Darwin’s Golden Rule

One of the oddities of the information age is that it hasn’t really led to an enlightenment of knowledge. In many ways, the firehose of information has made some people less informed.

There are people who believe the earth is flat, the moon landing was a hoax, and Australia doesn’t exist.

But beyond the conspiracy theories for many, the internet has turned into an echo chamber that only enhances people’s confirmation bias.

This shouldn’t be all that surprising when you consider how our brains process arguments and opinions.

Daniel Kahneman has discussed how ideas become part of who we are and why it’s so difficult to change our opinions:

Ideas become part of who we are. People get invested in their ideas, especially if they get invested publicly and identify with their ideas. So there are many forces against changing your mind. Flip-flopping is a bad word to people. It shouldn’t be. Within sciences, people who give up on an idea and change their mind get good points. It’s a rare quality of a good scientist, but it’s an esteemed one.

There was a study performed in the 1980s that exposed a group of people with strongly held positions on social issues to four different arguments on the topic, two pro and two con. For each side of the aisle, there was one argument that was very plausible and another that was wildly implausible.

Researchers found people tended to remember the plausible arguments that supported their views and the implausible arguments that went against their views, forsaking the other side.

So people latch onto arguments that support what they already believe and ignore even plausible evidence to the contrary. Plus, we tend to seek out implausible arguments only when they strengthen our own opinions.

This is why an abundance of knowledge doesn’t necessarily change people’s minds. There is so much data, analysis, opinions, and information available that you can spin almost any argument in your favor if you so choose.

Robert Wright explains the brain’s role in all of this in his book The Moral Animal:

The reason the genetic human arguing style feels so effortless is that, by the time the arguing starts, the work has already been done.

The human brain is, in large part, a machine for winning arguments, a machine for convincing others that its owner is right – and thus a machine for convincing its owner of the same thing. The brain is like a good lawyer: given any set of interests to defend, it sets about convincing the world of their moral and logical worth, regardless of whether they have in fact any of either. Like a lawyer, the human brain wants victory, not truth; and, like a lawyer, it is sometimes more admirable for skill than virtue.

Time and again – whether arguing over a place in line, a promotion we never got, or which car hit which – we are shocked at the blindness of people who dare suggest that our outrage isn’t warranted.

Wright’s book looks at human nature through the lens of evolution and Charles Darwin. Darwin’s study of human nature forced him to take a hard look in the mirror to fight his own confirmation bias.

He said in his autobiography he had a golden rule when he came across ideas that were inconsistent with his theories. Darwin would immediately write down those observations that were in conflict with his work to be able to see the other side in case he was wrong.

Darwin said, “For I had found by experience that such facts and thoughts were far more apt to escape from memory than the favourable ones.”

Many groups of people these days are more concerned with winning than being right.

It’s not easy because your brain will naturally fight news and opinions you don’t agree with but having an open mind doesn’t cost you anything.

The Moral Animal

Further Reading:
The Value of I Don’t Know


This content, which contains security-related opinions and/or information, is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in any manner as professional advice, or an endorsement of any practices, products or services. There can be no guarantees or assurances that the views expressed here will be applicable for any particular facts or circumstances, and should not be relied upon in any manner. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment.

The commentary in this “post” (including any related blog, podcasts, videos, and social media) reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints, and analyses of the Ritholtz Wealth Management employees providing such comments, and should not be regarded the views of Ritholtz Wealth Management LLC. or its respective affiliates or as a description of advisory services provided by Ritholtz Wealth Management or performance returns of any Ritholtz Wealth Management Investments client.

References to any securities or digital assets, or performance data, are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others.

The Compound Media, Inc., an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here: https://www.ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers

Please see disclosures here.