Idea Garden
Sun, Jun 21
The brain has two evolutionary imperatives; one is to be as efficient as possible (i.e. not work that hard) and the other is to be as useful as possible (saving the body from danger, doing important planning, etc etc.)
If you draw these things on two axes, you get what I like to call the "quadrant theory of doing stuff."
On the horizontal axis we have "exertion": not exertion in the sense of challenging your ability, but rather the sheer mental energy expended to do something. On the vertical axis we have "perceived utility." I say perceived because it is a proxy: a shortcut-of-sorts that the brain uses to gauge true evolutionary utility - that is, the actions that will maximize your chances to pass on your genes (through survival, reproduction, etc). But shortcuts are error-prone, especially when we move to an environment that is highly out-of-distribution; that is, very different from the savannah where our genes were curated. This is why some behavior that would have resulted in increased survival chances a dozen millennia ago (gorging on a high-fat, high-sugar diet in order to avoid starvation, for example) no longer serve us well. So it is with perceived utility.
| High Exertion | Low Exertion | |
|---|---|---|
| High perceived utility | Flow | Entertainment |
| Low perceived utility | Drudgery | Boredom/Rest |
High perceived utility, high exertion:
- doing a fulfilling job or hobby
- learning out of curiosity
- going on a "hero's quest"
High perceived utility, low exertion:
- scrolling social media,
- watching a TV show, gossiping,
- doing something fulfilling but not difficult.
Low perceived utility, high exertion:
- homework, monotonous jobs, what we call "busy work"
Low perceived utility, low exertion:
- meditation, doing nothing, resting
In these four quadrants, our minds constantly experience an attraction towards the top-right corner. We detest the bottom left; we would rather be anywhere else. As such, we are pushed to the bottom right or top left. I'd of course rather do a fulfilling job than a monotonous one, but I'd also rather do nothing at all.
We all acknowledge that copious consumption of social media feeds does not typically have a substantial positive impact on our lives. Why do we still do it, and why does it have a high perceived utility? Because our brains are imperfect out of distribution. The things that entertain us are often pleasurable because they imitate something that gives us a higher chance of survival. Often, this is information about our social environment. Our brains are wired at a very fundamental level to enjoy drama TV shows, funny videos of people embarrassing themselves, or reading about the latest trends done by people you have never met and never will meet. This is because our brain takes a shortcut; instead of meticulously calculating true utility, the instinctual mind often relies on its hard-coded evolutionary heuristics. Of course watching an important stranger embarrass themselves on the internet is not useful to your life, but in the jungle it likely would have been (likely due to the smaller group structure - someone you see once you are likely to see again). But sometimes we take the longer path; looking in the future to manually increase perceived utility of things that have true utility. We can force ourselves to do things that are not immediately fun because we know they will pay off in the future. This is what we call self-control.
To get yourself to do something you don't want to do, make it feel either important (increasing perceived utility by manually adjusting it to reflect true utility), fun (increasing instinctual perceived utility), or easy (decreasing exertion). If you can't do one, it will never be done.
A rule for life: despite your mind instinctually pushing you to the top right, try to spend as much of your time as possible either in the bottom right or the top left. Do fulfilling, difficult things or nothing at all. Rarely are things both low in exertion and high in utility. Our evolutionary heuristics are quite gullible.