Gary Marcus
Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind
Harvard Book Store, 7pm, Thursday, June 19
Event canceled due to illness.
Gary Marcus is smart. He understands the workings of the human brain, including evolutionary mechanisms that make us “the only species smart enough to systematically plan for the future—yet dumb enough to ditch our most carefully made plans in favor of short-term gratification.” His new book Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind reveals how evolution has worked both for and against us when it comes to making smart—as opposed to instinctual—decisions.
A kluge is “a clumsy or inelegant solution to a problem,” and our brain has evolved clumsily in part due to the nature of evolution. In depending on random chance for advancement, evolution allows us to change, and usually for the better—but not always in the best way possible. Marcus argues that our “kluginess” is evidence for evolution; if we were designed, the way we work would make much more sense. He says “a careful look at biology reveals kluge after kluge”: the spine’s poor design for supporting an upright stance (a consequence of evolving from four-legged creatures), backwards retinas that result in blind spots, and the vastly overlong vas deferens.
Since it evolved in a similar fashion, Marcus says “the human mind is no less a kluge than the body.” Most of us take our mental functioning for granted, never considering how it came to be that we can function so much differently from (other) animals. But we have evolved practically, not ideally, and “it is perfectly possible for evolution to get stuck on a peak that is short of the highest conceivable summit.” Because we’re always functioning, we can never take a break to perfect ourselves, meaning that even improvements are often built upon a less-than-ideal base just because that’s what already exists.
Kluge explores simple yet crucial concepts including memory, belief, choice, language, pleasure, and wisdom, and explains how we are scientifically prepared or unprepared for them. Marcus talks about our contextual memory, which requires clues to dig up the right information from our brain, because we're not equipped to know exactly where all of our knowledge is located. In detailing our shortcomings, he comes up with some solutions to help us make smarter, more rational choices. You'll have to read the book for complete details, but we did get to talk to Marcus about kluginess and its applications to other areas of our lives.
Q: You mention Google as an example of a vastly superior memory system to our own, capable of handling much more information than our own contextually reliant brains. But, in the end, humans created Google. Do you foresee an eventual "computerization" of our brains through the addition of, say, memory chips or something similar, or is that too farfetched?
A: Absolutely; I actually wrote about that very possibility--brain chips and the like--just a few weeks ago, in the New York Times Sunday Magazine, and I think the question is not whether but when.
People who are interested in this sort of thing might have a look at an organization called the innerspacefoundation, a nonprofit that I just joined that is interested in promoting technologies to improve the human mind.
Q: On the same note, is it probable that in the future deliberative parts of our brains will evolve to dominate the reflexive parts of our brains in certain situations?
A: Between birth control and modern medicine, I don't know how much evolution per se will change things, but I think that we as individuals can learn to be sensitive to the circumstances in which our reflexive brain tends to beat out the desires of our deliberative brains--and try to work around them.
More with Marcus after the jump!
Q: The idea of the brain's innovations being placed on top of existing imperfections reminds me of the workplace: so much could be improved, but so little usually is, because of bureaucratic blocks and day-to- day functions that can't be set aside to enable larger changes. What do you think about that comparison, and how would you go about improving an office that's stuck with imperfect systems that have "evolved" over time?
A: The analogy is quite apt; companies (and, for that matter, academic institutions) build up inertia in the same way that evolution does, and that inertia can be as fatal to corporations as it is to species.
The disanalogy, of course, is that a clever CEO can do what evolution can't: take a step back and try to overhaul things. There's probably no single magic bullet, but overhauling a corporation is probably a bit like overhauling any other product. You have to commit to some short term pain in order to make long-term changes.
Q: The section on choice really struck me. I was annoyed in some of my economics classes because we learned so many models based on perfect information and rational choices, which people almost never have or make when it comes to economic decisions. Do you think it would be possible or beneficial to create "irrational" economic and behavioral models based on the irrational choices we know people tend to make, or is it more helpful to maintain a rational standard in modeling behavior?
A: I think it would be hugely beneficial to create models that stick closer to psychological reality, and some folks, so called behavioral economists, are trying to do just that. But those folks are fighting uphill battle, not because they are wrong, but because the truth is kind of ugly. If the mind were as rational classical economists assume, it would be easy to capture our behavior using some simple and elegant set of equations; in reality, our minds are clumsy and messy, and no single set of equations is going to capture that messiness; we're fickle, inconsistent, and unruly. I don't think economics can make real progress until economists accept that fact.
Q: You provide many good suggestions at the end of the book to help us make rational choices. Is there anything else you think people should know about better managing their imperfect minds?
A: The first step, I think, is self-awareness, and the second is humility. You can't really work to improve your mind unless you are willing to admit that you sometimes make mistakes.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit