The Evolution of Overconfidence
If overconfidence leads to global disasters such as bank collapses and world wars, how could it have evolved? Researchers have an answer.
kfc 09/24/2009
- 11 Comments
What do the following high-profile disasters have in common: World War I, Vietnam, the war in Iraq, the collapse of the banking system, and underpreparedness for natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina?
According to Dominic Johnson at the University of Edinburgh and his pal James Fowler at the University of California, San Diego, the answer is that they have all been blamed on the all-too-human condition of overconfidence.
The puzzle about overconfidence is its ubiquity. Many studies have shown that most people have an exaggerated sense of their own capabilities, an illusion that they have control over uncontrollable events and are invulnerable to risk. Most people, for example, believe they are above-average drivers, a statistical impossibility. We are all overconfident in one way or another.
But how can such a condition have evolved when overconfidence can lead to destruction of communities and catastrophic loss of life?
That's a mystery that many experimental psychologists have wrestled with, but now Johnson and Fowler say they have the answer. By creating a mathematical model of the way overconfident individuals compete against ordinary individuals, they show that there is a clear advantage in overconfidence.
In fact, if the potential reward is at least twice as great as the cost of competing, then overconfidence is the best strategy. In fact, overconfidence is actually advantageous on average, because it boosts ambition, resolve, morale, and persistence. In other words, overconfidence is the best way to maximize benefits over costs when risks are uncertain.
That's an interesting insight. Experimental psychologists have long known of the role of overconfidence in conflict situations and yet have been unable to explain its origin.
But it is Johnson and Fowler's predictions that are most worrying. Their model implies that optimal overconfidence increases with the magnitude of uncertainty. So the greater the risk, the more overconfident individuals should become.
Johnson and Fowler use that finding to predict that overconfidence will be particularly prevalent in domains where the perceived value of a prize sufficiently exceeds the expected costs of competing.
What might these domains be? Johnson and Fowler highlight several, but perhaps the most obvious and potentially dangerous are international relations, where events are complex and distant and involve foreign cultures and languages; new technologies such as the Internet bubble; and the banking industry, where complex financial instruments abound. Any of that sound familiar?
All of this sets the stage for the next question: how best to mitigate the worst side-effects of rampant overconfidence in a society with a dramatically exaggerated sense of its own abilities.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0909.4043: The Evolution of Overconfidence
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Kingofallmedia
7 Comments
Evolution
Blame women. They decide (for the most part) who have children and how many. They simply respond to unbridled egoism. Which is why many "geeks" have a hard time finding sex partners: they are too intelligent to believe what is clearly untrue (or at least unprovable).
Reply
IkenCEO
1 Comment
Re: Evolution
Your view of women sounds a bit cynical and depressing. That's a shame
Actually is is possible to have most people on one side of the mean if the distribution is skewed, so if the abilities of drivers are skewed then it is possible most people are better than average.
Reply
janebolacha
2 Comments
Re: Evolution
Women's fault, of course!
The habitual response of a manacled mind.
Reply
bugme
29 Comments
Re: Evolution
You go girlfriend! You put words in his mouth too, maybe, but you go!
Reply
brettb123
1 Comment
Re: Evolution
Geeks are just as likely to be overconfident, just not concerning things that woman are attracted to.
Reply
Kingofallmedia
7 Comments
Re: Evolution
Firstly:
None of you ever post anything so you'll never see this withering reply.
Secondly:
My point on women was meant to be facetious. I was merely trying to point out that our society rewards people who are over confident. It rewards then with wealth. It rewards them with status and it rewards them with sex. I'm sorry if it depresses you but it happens to be true. Read a book called "sperm wars". I'm not saying its wrong for women to want to mate with the over confident, in fact, evolutionarily it's clearly a much better choice. It's about sexual selection, not chauvinism.
Thirdly:
OK. geeks can be over confident (about guitar hero), but once science gets into the mix it's a different story. When was the last time a good scientist said: "Cancer? Cured in two years. Tops". But good football players say stuff like that regularly: "We're gonna crush them!" is like a pregame mantra.
Reply
janebolacha
2 Comments
Re: Evolution
Well, I did log in and searched in vain for your "withering reply". Is it perhaps subtly hidden somewhere in your words and thus only geek-accessible? On your assertions that women seek to mate with "over-confident" types and that male "geek-types" have trouble finding mates, I do wonder what is your basis for those statements. Yes, we are "supposed", if we are "typical" (perhaps a male-defined term in itself) women, to prefer George Clooney or Tom Cruise or some confident but supposedly "attractive" male air-head over some intelligent guy who works in research somewhere or in the local library but with whom we can have a conversation. I wonder, though, where those "suppositions" come from, I mean the suppositions regarding women, I would guess they are from male sources and are perhaps quite superficial in their approach and in their supposed research. You may thus perhaps be blinded by your pre-conceptions. I know we are now way off-topic!
Reply