Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.



Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view




whats new at ieet

Self Absorption

Wage Slavery and Sweatshops as Free Enterprise?

Currency Multiplicity: Social Economic Networks

#21: Your nanorobotics future: life truly becomes ‘magical’

Meaning, Value and the Collective Afterlife: Must others survive for our lives to have meaning?

From German Idealism to American Pragmatism


ieet books

Virtually Human: The Promise—-and the Peril—-of Digital Immortality
Author
Martine Rothblatt


comments

instamatic on 'Wage Slavery and Sweatshops as Free Enterprise?' (Dec 19, 2014)

instamatic on 'Four questions for Social Futurists, and others' (Dec 18, 2014)

CygnusX1 on 'Four questions for Social Futurists, and others' (Dec 18, 2014)

instamatic on 'Four questions for Social Futurists, and others' (Dec 18, 2014)

CygnusX1 on 'Four questions for Social Futurists, and others' (Dec 17, 2014)

instamatic on 'Four questions for Social Futurists, and others' (Dec 17, 2014)

Jessie Henshaw on 'Defining “Benevolence” in the context of Safe AI' (Dec 16, 2014)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



JET

Enframing the Flesh: Heidegger, Transhumanism, and the Body as “Standing Reserve”

Moral Enhancement and Political Realism

Intelligent Technologies and Lost Life

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


Review of Michio Kaku’s, Visions: How Science Will Revolutionize the 21st Century
Dec 15, 2014
(9396) Hits
(0) Comments

What Will Life Be Like Inside A Computer?
Dec 7, 2014
(8301) Hits
(0) Comments

Bitcoin and Science: DNA is the Original Decentralized System
Nov 24, 2014
(7759) Hits
(0) Comments

Brain, Mind, and the Structure of Reality
Nov 21, 2014
(5427) Hits
(0) Comments



IEET > Security > Rights > Life > Vision > Interns > George Deane

Print Email permalink (5) Comments (3339) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


Cognitive Biases in Evaluating Human Life


George Deane
By George Deane
Ethical Technology

Posted: Jul 25, 2013

One of the greatest feats of the human brain is its ability to filter a vast amount of information into a manageable stream of relevant information. Evolution has sculpted the course of this stream in order to maximize fitness, ensuring that we pay attention to things that are relevant for our survival and reproduction, and filter out irrelevant.

Aldous Huxley describes this as a ‘reducing valve’ – our brains funnel the enormous amount of information in the environment in whichever way proved to be most adaptive to our ancestors.

This means two things; we have sampled an excruciatingly tiny portion of the buffet of potential experiences our neural hardware is capable of, and we are insensitive to certain environmental information that didn’t confer an adaptive advantage in the ancestral environment. Developing sensitivity to this information is crucial for rational and ethical behaviour in the modern world.

Cognitive biases can lead the most empathic and conscientious people to behave in ways that could appear as sheer callousness.

The source of this seemingly selfish behaviour is not malice or indifference, but more that our brains are not equipped to apprehend reality as it really is. By recognizing our cognitive limitations we can understand why people act in inconsistent and unethical ways and how we can avoid falling into the same trap ourselves.

If people acted in accordance with their espoused egalitarian preferences, they would treat the value of every human life equally. In practice this is not the case. Despite endorsing egalitarian norms studies have shown unconscious cognitive biases can lead to valuation functions that decrease in absolute value as the number of victims increases!

The contributing factors:

  1. Psychophysical Numbing. Contrary to the egalitarian maxim that every life should be valued equally, there is not a linear relationship between number of lives at risk and the size of donations. Instead there is a curvilinear relationship; sensitivity wanes as the number of victims increases. This is known as ‘psychophysical numbing’– diminished sensitivity as the victim number increases, or put differently, people perceive little value in saving an additional person if there are already many lives saved (and if only one person is at risk people value saving that life highly).

  2. Scope Insensitivity. People seem to be insensitive to changes in magnitude. It has been shown that people are willing to donate almost the same amount to save 2,000, 20,000 or 200,000 birds drowning in oil ponds. People are insensitive to numbers but are extremely sensitive to the plight of individuals.

  3. Singularity. People often exhibit a surprising amount of caring for individuals but can be relatively unmoved by catastrophes with a large human cost. A single individual often garners more financial support that a group of victims. It appears the singularity effect is related to the absence of other victims because donations tend to decline when the single victim is part of a group.

  4. Proportion dominance. People often give more weight to the proportion of lives they are saving than to the absolute number of lives saved. Although participants evaluated helping a higher number of victims as more normative, in actuality their decisions weren’t sensitive to the number of lives saved. This might be because proportions are easier to evaluate than absolute numbers.

