Our Reality Distortion Field
Why progress is counterintuitive.
Risk & Progress| A hub for essays that explore risk, human progress, and your potential. My mission is to educate, inspire, and invest in concepts that promote a better future. Subscriptions are free, paid subscribers gain access to the full archive, including the Pathways of Progress and Realize essay series.
As we have seen, for billions of people on this planet, life is better than ever. We are better educated, living longer, wealthier, and freer than at any time in human history. Yet when asked about the current state of affairs compared to the past, most people believe exactly the opposite. They see a world that is dying, becoming more impoverished and dangerous. It’s not difficult to understand why so many appear to live in an alternate reality; the factors that lead to what we call “progress” are counterintuitive to our instincts. Politicians and the media exploit this fact for their respective agendas, feeding and enabling a “reality distortion field” that endangers human progress by turning us against the factors that promote it.
Thinking Fast and Slow
Standard economic theory, an important aspect of our study of human progress, begins from the basis that people are rational decision-makers. In other words, we are all “econs,” carefully weighing our choices with perfect information at all times. Alas, we are “humans” not “econs,” we have the capacity for rational reasoning, but we don’t use it as often as we should. In his seminal book, “Thinking Fast and Slow,” Daniel Kahneman suggests that the human brain comprises two distinct “systems.” System 1 operates automatically and quickly, relying on intuition and mental heuristics, or shortcuts. System 2, however, is responsible for thoughts that require our active attention, including reasoning and solving complex problems. Because the latter uses more mental “bandwidth,” the human brain tries to rely on the former as much as possible. The consequence of an overreliance on System 1, however, is that we humans are susceptible to many cognitive errors.
Among these errors is “confirmation bias” where we actively seek out information that confirms what we already believe. Many of us don’t expend the necessary cognitive bandwidth to impartially evaluate data and arrive at a conclusion. Instead, we choose what we believe first and “prove it” later by seeking only the information that “confirms” our beliefs, often convincing ourselves of untruths in the process. Many television “news” stations are happy to feed our confirmation biases because it ensures their advertisers have a steady stream of returning viewers.
The availability heuristic, where our brains rely on immediate examples to inform decisions involving the probability of events, further warps reality. Deaths caused by accidents, for instance, are erroneously seen as more probable than deaths by diabetes because media coverage favors emotionally charged reporting. Thus, deaths by horrific accidents are more “available” than they otherwise should be, so our brains assume they are more common than they truly are. By the same token, our brains have difficulty with statistics and data, often drawing false stories from limited information. This can lead us to fear the wrong things and implement policies that, while well-intended, cause more harm than benefit.
Appeals to Nostalgia
You have probably heard someone say, “Life was better in the good old days.” A nostalgic appeal to the past is probably an appeal to a false version of reality. Even on a good day, we cannot trust our own memories. Our brains have built-in mechanisms that suppress negative memories over time. Thus, the past will almost always be remembered more fondly than it probably deserves. Case in point, a viral “meme” circulating online features an illustrated image of the “typical” American family circa 1960, a stay-at-home mother, kids going to college, a house, and a car, all allegedly affordable on the income of the sole male breadwinner. The characters in the meme are all smiling, content, and happy, portraying a bygone era, albeit one that exists only in our memories.
The image that the meme presents, that one income could buy a life that requires two incomes today, is false. In 1960, the car ownership rate in America was half of what it is today (2023). The average new home was about 25 percent smaller and lacked basic amenities like garbage disposals, dishwashers, fire alarms…etc. Remember also that most lived in older, smaller homes, lacking air conditioning and washing machines. A university education is certainly more expensive today, but children in the 1960s would likely have not attended anyway. The fact is, a family can certainly live on a single income today…if that family were content living like the average one did in 1960. That is, to own only one car, a small home, 1 television with 3 channels, take road trips instead of flying…etc. In fact, you would live better than they did, because you would have access to modern medicine, cheaper clothing, cheaper food, and your car and home would be vastly safer, more energy efficient, and probably have features that would have been unimaginable luxuries in 1960, if they existed at all.
