Integrated Essay: Survival Rationality vs Abstract Rationality
Irrational thinking often arises when there is no immediate, direct survival threat. For example, denying evolution does not have the same immediate consequences as denying gravity (if you jump off a cliff, you'll probably die), even though both have a degree of miniscule theoretical uncertainty. However, the long-term consequences of such thinking can be equally harmful, as it fosters a culture that rejects critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning, which leads to misinformation; which has been foundational to many of humanity's darkest times.
Most humans are rational in a survival context because evolution optimised for survival-based decision-making, not higher-order abstract rationality. People do not jump off cliffs because their senses and empirical experience confirm gravity. Similarly, choosing not to walk in a dangerous area at night does not necessarily make someone rational—it is simply an extension of survival-based reasoning with a low degree of uncertainty.
However, evolution did not optimise for reasoning about abstract concepts like evolution, epistemology, or systemic thinking, as these do not pose immediate threats. Higher-order abstract concepts (HOAC) are almost infinitely uncertain at times—the more abstract something is, the more uncertain it tends to be. There isn't an evolutionary pressure to reduce this uncertainty because an abstract belief system will not directly kill you.
Because HOACs are highly uncertain, emotions function as heuristics to reduce cognitive complexity and provide decision-making to quickly reduce that uncertainty. The issue is that highly uncertain HOAC tend to be complex, nuanced, and often not immediately intuitive—emotions are designed for simplified, often intuitive, and quick decisions—so they naturally conflict. I speak of HOAC in terms of uncertainty because I do align with the idea that HOAC can be mathematically explained and predicted, however, we'll leave that for another discussion.