Where's the fire extinguisher?

In a previous post I have shared some research showing how in volatile and uncertain contexts it is seemingly better to rely on contextual data than to make forecasts based on historical data. Research in that article made a point on the debate on human vs automated decision making, claiming that the former is very well suited to face situations that are less dependent on past trends. Today, I try to bring some more evidence on the subject, focusing on memory and historical trends.

At UCLA some researchers have made a very interesting experiment: how well would you be able to draw the logo of a very well-known company, such as Apple? Only one of the 85 participants to the experiment was able to draw the logo in the correct way. Would you be that one? Well, perhaps you could give it a try right now (here you can compare with the actual logo)!

Considering how pervasive the logos of some companies are in our daily lives (often they're sitting on our desks, hands and pockets most of the time), it is astonishing how badly we can actually recall them. Researchers suggest it is often such diffused availability that gives us the impression of having seen it enough times to be able to recall it correctly. But, availability doesn't equal memory. And, seeing doesn't equal observing.

On one side, we overestimate our ability to recall the details of what we've seen, and our reconstructions are often less reliable than we think (we know this also from research on the fallibility of eyewitness' testimony). On the other side, our brains are wired and need to select information that is relevant and useful. While there might not be a clear limit to our brains' capacity to store information, we appear to be more limited in our ability to recollect that same information in detail.

Often, we use historical data, such as the memories from previous experiences and situations, to infer information about the present. For instance, in UCLA's experiment, the memory of an apple: how would I draw it? So must be the Apple's logo, more or less, isnt' it? And, it goes even deeper than that. In another piece of research, when asked where the fire estinguisher was in their office, most people didn't really know, or answered it was near the lift (where indeed it is placed in many buildings). Having been in that office/building for longer didn't really matter. Historical data might contaminate our memories.

In the unlikely event of a fire, luckily rare in its occurrence, foregoing a proper knowledge of the building could mean not knowing where that so useful and needed fire estinguisher is. Historical data about where fire estinguishers were placed in the others buildings where we happened to notice them might not be enough to save our lives. Knowing where we think things should be, doesn't equal knowing where they are, but we fake ourselves into thinking so, because it's very uncertain that we'd need a fire estinguisher, so why even bother in the first place and spend time looking for it?

Perhaps automated decision making is better when we can rely on historical data, as computers store and recover memories in a more fixed and reliable way than our brains do. Nonetheless, these experiments also tell us that a hightened attention is essential when we need to take contextualised decisions. What we think we know can be different than the real thing. What we think is essential might be out of focus in our memories, or not even in our field of view, unless we look better, deeper, more broadly, and once again.

On the good side though, you might have checked where that estinguisher is by now, even if just out our curiosity to test your memory! And, you might realize that attention is essential.

#attention #mindfulness #memory #decision #brain