Hood, Bruce - Supersense

If we are deluded, can we ever get rid of such a supersense? Will humankind ever evolve into the Bright species that uses logic over and above emotion and intuition? This seems unlikely for a number of reasons. The first reason, which I have been at pains to labour throughout the book, is that the supersense is part and parcel of our mind design and so is deeply embedded in the way we reason. We may possess the capacity for both logical analysis and intuitive reasoning, but one is slow and ponderous while the other is fast and furious. Intuition is not something we can easily ignore, and although we can learn to think in a rational–analytical way, intuitive reasoning has the advantage in the race to influence our decision-making because it is so effortless, covert, and rapid. When a taxi driver asked the late Carl Sagan, the cosmologist, for his gut reaction to the question of whether UFOs are real, Sagan replied that he tried not to think with his stomach. For the rest of us, such control is often lacking as we succumb to naive intuitive reasoning. It is not always right, but we must remember that it has served us well in the past. Otherwise, as a species, we would not be around to tell the tale. The supersense comes from our intuitive reasoning systems and so is part of our makeup. This brings me to another, more important reason for why we may foster a supersense.

I think the supersense will persist even in a modern era because it makes possible our commitment to the idea that there are sacred values in our world. Something is sacred when members of society regard it as beyond any monetary value. Let me give you an example. Life can be full of difficult decisions. People who run hospitals are constantly faced with choices involving life and death. Imagine that you are a hospital administrator and you have $1 million that can be used to perform a lifesaving liver transplant operation on a child or to reduce the hospital’s debt. What would you do? For most people, this would be a nobrainer – of course one must save the child.

The economic psychologist Philip Tetlock has shown that people are appalled when they hear that an administrator would make the decision to benefit the hospital, even though more children would gain in the long term from such astute financial planning. 1What’s more, they are also outraged if the hospital administrator decides to save the child but takes a long time to arrive at that decision. Some things are sacred. You should not have to think about them. You can’t put a price on them. Likewise, if the choice has to be made between saving one of two children, this decision must take a long time. The choice should not be made quickly. This unbearable dilemma has become known as ‘Sophie’s choice’, following William Styron’s novel about the Jewish mother who was forced to decide which of her two children would die in the Auschwitz gas chambers and which would survive. 2She chose to let her son live and her daughter die.

We intuitively feel that some things are right and some things are just plain wrong. Some decisions should be instantaneous, while others must be agonized over. Decisions can haunt us even when there really should be no indecision. Every choice has a price tag if we care to consider relative worth. There are no free lunches, and so while we may be outraged and indignant about some choices and decisions, the reality is that all things can be reduced to a cost–benefit analysis.

However, a cost–benefit analysis is material, analytic, scientific, and rational. This is not how humans behave, and when we hear that people think and reason like this, we are indignant. When Robert Redford’s character offered $1 million to sleep with Woody Harrelson’s wife (Demi Moore) the movie audience knew that it was an Indecent Proposal . It was morally repugnant. Better that she should have had an affair than do it for money. If you love someone, no amount of money should enter the negotiation, even if he does look like Robert Redford! For many, this $1 million decision is much easier than the hospital administrator dilemma. Likewise, when we hear that people could wear a killer’s cardigan, live in a house of murder, or collect Nazi memorabilia, we are disgusted. We feel it physically. Though a cost–benefit analysis may reveal our reaction to be out of balance with the actual costs, we still intuitively feel a moral outrage and violation of society’s values.

This is because humans are a sacred species. We treat sacred places, sacred objects, and sacred lives as beyond commercial value. The value placed on each depends on who is making the decision, but each sacred thing could literally be ‘priceless’. The alternative is to accept that everything has a price.

The trouble with such a market-driven approach to decision-making is that it undermines the cohesion of the group, which is bound together by shared sacred values. If we think that anything and anyone can be bought, then this cohesion fragments as sacred items lose their special nonmonetary value. For this reason, certain sacred values must exist that cannot be measured by rational analysis. Every society needs things that are taboo and cannot be reduced to trade-offs and comparisons. People do not sign on explicitly to these rules, but we understand that as members of a social group we are expected to share in the same collective sacred values.

Here is the final piece of the puzzle. How can something become sacred? This is where the supersense comes into its own. Society can tell us what is sacred but, to be experienced as sacred, something must become supernatural. It has to be more than mundane. It must possess qualities that are unique and irreplaceable. Discerning such qualities requires a mind designed to sense hidden properties. If something can be copied, duplicated, corrupted, cloned, forged, replaced, or substituted, it is no longer sacred. To arrive at this belief we have to infer that there are hidden supernatural dimensions to our sacred world. And with this thinking comes all the supernatural qualities of connectedness and deeper meaning. We need these to make sense of why we value some things over and above their objective worth. Ironically, it is the supersense that enables us to justify our sacred values. Irrationality makes our beliefs rational because these beliefs hold society together.

AND FINALLY . . .

In this book, I have been sketching an account of how a supersense we all share as members of a highly social species could emerge. Culture and religion simply capitalize on our inclination to infer hidden dimensions to reality. We have discovered that our naturally evolved reasoning mechanisms compel us to make sense of the world by seeking patterns, structures, and mechanisms. We have intuitively done this from the beginning, long before formal education was invented. Supernatural thinking is simply the natural consequence of failing to match our intuitions with the true reality of the world. What’s more, these misconceptions are not necessarily discarded over our lifetime. Even as adults, we can simultaneously hold rational models of the world alongside our intuitive notions.

Over the course of childhood, we become participating members of a social group. As young children, we may be the focus of our parents’ attention but, as we grow, we must learn to become part of the human race. We must learn to negotiate a social world of competing interests. We must learn to become members of a tribe that shares sacred values.

To achieve this we increasingly become aware of ourselves as unique individuals with unique minds embedded in a society of other unique individuals and minds. We are both individuals and a collective. We see ourselves as part of a group, to be distinguished from other groups. This belief is cemented by our sense that our own group has hidden properties that are essentially different from the invisible properties of other groups.