Amongst the common fallacies of society, there is one in particular that stands out, not because it is particularly bad compared to the others, but because the problem, and its solution, are so simple. When assayed with a problem, it is human nature to repeatedly correlate the variables that are not under their control with the variables that are under their control. IE, if a toilet is overflowing, a person would not attempt to lug water out of the toilet and throw it outside. Rather, he would turn off the water to his house. The toilet water is unrelated to him, and doing its own thing, but it is related to the water valve. It is not difficult to make such an obvious jump, and in fact, as a human, a person is likely to immediately take that choice, since we are designed to act as soon as we see an answer. IE, it is not human nature to think up multiple options and go with the best one. This makes sense, since, as a predator it is necessary to act before the prey can get away, and when faced with dangerous natural conditions such as other predators, or a blizzard, immediate action is required to insure survival. Evolution really had little incentive to pick out the best option- in general, any decision, even an inferior one, will work. In fact, given that a wolf can survive just fine with its limited intelligence, it follows that a human will make adequate decisions regardless of how stupid they are. The decision will still be better than the one the wolf would've made, which would still have been able to keep said wolf alive.
As stated, humans are not designed to think up multiple options- but this would seem to contradict the standard human experience of conflicting emotions/desires. The answer there is simple, we come to multiple conclusions simultaneously. The brain is composed of multiple engines all capable of independent thought. In fact, you can kill off large portions of the brain, and still come up with the same IQ. In essence we activate several programs each designed to achieve their answer in a particular fashion. At this point the various programs has what essentially comes down to a shouting match. When your standing in front of your boss with a huge desire to punch him, quit and be done with his stupidity, what is really occurring, is that your amygdala has decided on that very course of actions and is telling you to carry it out. It is not so much a desire being suppressed but a decision being weighed. Should the amygdala raise its voice, it would have further control of the body. However, in a given situation each part cares about seizing control only so much. IE, the amygdala will not raise its voice until something new happens, such as your boss hitting you.
In any case, the important distinction between a system that generates a option, considers it, modifies the option in a variety of ways, decides on the best options from amongst the modifications and creates a new set of modifications, continuing until it reaches a optimal result, and a system that generates a multitude of options then accepts the best amongst those options, is that the second system has a strong tendency to always come to the same answer.
IE, a person when confronted with a problem such as traffic accidents, will immediately realize that traffic speeds are within his dominion, and that cars in accidents tend to be moving quickly. The fallacy of this plan is easily apparent- stricter speed limits have not resulted in significant decreases in traffic damage. If one were to contemplate his decision and look at variants such as improving road quality or increasing the time period of yellow lights, it would be easy to see that these options, are infinitely superior- They actually work! However, people rarely do such thought. It's not in our nature.
Unfortunately, the days of immediate rewards and penalties with very little lasting effect are over. Imagine you just murdered someone- then, note that nothing actually happened to you after you did it. Eventually the cops come for you, but even then you receive no harm. Months after your action you will likely be on trial. This trial can easily last years. Should the death penalty be decided on, it could easily be implemented 10 years after your initial crime. Their are many things that can be eluded to in this scenario, (leniency of the justice system, probability that you will be let off no matter how obvious your crime was, how you can still successfully spread your genes both before and after your crime, etc.) but the current pertinent issue is this- Decisions made in the modern day, no matter how bad, will not incur immediate effects. Instead, they will slowly infiltrate your life over the course of years. Especially important to this principle is that it applies not just to individuals and their lives but to nations, which are, after all, just large numbers of individuals. Due to the reduced feedback on the quality of our thought, it is now important to slow down. We cannot act as we used to and simply take whatever decision seems right. We must make decisions that work.
So, how does one make decisions that work? Easily- do things that work. People buy from well repudiated stores, because those stores have, historically, actually given their customers products. Such stores do not take your money then not deliver, nor do they give faulty products that look similar to what you attempted to buy, but fail to perform their advertised function. People are wary of new technologies and ideas, replacing their old, proven, functional plans.
