PDF Summary:The Elephant in the Brain, by Robin Hanson and Kevin Simler

Do you donate to charity because you care? Or are you lying to yourself and others about the true reason? In The Elephant in the Brain, software engineer Kevin Simler and economics professor Robin Hanson controversially argue that human behavior is driven by selfish motives—and that your own brain is hiding them from you. These hidden motives shape everything from our conversations and purchasing decisions to our schools and health care systems. The authors say if we learn to recognize these “elephants,” we can improve our individual behaviors and our social institutions.

As we explore Simler and Hanson’s theories, we’ll cover topics like why we’re constantly deceiving each other, why charitable giving is actually selfish, and why the purpose of education is to certify future employees. Along the way, we’ll challenge some of the authors’ arguments by providing alternative explanations, and we’ll explain how you can put their insights to work in your own life.

(continued)...

Conversation

Simler and Hanson argue that while we might think the purpose of conversation is to share information, its actual purpose is for the speaker to advertise him/herself as a good potential ally. They say that good conversationalists exhibit two key qualities:

• They’re knowledgeable—they have a wealth of new information that can help us accomplish our goals or better understand the world. Simler and Hanson argue that when we share information, it’s not just the information that’s important—we’re also sending the message that we’re the kind of person who has such information and is therefore a valuable ally.
• They’re relevant—we expect speakers to stay on topic rather than blurting out random facts. Simler and Hanson say that’s because we’re not just interested in how much knowledge someone has—we’re interested in allying with someone who can pull out the right knowledge at the right time.

(Shortform note: The ability to stay on topic also shows that the speaker is intelligent (can think clearly and craft an understandable message) and considerate (values our time enough not to follow every random tangent). Moreover, relevancy can signal that a speaker is interested in us, especially when they’re willing to keep the focus on a topic we care about. In fact, in How to Talk to Anyone, communications expert Leil Lowndes argues that successful conversation makes the other person feel good—suggesting that conversation is more of an emotional transaction than an informational transaction (as Simler and Hanson suggest). Taming the elephant: Either way, if you want to be a better conversationalist, it pays to think about what you can offer your audience.)

Because conversation is really about signaling your social utility, Simler and Hanson say that another purpose of conversation is to build prestige. Speakers want to look smart, informed, and connected. Returning to the discussion of social games above, prestige is one of two ways to raise your social status (which also helps you win the games of sex and politics). The more your conversation sends the message “I’m a valuable mate/partner/friend,” the higher you can drive your social status.

Simler and Hanson point out that listeners want to associate with prestigious speakers because that association raises the listener’s prestige as well. They say that’s why it can be hard for people with very different social statuses to talk to each other: Someone with high social status won’t want to diminish that status or give it away cheaply by associating with someone with too little prestige.

The Dangers of Prestige

The power of prestigious associations can lead to outrageous outcomes when someone is willing to exploit prestige. For example, in Bad Blood, reporter John Carreyrou explains how Elizabeth Holmes built her company Theranos into a $10 billion scam based on imaginary blood testing innovations. Carreyrou says that part of Holmes’s strategy was to make ever more prestigious associations through her investors and supporters—starting with one of her college professors and ending with two former US Secretaries of State, one former Secretary of Defense, and media mogul Rupert Murdoch. With so many prestigious names on board, Theranos’s credibility seemed to speak for itself.

Taming the elephant: Don’t be afraid to admit when you’re wrong or to question authority. It’s better to lose a little prestige than to buy into a billion-dollar fraud.

Body Language

Whereas conversation is about sharing information in order to raise our social status and broadcast our utility as allies, Simler and Hanson say that body language allows us to communicate about things that we’d never talk about openly. That’s because body language is:

• Unconscious—the authors argue that body language is mostly involuntary, which means that it communicates our true intentions (including intentions we wouldn’t put into words). Body language is also unconscious in that we typically interpret other peoples’ body language without being aware we’re doing so. The authors say that’s why we sometimes get a certain “vibe” from someone without knowing why.
• Subtle—it’s easy to overhear (and repeat) spoken words, but it’s much harder for a third party to notice many types of body language. The authors say that makes body language an ideal medium when we want to be discreet, like when communicating sexual interest.
• Deniable—thanks to the previous two traits, it’s much easier to deny our true intentions (to ourselves and others) if something goes wrong.

How Unconscious Is Body Language?

