Cognitive Limits
We hate to think about the possibility of cognitive limits. We assume that we have magnificent infinite intellectual powers; but unfortunately, that assumption is often proven wrong. It might seem depressing to consider that we have limits, but we must deal with them, and this is just part of our personal self-delusion that we have infinite powers.
Most of us believe we have above-average intelligence; 94% of us, in fact. In another study, 80% of us believe we have above-average romantic performance. Our consumption of fiction makes our self-delusion even worse with depictions of unlimited mental power and success with sheer will, which of course, is sheer fantasy. There are case reports, of sometimes superhuman performance. Some are true, but others are exaggerated. Some are hyperbole, and often incorrect, either through analysis or falsification. My point is that I don't want anyone to be depressed by highlighting our limitations. I do want us to be aware of our limitations so we can realistically deal with them.
The Number Of Variables That We Can Consider.
A famous scientist studied the number of simultaneous variables that a person could comprehend, and that number is about seven. Even then, if there are different weights to some of the variables, each one of those weights is a variable itself. So, the number of independent variables people can handle is usually far less than seven. The trouble is that most complex systems have far more than seven variables. In fact, almost all of them do. So, how do we deal with that limitation?
There's only one choice: to reduce the set of variables down to a number and a type that we can consider. How do we do that? One of the ways that we often use is to pick a few variables that we can measure and understand. You might pick the wrong ones, though, so we need to make sure we pick the right ones that are important. Alternatively, sometimes we can cascade variables. For example, suppose we have a project, and there are multiple different parts of that project. In that case, we could not understand all of the variables of all of the systems, but we might be able to understand it better if each component had one super-important variable. For example, say we are building an engine prototype, and there is someone in charge of the fuel system, someone in charge of temperature control, etc. We would get the fuel person to give us all their variables distilled down into one or two small variables that we can understand, and we do the same thing for the temperature control system and for the torque output system. There are so many of these that we can only consider just the very few that we have selected. So that's one way of dealing with it
Revisionist Memory
This is another one of our problems. Remember Ronald Reagan? As a campaigning politician, he would tell an anecdote about an event he had heard that occurred during World War II. Early on, he told the story as it had been told to him, and then over time, he told the story as if he had been a direct observer, and then over more time, he told the same story as if he had been one of the key characters in the story. He was not lying. his mind gradually rearranged the story to his personal advantage.
How do we avoid this? We can't, totally. We could keep a diary of important events. I do that, but a chief way is to admit the fuzziness of memory. I might say, "I believe I saw __" to make our point unless I am absolutely certain of the facts.
Tendency To Believe That We Are Unbreakable.
"Unbreakable" was a movie starring Bruce Willis. He could not get hurt. He'd be in a train wreck, and everybody else would get killed except for him. We see video clips, real or fake, of death-defying stunts and events, so we assume that we will survive similar actions. Until it is proved otherwise, we feel ourselves to be immortal.
So how do we fight this? We remember our injuries and those of loved ones. Serious injury or death of a close friend really should remind us that we are vulnerable. And remember, many death-defying videos and all action adventure movies are not true.
Deflecting Responsibility.
It is human nature not to take direct responsibility for something bad that happens to ourselves or to others secondary to our actions or inactions. It is a psychological defense mechanism. Otherwise, we would be forever paralyzed by guilt for our actions. So how do we protect against deflection yet avoid guilt paralysis? The best way is to accept responsibility and then try to make it better in some way. We often cannot totally make up for the fallout, but we should try, and often just the admission of responsibility gives relief to ourselves and someone we might have hurt by our actions.
Well, these are just some of the ways that we live with our cognitive limits. The most important part of this talk is that we learn to heighten our awareness of them. We must be aware of our biases, our faults, our self-serving actions, and our self-serving memories. We rely on our introspective minds and those of our friends to help get us through life.