Benjamin M. Seitza,1, Athena Aktipisb, David M. Bussc, Joe Alcockd, Paul Bloome, Michele Gelfandf, Sam Harrisg, Debra Liebermanh, Barbara N. Horowitzi,j, Steven Pinkerk, David Sloan Wilsonl,
and Martie G. Haseltona,1

Edited by Michael S. Gazzaniga, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, and approved September 16, 2020 (received for review June 9, 2020)

Insight 7: We Have Not Evolved to Seek the Truth

Humans evolved in small groups under threat of starvation, pre- dation, and exploitation by outsiders—and generally lived brief lives, favoring short-term strategies for consuming resources that could support successful reproduction (59). We have not evolved to think clearly about long-term threats like pandemics—which are statistically abstract and global. And yet, for at least a century, we’ve understood that the threat of a deadly pandemic is real and ever present (60). How should we have responded to this knowledge?

We should have prepared for the next pandemic in advance. But, to do this, we would have had to feel the need to prepare—and been willing to incur actual costs in the face of what could have seemed, in the absence of dead and dying people, like nothing more than morbid speculation.

Unfortunately, most of us are terrible at weighing risks pre- sented as abstract probabilities (61). We also heavily discount the well-being of our future selves (62), along with that of distant strangers (63) and future generations (64), and in ways that are both psychologically strange and, in a modern environment, ethically indefensible. We’re highly susceptible to conspiracy thinking (65), and display an impressive capacity to deceive ou- rselves, before doing the hard work of deceiving others (66). These predispositions likely endowed our ancestors with advan- tages (67, 68), but they also suggest that our species is not wired for seeking a precise understanding of the world as it actually is.

Thus, our conversation about most things tends to be a tissue of false certainties and unhedged bets. We look for evidence to support our current beliefs, while ignoring the rest (69). When we encounter friends or family in thrall to some fresh piece of misin- formation, we often lack the courage to correct them. Meanwhile, behind a screen of anonymity, we eagerly confront the views of complete strangers online. Paradoxically, the former circumstance presents an opportunity to actually change opinion, while the latter is more likely to further entrench people in their misinformed views (70). Although these predispositions did not cause SARS-CoV-2 to first enter the human population, they are, at least in part, responsible for the pandemic that ensued.

Scientific Agenda. Evaluate methods to combat shortcomings in reasoning due to mismatches between the demands of the an- cestral past and the present, conspiracy thinking, and the spread of misinformation, both in face-to-face communication and on social networks, particularly as they relate to the pandemic and health-relevant information.

(Submitted by Michael Kelly, H.W.)