Simler and Hanson contend that because it’s unconscious, body language reveals our true intentions most of the time. But this argument doesn’t account for cases where someone is deliberately using his or her body language to make a specific impression. Simler and Hanson acknowledge this possibility, but they argue that consciously cultivated body language plays little role in most of our interactions. Yet the vast amount of literature on body language and nonverbal communication suggests otherwise. For just a few examples:

• In How to Talk to Anyone, Leil Lowndes gives tips for seeming approachable and likable. For example, she recommends pausing before smiling when meeting someone new.

• In The Way of the Wolf, Jordan Belfort gives extensive advice for using body language to close sales. For example, he suggests copying a potential customer’s gestures and mannerisms to create a subconscious rapport.

• In Surrounded by Idiots, Thomas Erikson argues that you can discern someone’s personality type from just their nonverbal communication style. For example, he says people who have little sense of personal space and stumble over their words tend to be “yellow” personalities—entertaining, idealistic extroverts.

Similar tips can be found in countless guides to dating, public speaking, job interviewing, getting ahead at work, making friends, closing business deals, and so on. And even if you don’t formally study and practice body language, most of us are taught (by parents, teachers, and others) some of the same practices that the above experts recommend: stand up tall, make eye contact, smile, use a firm handshake, and so on. Given all that, it’s perhaps not so easy to conclude that body language reveals the unfiltered truth of our intentions as Simler and Hanson suggest.

Taming the elephant: It’s worth studying body language so that you can project the image you want, avoid revealing truths you’d rather keep hidden, and be aware of when other people try to manipulate or control you.

Simler and Hanson say that body language’s subtlety and deniability allow us to use it to communicate about things that norms would ordinarily tell us to avoid, such as:

Sex: The authors point out that we would rarely meet a stranger in a club and openly ask about having sex. Instead, we unconsciously communicate our romantic intent by using eye contact, touch, tone of voice, and so on. These behaviors are subtle enough that many outsiders won’t notice them. And if the interaction goes badly (the other party isn’t interested—or his/her romantic partner suddenly shows up) it’s easier to deny our intent because we never actually stated it.

(Shortform note: This deniability might also ease the blow of rejection by allowing us to put less of ourselves out there than if we were to openly declare our interest. However, subtlety has its costs: One study suggests that we only correctly detect whether someone was flirting with us about 28% of the time.)

Power: Similarly, norms against dominance and self-aggrandizing mean that a boss probably won’t verbally declare his own importance to his employees. Instead, he unconsciously broadcasts his authority by using aggressive eye contact, interrupting others, adopting relaxed and open postures, and so on. Simler and Hanson point out that in these scenarios, subordinates unconsciously adapt their own behavior to signal their acceptance of a leader’s authority: They make less eye contact, speak less (and never interrupt the leader), and maintain more formal postures in the leader’s presence. The authors argue that because these signals are subtle and deniable, people can more easily overcome their aversion to authority since that authority is never explicitly stated or discussed.

(Shortform note: We need only look at recent politics to see that power signaling is often anything but subtle. For example, Donald Trump is known for subjecting others to uncomfortably long and aggressive handshakes, while Russian president Putin and Turkish president Erdoğan have taken turns leaving each other waiting for hours before planned meetings. Taming the elephant: If you’re in a position of power and don’t wish to be domineering, be careful how you use nonverbal dominance signals. If you’re on the receiving end of these dominance signals, recognizing them for what they are might help you better understand your office dynamics (and potentially change jobs). Or, as Robert Greene suggests in The 48 Laws of Power, you can exploit your boss’s sense of superiority for your own gain.)

Spending As Signaling

Just as body language allows us to communicate about things we’d never put into words, Simler and Hansen argue that many of our actions double as conspicuous fitness displays—they say to a potential mate, ally, or enemy: “Look how strong, wealthy, powerful, and connected I am.” This is especially noticeable when it comes to how we spend our money and other resources.

Conspicuous Consumption

For example, the authors point to the well-known phenomenon of conspicuous consumption, where we buy expensive (and often superfluous or excessive) things to signal our wealth, status, and power to others. For example, strictly speaking, nobody needs a Tesla. But owning one suggests several things about you:

• You have a lot of money.
• You’re interested in new technologies (which implies that you’re well-informed and intelligent).
• You care about sustainable energy and vehicle emissions (which implies that you’re selflessly concerned with your impact on other people and the planet).

Note that none of these messages are things we typically say outright. We don’t walk up to strangers and say: “I’m rich, smart, and selfless.” But a new Tesla promises to say all that for you. (Shortform note: Non-consumption can also send conspicuous signals. For example, one study argues that vocally quitting or abstaining from social media can be a type of political performance—in other words, by avoiding Facebook and saying so, people can signal that they value more authentic communication or that they reject Facebook’s status as a commercial entity.)