However, there is a caveat- It is very human to seek stagnation, in fact, most people do not desire progress at all. This is to be expected. What ape yearns for advancement? What sheep regrets that there is nothing new as his life wanes? Do the elephants seek grandeur? Humans, are not so different than animals, and in fact, the average human is indistinguishable from any other animal. The line that makes sentience so easily detected is progression. It is only just humans that build skyscrapers and automobiles. We can't accept a static environment, it's too pathetic. As such the answer is here- decisions, courses of action, that have historically built upon themselves are superior to those which have merely worked. A beaver can build a home that works, and a idiot can design a road that works. A human, however, is capable of designing something much greater than a road. Today, we face a problem consisting of a variety of cars running into each-other. The standard answers to this problem simply don't work- that's just a matter of statistics. We know of a variety of answers that do work, once more we've tried allot of things and gotten some good numbers (one thing I must commend the people of the modern day on- we keep numbers. This is rarer than you'd expect, and in any case no one has ever had the berth and depth of statistics that are available to us today.) However, there is one answer that we largely disdain, because it doesn't really align with human thought patterns. It's the answer that has, historically solved almost every problem ever presented to it, in a cheaper and more complete fashion than any of its competitors. Scientific Research.
Although this answer almost always succeeds when implemented, we spend very little of our resources on it. This is because, we think by creating scenarios- We think of an action, connect it with a result, then select the best result. However, science doesn't work well with this pattern. All we can see in that future is the ultimate darkness of singularity. It is time we got over our fear of the dark. It is no longer filled with nocturnal predators and thoroughly hidden prey. Without knowing our destination, we can know the journey will be worth it, because it's always been worth it. We had no way of knowing what unleashing the light bulb on the world would do, and yet today, who would live without it? (okay, quite a few people, but they're pathetic fools who do not understand the glory of morality)
The best scenario we can achieve via longer yellow lights is a cessation of light running related accidents. The best scenario we can achieve via better roads is the removal of accidents caused by reckless driving. The best scenario we can achieve by injecting all cars with near omnipotent nano-swarms, is the immediate repair of all damages caused to cars, passengers, and any miscellaneous property on the side, as well as a tasty drink for the driver after the accident is over. Such solutions aren't just more efficient, or effective. They're off the scale. It's like comparing a vacuum tube to a transistor. And yet, Even though we know that there are methods of improving computers beyond this level (photonic chips, quantum processing, etc.) we haven't done it.
You might complain that we're working on it. Yes, we are. Kind of. Imagine though, what would happen if, for one year, the entire budget for our road network were handed over to researching better roads/traffic devices. No repairs, no new roads, nothing. Just investment. Yes, there would be havoc, but frankly, people would still reach their objectives. Traffic accidents would go up, yes, but only somewhat. The costs wouldn't get anywhere near the benefits.
Now, consider doing the same with say- Education. Our kids can have a one year vacation, then come back to a carefully designed, scientifically researched/verified system that has thrown out everything that didn't work and taken only tested, proven methods that lead to optimal results. Can you imagine for an instant that they would come out the other side with an inferior education to what they will receive under the current plan of action?
In this sense, we're not working on it at all- we continually use failed methodology, and expect the few amongst us who can actually think work out answers to all our looming problems under harsher and harsher conditions. We understand our school systems are pathetic, and we weep about how no genius has walked in and lifted this burden from us, but what we must realize is this- the geniuses are doing their job. They have repeatedly warned us off our failing paths, but we keep insisting that they do even more. We desire better schools, but we also want more benefits for less meritorious teachers, and higher grades for blacks and females. Each demand we make, means that our geniuses must come up with a more advanced answer, and, oftentimes, an inferior one. We must reassess just what is and isn't working, and then stop doing things that aren't working, regardless of how viable the alternatives are. Simply put, random action can work. However, a plan that has repeatedly failed every time it has been used, will fail. If we were to merely act randomly in all fields where our results were below average, we would eventually osmosis into a futuristic state of godhood. Our failure can only be achieved through sticking to failed policies in fear of the unknown.