  5. Pseudo-inefficacy. Sometimes knowing the number of lives one cannot save leads to a lack of motivation to help those one can save; a feeling of helplessness quashes motivation. But of course, not being able to save everyone does not undermine the lives one can save; in absolute terms the value remains the same. This is important: not being able to solve the whole problem of poverty doesn’t make the good that can be done any less worthwhile.

  6. Identifiability. Identified victims are valued more than statistical victims. Again, people are unaffected by numbers. Making the identifiable victims makes their plight real in people’s minds. The loss of a single identified life may be felt more deeply than many statistical ones. Apathy increases as the victim numbers grow large enough that they cannot be comprehended emotionally, resulting in compassion fatigue.

People are motivated to action not by facts but by feelings. We simply don’t have the brain power to scale up the compassion and empathy we feel for one person’s suffering to the commensurate degree for 1000 people, or even 10 people. Josef Stalin touched on this insensitivity when he said ‘one death is a tragedy, a million a statistic.’ The direct result of this is that good people are complicit in an enormous amount of suffering happening all over the world.

So what can be done?

The first solution is to recognize our own susceptibility to systematic biases that lead us to unsympathetic behaviour; once this has been recognized our rationality can be deployed to alleviate the greatest amount of suffering possible. Recently this effort has been known as ‘Effective Altruism’, which aims to use evidence and reason to evaluate all actions to achieve the greatest positive impact. (Peter Singer gives and excellent overview of Effective Altruism in his TED Talk.) When allocating resources to humanitarian causes, difficult trade offs must be made and the allocation may largely depend on which ethical theory is adopted. This is cognitively demanding which often leads to people not donating at all.

​Fortunately there are several expert individuals and organizations that do just this, so not everyone has to go through the cognitive strain. Give Well conducts in-depth charity research to find where money can be best spent to have the greatest positive impact. 80,000 Hours can assist in finding careers that will have the greatest positive impact. The life you can save is an excellent starting point for those who want make an ongoing positive impact.

What exactly is it, then, that motivates people to act compassionately? Psychologists have shown that vivid mental imagery plays a central role in affected responses underlying many decisions; emotional impact is crucial in motivating behaviour. The more concrete the mental imagery the stronger the empathic concern. Increasing the number of victims makes mental imagery more difficult and abstract and therefore less of an emotional response is provoked.

It has also been shown that specific features of those in need should be focused on. Presenting individual victims as part of a group tends to reduce affective responses to any single one of them. Priming participants to process information affectively lead to stronger emotions and higher donations.

To conclude, contextual factors that have no normative import can alter how sensitive people are in their valuations of human lives, leading to behaviour wildly at odds with people’s ethical positions. Mechanisms that influence emotional reactions are particularly important in determining the deviations from rationality. How emotions are generated contribute to how people evaluate lives- it is imperative we recognize our cognitive limitations in order to avoid having our moral behaviour dictated arbitrarily by context.

In having the awareness of the power of context on evaluations of human life we find the onus is on us to use reason to avoid behaviour that equates to callous indifference, and instead find the actions most aligned with out ethical standpoints and of the greatest positive impact.

References

Dickert, S., Västfjäll, D., Kleber, J., & Slovic, P. (2012). Valuations of human lives: normative expectations and psychological mechanisms of (ir) rationality. Synthese, 189(1), 95-105.

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/


George Deane is currently studying for and MSc in Cognitive and Decision Sciences at University College London. George's undergraduate studies were in Philosophy. He is especially interested in Neuroethics and the implications of technologies for cognitive enhancement.
Print Email permalink (5) Comments (3340) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


COMMENTS


Umm . . . I’m going to poach the elephant in the room, here, and complain:

When you say, “it is imperative we recognize our cognitive limitations in order to avoid having our moral behaviour dictated arbitrarily by context,” how do you know this moral imperative you’re laying upon us is not dictated arbitrarily by context?  You think your viewpoint is right, and you think observations from human psychology _instantiate_ all of ethics, instead of the possibility that psychology only influences our facilitation of ethical norms; norms which, if they are universal, transcend all psychology.

You sound like an atheist scientist with a fetish for evidence that will prove little more than Descarte’s surely-reliable, circular, God.

Am I wrong?





@Henry Bowers
I think you may have misunderstood. There was a note that I omitted from the final draft that might get at this objection. The point is that there is no ethical system in existence which prescribes our current evaluations of human life.  There appears to be cognitive biases at work that make people inconsistent (irrational) in their ethical behaviour. Awareness of these biases can help us to become more consistent, regardless of whatever system of ethics you happen to adopt. Of course, this inconsistency is no issue to the moral nihilist (or some other niche ethical systems) who may have no interest in being more consistent whatsoever, but I would stress that I think they are very much the minority.