Simler and Hanson argue that this kind of signaling isn’t just about what you believe; it relies on your assumptions about what other people believe. They explain that lifestyle advertising (where companies focus on brand identity rather than extolling the strengths of the product itself) is meant to create common knowledge about the signals that certain brands send. For example, a Tesla wouldn’t signal the above qualities if nobody knew that Tesla makes expensive electric cars.

(Shortform note: This effect also explains the phenomenon by which people will agree with a political candidate’s policies, but not vote for that candidate for fear that the candidate “isn’t electable” or “doesn't seem presidential enough.” This kind of vote has nothing to do with the voter’s opinion of the candidate and everything to do with what the voter thinks other voters will think about the candidate. Taming the elephant: Pay attention to times when you base your choices on what you think others think—this often doesn’t line up with what you actually want.)

Selfish Giving

Likewise, Simler and Hanson argue that charity isn’t just about helping others—it’s also about showing off how compassionate and benevolent we are.

For example, they point out that most people don’t pay attention to how efficiently charities use their donations. They argue that charities that have been shown to use donations the most effectively remain less popular than ones that have better name recognition—regardless of how objectively effective these better-known charities are. For example, they point out that the Against Malaria Foundation—which has been ranked as one of the most effective charities—is less popular than, say, the United Way. They suggest that one reason for this is that we know others will recognize the United Way and are therefore more likely to give us credit for donating there than they would with a more obscure—but possibly more effective—charity.

Simler and Hanson also argue that giving is affected by visibility and peer pressure. For example, they point out that people are more likely to give when solicited to do so by an attractive member of the sex they’re interested in—suggesting a desire to signal favorable qualities.

(Shortform note: Taming the elephant: If you want to make your giving more beneficial—even if that means it might be less visible—it’s worth investigating the effective altruism movement (which Simler and Hanson mention in the book). The idea of effective altruism is to use objective data to figure out which charities and causes do the most good per dollar spent. In general, effective causes are those that affect many lives, are currently neglected, and can be dramatically improved by money or other resources.)

Social Institutions: Deceiving Ourselves Together

Just as our charitable giving hides selfish motives behind a conscious intent to help others, the authors say that many of our social systems are driven by motives other than the ones we recognize. That means that some of our most important institutions—including health care, education, and religion—are built around goals we’re not even aware of.

Health Care Lets You Look Caring

In some cases, like health care, these selfish motives are extensions of the ones we’ve seen at the individual level. For instance, the authors argue that medicine isn’t just about healing—it’s also about showing conspicuous care. They give the example of a mother kissing her toddler’s scraped knee to “make it better.” This practice has no physical healing power, but it’s a social ritual that shows the mother cares and lets the child feel cared for.

Simler and Hanson argue that this ritual extends into our adult lives. For example, they point out that when someone gets sick or hurt, it’s common for friends, family, and community members to bring that person food. They argue that bringing food signals that you care—as with charity, it advertises your compassion and selflessness. Meanwhile, receiving food broadcasts your popularity and support (conversely, if nobody helps you when you’re in need, that doesn’t speak well to your status in the community).

Simler and Hanson further argue that our professional health care systems function as a larger scale conspicuous care ritual which leads to medically inferior decisions. They argue that this is why patients and doctors seem to prefer active interventions over watchful waiting (monitoring a patient’s status but not intervening unless symptoms worsen) or nonmedical preventative strategies like lifestyle changes. They suggest we want our doctors to be “doing something” so that we know they care about us (and likewise that doctors want to show their caring via active interventions).

Likewise, they argue that this is why, in end-of-life situations, patients and their families choose aggressive interventions (which come with great cost and limited efficacy) over palliative care. Palliative care focuses on managing a patient’s symptoms and maintaining or improving quality of life; it can be used in conjunction with curative treatments or, in the case of terminal disease, it can include measures like hospice care. By contrast, aggressive treatment means, for example, continuing chemotherapy and drug treatments (which typically have strong side effects) and performing surgery even when there’s no hope of curing a disease.

Simler and Hanson argue that patients (or their family members) often opt for the aggressive option because it sends the message that you care about your life (or your loved one’s life). They say that choosing palliative care—even when it’s objectively the better option—seems to send the message that you’re okay letting yourself or a loved one die.

An Alternative Explanation of Unnecessary Health Care

Simler and Hanson’s account doesn’t include a number of psychological and practical explanations for some of the phenomena they discuss, none of which have anything to do with signaling. For example:

• Patients’ decisions about their own health care could be influenced by factors as subtle as the order in which they receive information. For example, you’ll probably be less inclined to get a procedure if you hear about its risks before hearing about its benefits. Similarly, if a doctor presents options for active intervention before presenting an option like watchful waiting, that might bias you toward the active option.

