the need for decision-making processes that incorporate sound data and rational analysis.

Those of us inhabiting post-industrial, high-income societies face a radically different threat landscape than the one that shaped our ancestral survival instincts. We now live in an environment where innate limbic system responses to physical, environmental, and informational cues often end up hurting rather than helping us. 

In fact, our continued survival and longevity today rely largely on placing our trust in scientific, evidence-based institutions. It also requires developing skills in critical thinking and numeracy (what some call ‘system two’ thinking) that enable us to override those primitive instincts when needed.

Our default operating system will often steer us toward farcical beliefs to avoid our tribe’s ostracism. As sociologists note, social death is worse than physical death. Instead of warning us against some of our top killers, our gut instincts still push us to carve sugar and fat. Time and again, our primal reactions fail to steer us toward choices that dramatically reduce disease and mortality, like embracing vaccines.

Bestsellers like Malcolm Gladwell's 'Blink' and Gavin de Becker's 'The Gift of Fear' have helped popularize the power of intuition. Both authors extol the virtues of our gut feelings, presenting them as swift, astute protectors capable of guiding us through a world fraught with risk. They argue that our primal responses, honed through millennia of evolution, can accurately identify danger and steer us toward safety. Gladwell and de Becker populate their narratives with compelling anecdotes - miraculous airline saves, improbable medical diagnoses, spontaneous avoidance of peril - all testifying to the uncanny wisdom of our instinctive reactions.

However compelling, this praise for intuition falls into a common trap - survivorship bias. We invariably hear about the triumphs - the pilots who skillfully maneuvered their way out of a potential catastrophe or the doctors who made remarkable, against-all-odds diagnoses. These stories are widely shared and celebrated, reinforcing the illusion of intuition as an infallible guide.

Consider how many airline passengers feel real dread boarding a plane, or firefighters sense danger on an ordinary call. Or think about the parental ‘intuition’ that objects to a teenage daughter’s summer travel plans, favoring the supposed safety of a college campus. Yet research suggests 80% of college women endure sexual harassment, with one in four suffering assault on campus.

High-stakes and risk-centric decision domains have been the subject of extensive studies for decades. In many cases, the transition from clinical, experience-based, and intuitive practices to data-driven decisions, algorithms, and simple checklists has drastically reduced risks. Aviation, medicine, and parole boards exemplify this.

Integrating data-driven tools like checklists and algorithms with human expertise boosts safety and accuracy. The modern-era reduction in tragic aviation crashes was the result of mandated pre-flight checklists and structured protocols that reduced pilot oversights. Surgical checklists likewise ensure critical steps are not missed, lowering complications. In diagnosis, machine learning algorithms analyzing massive datasets now match or surpass human doctors’ performance.

A similar transformation occurred in criminal justice and parole decisions. Here, data-based recidivism prediction models consistently outdo subjective and biased human judgment. Across these fields, supplementing intuition with rigorous statistical analysis and defined protocols yields measurable improvements.

To be fair, the widespread fascination with gut instincts stems more from pop culture than books like Gavin de Becker’s “The Gift of Fear.” DeBecker focuses narrowly on instinct for recognizing and reacting to violent behavior.

Yet even here, research uncovers flaws in instinctive risk perception. Our evolved instincts inherently favor the familiar, reflecting primal in-group biases. So we may reflexively fear those appearing different, even when diversity is the norm. This misguides, since most violence in high-income nations comes from familiar people.

Further issues emerge in high-stakes situations like law enforcement. Studies of police lethal force show physiological arousal can warp threat perception. Deeply ingrained stereotyping and implicit bias also skew split-second risk assessments.

It’s obvious today that trusting your guts alone is as useful as pilots insisting on manual flight controls over fly-by-wire, or soldiers favoring ‘good old’ maps over a GPS. We appreciate the visceral appeal, yet wouldn’t board a flight or go into battle without these modern aids.

So what are the alternatives? How can we enhance our risk judgment?

Some of us focused on this question now pursue a multifaceted approach, blending new knowledge, skills, and technology. Learning probabilistic thinking provides a vital foundation. Reframing our relationship with anxiety and stress can liberate us from unease. Most importantly, calibrating our personal risk judgment protects us from bias and fallibility. Together these elevate our “safe-esteem” - our ability to assess and navigate risks.

New apps and wearables will soon help by enhancing situational awareness and risk predictions. Imagine your phone estimating your odds of crime or accident given your location, actions, and profile. Such tools can outperform raw instinct by large margins and will become as familiar as weather and traffic apps. Just as barometers and maps extend our minds by overcoming our cognitive and sensory limitations, personalized risk awareness will empower us to overcome fear and uncertainty.