Our long-term memory might fade to rose-colored, but what of short-term memories? Here, our reality is further distorted by the fact that while our brains suppress negative memories and feelings over the long term, they amplify them in the moment. Psychological studies conducted across the globe repeatedly illustrate this fact. Like flies drawn to a lightbulb, we give extra attention and more emotional weight to negativity. The media seizes upon this deeply biological reaction for their benefit. To keep us glued to the television or engaged online, they intentionally flood the airwaves with bad news. A country amid a bloody civil war will draw news correspondents, a country prospering at peace will not.
Thus, when our brains compare the past with the present, they compare an overly negative portrayal of the present in sharp relief with a rose-colored version of the past. It should be no wonder then that most people cannot accept that poverty is lower and famine and war are less frequent than they were in the “good old days.” Our minds work hard to convince us that the present is terrible and the past was better. Adding fuel to the flame, politicians and the media happily feed that narrative.
Zero Sum Fallacies
This innate “reality distortion field” often dovetails with a deeply human propensity to subscribe to “zero-sum” thinking. We innately perceive opportunities and resources to be fixed in number, therefore, for me to “win” you must “lose.” Zero-sum fallacies often arise when discussing global trade; the “loser” incurs a “deficit” and the “winner” a “surplus.” But, generally speaking, countries do not trade with each other, people and companies do. Transactions only take place to the extent that both parties “win.” While individual firms may find competition difficult to bear, in the aggregate, trade is not zero-sum. Trade enriches everyone by broadening competition, bringing prices down, and jump-starting innovation.
We also see zero-sum fallacies cloud our judgment when discussing immigration. The arrival of immigrants from abroad, we think, must “steal jobs” from the “native” population. But economists have long understood this notion to be mostly false, they even have a term for it: the Lump of Labor Fallacy. More immigrants means more competition for jobs but also more demand for jobs as well. The net effect one way or another is largely minimal in the short term, but immigration and population growth are positive in the long term.
Combined, our affinity for zero-sum thinking and our susceptibility to the “reality distortion field” can be used to stir up negative emotional responses to globalization and progress itself. After the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, some argued that an interconnected and globalized world is a dangerous hotbed of new diseases and therefore borders should be shut. However, this neglects that new viruses are derived from existing strains. In an interconnected world, we are indeed exposed to a greater variety of viruses, but this makes our immune systems more resistant to their derivatives, should they arise. Counterintuitively, a globalized world makes novel viruses less, not more, dangerous.
A close cousin of zero-sum thinking, Malthusianism, can also lead our minds astray. Malthusianism holds that population/economic growth will inevitably lead to resource depletion. The only solution for this, Malthusians of all stripes claim, is to halt and reverse progress and growth. As we will see, history has shown this to be incorrect. The cornerstone of progress is the ability to do more with less. We grow more food using less land, we produce more goods with fewer people, our cars drive further with less gasoline, our fuels create less pollution with more energy…etc.
While it seemingly defies all logic, as the human population has grown, the availability of resources has also grown as progress unlocked more for human use and better utilized the existing supply. In fact, resource abundance has grown faster than the population itself, a concept that
and call “Superabundance.” This means that the more mouths we have to feed, counterintuitively, the more food we produce. Nor does growth automatically imply more pollution or environmental degradation. On the contrary, instead of deforestation ravaging the Earth’s surface, forest cover and greenery are spreading as the human population grows. Indeed, instead of spiraling out of control, climate-changing CO2 emissions are falling as nations develop and advance.Safeguarding the Future
The case I will make in Pathways of Progress is that continued and accelerated progress is the best solution to the challenges confronting humanity in the 21st century. I recognize, however, that this proposition runs against popular depictions in media and culture. So I ask that you keep an open mind and together we remain cognisant of our cognitive limitations and biases, lest we fall victim to them. The truth, as they say, is rarely pure and never simple. Our “reality distortion field” makes it difficult to accept that humanity isn’t necessarily circling the drain. For the most part, we are on the correct path and only need to progress faster.
You also may like…
Nice article. One thing that I would add is that Americans defined as “poor” in 2023 have far fewer material possessions than the median person did in 1960 (or 1970 for that matter).
An unfortunate side effect of progress is that we keep ratcheting up the definition of what it is to be “poor”.
One could argue just being able to question progress is progress, compared to more restrictive eras...