To be clear, nothing of what I have said should be taken as evidence for any ethical system or ‘moral imperative’. The ‘imperative’ I refer to here is what Kant calls a hypothetical imperative, not a moral imperative like you have suggested. The nature of this hypothetical imperative hinges on your own preferred ethical system; if you have egalitarian preferences, and think that human life has uniformly equal value, then your behaviour should be consistent with this preference. The article is meant to highlight discrepancies between espoused preferences and behaviour.  I’m not sure where you got the idea that I think human psychology instantiates all of ethics. Hope this helps.





George,
  Thank you for your helpful and courteous reply; I am sorry I accused you of fetishism.  The distinction between the hypothetical and moral imperatives helps me understand (I think) that your objection is to inconsistencies in applying the hypothetical.  But I’m not sure that inconsistent behavior, per se, evidences irrationality, for indeed, practical reason has to _perform_ some rational task; it can’t just be an extension of the passions.  Therefore, the actions which bring a speculative imperative to fruition will necessarily vary with context; this is because the object of practical reason is not a definable concept (like the object of speculative reason), but rather an Aristotelian “mean between the extremes.”  Would you agree?

Therefore, first principles of practical reason (as pre-moral) could never justify an oath of consistency, and this isn’t human psychology’s fault.  The reason is that there is no hierarchical recipe for which goods will fulfill which agents at which times.  As you can see, I am a New Natural Law sympathizer in this regard, albeit a beginner.





Did not read this piece (skimmed through it) because it is too rich to digest in a short period of time.

“Am I wrong?”

No, you’ve never been ‘wrong’ in your comments, Henry: it is what you leave out. What may matter most is not what we say- it is what we do not say. BTW, have to tell you over ‘n again, have nothing against Christ, but do not trust those who call themselves Christians; they will act in pursuing what they perceive as their own interests even if such negates Christ altogether.. this is only natural. And if you happen to know of anyone who forgives their enemies, let’s have his or her post office address so we can thank them for being unique.
It must be added you are over-intellectualising certain matters- including faith; faith of course not being intellectual but, rather, of the soul, spirit, etc. whatever such might be. If Christ read the following,

“The distinction between the hypothetical and moral imperatives helps me understand (I think) that your objection is to inconsistencies in applying the hypothetical.  But I’m not sure that inconsistent behavior, per se, evidences irrationality, for indeed, practical reason has to _perform_ some rational task; it can’t just be an extension of the passions.  Therefore, the actions which bring a speculative imperative to fruition will necessarily vary with context; this is because the object of practical reason is not a definable concept (like the object of speculative reason), but rather an Aristotelian “mean between the extremes.”  Would you agree? Therefore, first principles of practical reason (as pre-moral) could never justify an oath of consistency, and this isn’t human psychology’s fault.  The reason is that there is no hierarchical recipe for which goods will fulfill which agents at which times.  As you can see, I am a New Natural Law sympathizer in this regard, albeit a beginner”,

He would not think of you as a ‘beginner’, He would consider you a beginner spiritually due to your over-intellectualising that which is not primarily intellectual to begin with. You ought to know there is the terrestrial, and there is the celestial. If you wish others to choose, you yourself will have to choose. And please do not sidestep this by writing it is not relevant to the topic at hand- do not hide behind your faith while calling yourself a Believer: you don’t want to throw the infant Jesus out with the bathwater.
None of this is unfair, you have consistently termed yourself a Christian at a technoprogressive site. Nothing ‘wrong’ with that, however don’t be falsely modest by calling yourself a beginner—if you actually did consider yourself a beginner you would not have provided so many detailed comments. False modesty is IMO ‘worse’ than conceit. Am not going to suggest you write an article because you are obviously not the sort to take such advice.
Shall conclude by writing that in spiritual matters at IEET, you have met your match. My grandfather was a Methodist minister who knew Eleanor Roosevelt. Grandad was ‘tricky as a priest’.. for better and worse. I know all the tricks of the trade from him: only Marjoe Gortner knows more about the trade.





Thanks Intomorrow.  I have thought of writing an article, per your prior mention of it months past, but feel sheepish asking here:  how do members submit articles?  I couldn’t find it on the “Submit to IEET” banner.





YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Review of Mark Coeckelbergh’s Human Being @ Risk

Previous entry: Humanity is Dead as the Dodo

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
56 Daleville School Rd., Willington CT 06279 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376