How often do we get a third chance?
In human psychology, overconfidence is typically taken to be the overestimation of one’s own capabilities. This, and other apparent cognitive biases such as optimism, are well-documented phenomena whose underlying neural mechanisms are becoming known. However, a convincing evolutionary explanation of such phenomena is lacking.
Two recent high-profile publications have advanced proposals for evolutionary explanations of overconfidence. […] The first proposal, a model by Johnson and Fowler (J&F), […] considers a scenario in which individuals compare their estimated fighting ability against that of potential opponents when deciding whether to contest a resource, doing so only if they perceive themselves as more capable. By identifying conditions under which individuals should overestimate their fighting ability, J&F claim to show that overconfidence should evolve.
The second is Trivers’ theory of self-deception. […] Among Trivers’ primary arguments for the evolution of cognitive bias are that selective pressure exists for animals to deceive each other and that deception is more effective, and less cognitively costly, when the deceiver believes the deception; in the context of animal conflict, the explanation of overconfidence would be that acting as if one’s abilities are greater than they really are can more effectively dissuade others from competition.
[…]
We argue that recent proposals, focused on benefits from overestimating the probability of success in conflicts or practicing self-deception to better deceive others, are still lacking in crucial regards. Attention must be paid to the difference between cognitive and outcome biases; outcome biases are suboptimal, yet cognitive biases can be optimal.
[…]
Cognitive bias: an inaccurate view of the world. This is a psychological definition. A cognitive bias might produce rational behavior or might result in an outcome bias.
Outcome bias: a departure from rational behavior. This is an operational definition.
{ Cell | PDF }