• End-of-life patients might opt for treatment rather than palliative care because they’re afraid of death—or don’t want to admit that they’re dying. Similarly, they might opt for treatment because their doctor is uncomfortable discussing end-of-life options, resulting in patients having unclear understandings of their situations.

• Doctors might pursue treatments based on incorrect assumptions about their patients’ preferences. For instance, when treating breast cancer, a doctor might choose treatments designed to preserve the breast even though that might not be a priority for the patient.

• Doctors sometimes override patients’ advance directives (written instructions about when and how a doctor should try to save a patient’s life) to provide life-saving care the patient didn’t want. The reasons for this aren’t clear, but experts suspect it’s in part because doctors are trained to take action, not to sit by.

• Doctors often order unnecessary tests to cover their bases and manage risks. Doctors and patients alike are uncomfortable with uncertainty, and testing gives the (often false) impression of knowledge. Plus, doctors fear being sued for malpractice if a patient gets sick or dies from something that could have been caught by a test.

Overall, it seems there is indeed an elephant when it comes to health care—but rather than being about hidden motives, this elephant has to do with patient-doctor communications (and fear of lawsuits).

Taming the elephant: To minimize the chances of unnecessary tests or procedures, have open and honest conversations with your doctor—and be aware of how the illusion of control might bias you in favor of testing and active interventions.

Education Certifies Future Workers

Whereas medicine is about conspicuously broadcasting our pro-social motives, according to Simler and Hanson, other institutions are about shaping society in a desired direction. As noted earlier, humans are inherently resistant to control and hierarchies. In order to get around this resistance, we have institutions that say they benefit the individual but actually serve some other purpose.

For example, the authors say that education isn’t just about learning—it's also about molding students into good future employees and citizens. They argue that standardized schooling is a method for systematically overcoming humans’ natural resistance to authority. In other words, one function of school is to civilize students by getting them accustomed to power hierarchies, schedules, and being evaluated and judged. Part of the goal is to turn students into citizens—that’s why schools instill civic identity by teaching and enforcing the history, customs, and norms of a given society. For example, in the US, students are required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, an oath of fealty to the US flag and government that’s often taught before students even begin to understand government or politics.

But above all, the authors suggest that the underlying motivation of schooling is to make people into good modern employees by teaching them to accept authority and routines. The authors give examples of societies that installed industrial economies without an established educational system: The result was workers who refused to follow instructions, only worked when and how much they wanted to, and so on.

(Shortform note: Simler and Hanson mostly focus on schools’ explicit structure—things like schedules, rules, and authority figures. But according to author Alfie Kohn, education’s role in instilling discipline lies even deeper—he argues that the curriculum itself is designed to control and pacify students. According to Kohn, research shows that learning is more effective when it emphasizes student autonomy and creative projects over fact memorization and top-down instruction. Yet, he says, many teachers and administrators favor traditional methods like lectures, worksheets, and so on because those methods are much more likely to produce students who do what they’re told.)

That’s why the authors argue that a main function of schools is to certify their graduates as good potential employees. The authors point out that education doesn’t necessarily seem like good preparation for work: Many degrees aren’t directly applicable to the workplace—and besides, students quickly forget what they’ve learned. They also point out that in many universities, anyone can audit classes and receive the same instruction that paying students receive, with the only difference being the lack of a diploma at the end.

From this, the authors conclude that employers care less about your education itself than they care about your degree—because of what the degree implies about you. A good transcript or a degree from a good school demonstrates a number of character traits (persistence, organization, punctuality, responsibility, willingness to follow rules and instructions, general intelligence) that bode well for the modern workplace. A degree proves that you can succeed in a hierarchical, structured institution that demands you spend a lot of time on tedious tasks.

(Shortform note: In Quiet, Susan Cain argues that schools are so focused on making students into good employees that they’ve reshaped the curriculum according to perceived business needs. Specifically, she argues that schools have come to favor cooperative and group learning because these methods align with corporate preferences for teams and committees. Similarly, the popularity of STEM education in recent years is driven by the desire to prepare students for future careers.)

Religion Cements Social Norms

Similarly, the authors argue that religion isn’t just about belief, salvation, and higher purpose—it’s also about cementing and enforcing societal norms. For instance, they point out that most religions have rules about who can get married and many have teachings that encourage procreation. In other words, they say, one function of religion is to establish and enforce a set of norms around mating.

