The Right Decision for the Wrong Reason
Evolution and survival favor decisions that lead to positive outcomes, regardless of the correctness of reasoning. This contrasts with opinion-based systems (e.g., bureaucracy) that reward being 'right' over effective action, and it explains why seemingly irrational behaviors can be beneficial if they are harmless or promote survival.
THE IDEA
The Right Decision for the Wrong Reason
More generally, for Mother Nature, opinions and predictions don’t count; surviving is what matters.
There is an evolutionary argument here. It appears to be the most underestimated argument in favor of free enterprise and a society driven by individual doers, what Adam Smith called “adventurers,” not central planners and bureaucratic apparatuses. We saw that bureaucrats (whether in government or large corporations) live in a system of rewards based on narratives, “tawk,” and the opinion of others, with job evaluation and peer reviews—in other words, what we call marketing. Aristotelian, that is. Yet the biological world evolves by survival, not opinions and “I predicted” and “I told you so.” Evolution dislikes the confirmation fallacy, endemic in society.
The economic world should, too, but institutions mess things up, as suckers may get bigger—institutions block evolution with bailouts and statism. Note that, in the long term, social and economic evolution nastily takes place by surprises, discontinuities, and jumps.3
Karl Popper’s evolutionary epistemology treated ideas as competing with each other, with the least wrong surviving at any point in time. He missed the point that it is not ideas that survive, but people who have the right ones, or societies that have the correct heuristics, or the ones, right or wrong, that lead them to do the good thing. He missed the Thalesian effect, the fact that a wrong idea that is harmless can survive. Those who have wrong heuristics—but with a small harm in the event of error—will survive. Behavior called “irrational” can be good if it is harmless.
Let me give an example of a type of false belief that is helpful for survival. In your opinion, which is more dangerous, to mistake a bear for a stone, or mistake a stone for a bear? It is hard for humans to make the first mistake; our intuitions make us overreact at the smallest probability of harm and fall for a certain class of false patterns—those who overreact upon seeing what may look like a bear have had a survival advantage, those who made the opposite mistake left the gene pool.
Our mission is to make talk less cheap.
When to use it
An entrepreneur’s product succeeds despite a flawed explanation of why customers would want it. The outcome shows that an action can pay off without proving its underlying theory correct.
Investors who diversify based on a simple heuristic (e.g., 'don't put all eggs in one basket') rather than precise calculations—the heuristic is 'wrong' in some scenarios but promotes survival of the portfolio.
Emergency responders who err on the side of caution (e.g., evacuating for a false alarm) because the cost of a false negative (missing a real threat) is much higher.
Biological evolution favoring traits that are not optimal but 'good enough' to ensure survival in a changing environment.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Bear vs. Stone
Mistaking a stone for a bear can cause an unnecessary alarm; mistaking a bear for a stone can be fatal. Taleb uses this asymmetry to argue that a tendency toward false alarms could aid survival even when the underlying belief was wrong.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Can you think of a situation where making the 'wrong' decision based on flawed reasoning actually led to a good outcome?
How does the bear/stone example illustrate the value of overreacting to potential threats?
In what ways do modern institutions like performance reviews and peer evaluations bias us towards valuing correct reasoning over effective action?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Antifragile (Nassim Nicholas Taleb)