Similarly, they argue that many religious practices revolve around sacrifice because it shows that we’re good potential allies if we’re willing to selflessly put the group first. They claim that deities typically stand in for society at large, and so sacrificing to a god shows that we’re willing to sacrifice for society. For this reason, they conclude that demonstrating religious belief indicates your willingness to pay your dues for the greater good of the social group.

(Shortform note: This explanation may conflate sacrifice in the sense of soldiers dying for their country with sacrifice as a religious practice. In the former case, many psychologists support Simler and Hanson’s interpretation that sacrifice might come from a hidden desire to feel helpful or gain social approval. But religious sacrifice is a different matter—it has more to do with psychological and spiritual desires to atone for wrongdoings, to re-establish communion with deities, and ultimately, to control an unpredictable world. In other words, religious sacrifice probably has less to do with how sacrificers want to be seen by the rest of society and more to do with how they want to be seen by their deities.)

Meanwhile, other religious practices serve to distinguish adherents from nonadherents and implicitly signal things about the practitioner’s values. For example, the authors say that shared worship makes beliefs and values common knowledge in the community. In other words, when you attend a sermon or any other kind of public religious function, you see fellow believers and they see you. As a result, the religion’s rules and values become public knowledge, meaning everyone is more likely to observe them because they know the community knows they know the rules and expects them to follow them.

Meanwhile, visible components of religion—such as attire—serve to identify believers to each other and to outsiders. In both cases, the authors say religious attire serves as an implicit promise to uphold the religion’s moral standards. For fellow believers, the attire activates the common knowledge of shared norms, and for outsiders, it implies that the wearer knows he or she speaks for the whole religion and is therefore motivated to behave well.

(Shortform note: The question of whether religious attire serves a spiritual or signaling purpose is complex—in part because it depends heavily on context. For instance, different branches of Judaism have very different expectations about whether and when men (and sometimes women) should wear a kippah. Plus, not all religious attire fits the signaling model at all. For example, many Mormon practitioners wear special undergarments known as “temple garments” at all times. These undergarments are explicitly not meant for public display, as they’re meant to be a symbol of the practitioner’s covenant with God.)

Part 3: Final Thoughts on Taming the Elephant

If hidden motives really are as prevalent as Simler and Hanson say, we might be left with a bleak picture of humanity. The authors themselves acknowledge that we might not be happy to hear their insights—few of us want to admit when we’re driven by selfishness and other “bad” motives. Perhaps worse is the thought that our valued social institutions are based on selfish deception.

But there’s a silver lining to learning about the elephant: Once we recognize it, we can do something about it. That’s why throughout this guide, we’ve offered tips for applying Simler and Hanson’s insights to improve your own life. In that spirit, here are a few final—and more general—ideas about how taming the elephant lets us:

• Become less selfish and less self-deceived. For example, a researcher who honestly acknowledges that her work is driven in part by a desire to advance her career and win acclaim will be more likely to resist the temptation to doctor her results in order to get published. That’s because she’ll be able to choose between her (no longer) hidden desire for self-advancement and her altruistic desire to further scientific knowledge.
  • (Shortform note: According to stoicism popularizer Ryan Holiday, unchecked selfish motives can actually get in the way of your career. In Ego Is the Enemy, Holiday argues that aiming for recognition causes you to compromise your values—instead, he suggests focusing on accomplishing things that will make a difference to your profession or to the world at large.)
• Accept our selfishness and transform it into enlightened self interest by deliberately helping others in order to advance ourselves. For example, businesses with strong charitable cultures might enjoy better sales and customer loyalty—but only if their charitable engagement is genuine and effective. When businesses are honest about their desire to make money, it’s easier to see how helping others can actually advance this selfish goal.
  • (Shortform note: We tend to think of selfishness and selflessness as opposites, but according to Adam Grant, they are independent motivations, meaning that you can be selfish and selfless at the same time. In fact, in Give and Take, Grant argues that balancing these two motivations is crucial to your happiness and mental health.)
• Design better institutions. The authors point out that we can’t change our social systems until we understand the hidden motives that drive them. For example, if we want to reform the penal system, we first need to recognize how unspoken motives (like the desire to have criminals suffer) are at odds with our stated goals (to rehabilitate offenders or to remove them from society for everyone’s safety).
  • (Shortform note: For example, being aware of our true motivations might help reduce what Daniel Kahneman, Olivier Sibony, and Cass R. Sunstein call noise—unwanted variances in judgment that reduce the quality and consistency of our social systems. In Noise, the authors argue that the variances result in part from differences in opinion and perspective from one judger to the next. For example, if a group of judges say they believe in rehabilitation—but some of them have hidden vengeance or punishment motivations—then as a whole, their sentencing decisions will be noisy.)