Back to feed
Slow Days·back No.32

The Way a Hunter-Gatherer Youth Lives Their Life

NS
normalstory
cover image

While reading a posted article via Facebook, I suddenly had a bunch of thoughts and decided to write a few lines...

Key keywords: hunter-gatherer, social proof, outcome bias


As a hunter-gatherer, I use books, meetings, and web surfing to gather information.

But the most frightening — and most efficient — is to have face-to-face meetings.



The reasons it's frightening

1. When I spend time with intellectuals I feel my own inadequacy, but I lack the capacity to tell whether that inadequacy is objective and about me, or subjective (vague admiration, the "they're so cool" kind of envy).

2. Being with intellectuals for long periods leads to the error of starting to identify myself with them.


The reasons it's efficient

1. You can feel the fear above.

2. Rather than just the objective facts of core information, you get to see the varied currents running through individual subjects (and objects).

    In other words, you get to observe the many processes of understanding as if from the corner of your eye. Like experiencing an author's perspective indirectly through a book.

    The reason is that people often show opposing tendencies between what they think in their own head, what they say out loud, and what they post in places like this. For instance, when you meet in person someone whose posts are very logical, their actual behavior can be very logical — or very inhumane. The important thing isn't to criticize the other person. It's that looking at the cause of that opposing behavior lets me find very realistic understanding and grounds for judgment about the everyday perceptions of myself and of people in general. 

3. It also plays the role of aging or refreshing thoughts (pre-existing thoughts or some memorable passage from a book I've read).

    To do a specific task, in fact, gathering, learning, and analyzing the related information alone at home or in the office might be the rational choice. But stopping everything you're doing (work or personal worries) and going through the act of moving (taking the subway, walking, encountering different visual, auditory, and olfactory stimuli) gives thought a chance to age.


To borrow another expression instead of this somewhat subjective or vague word "aging," I personally think it's similar to creative destruction.
The human brain isn't a cogwheel, so it can't simply stack information linearly as it takes it in and draw a steadily rising curve of progress. Rather, our brain has a tendency to erase old information as it takes in new information. The problem is that the newly gathered information may not be higher-quality than the old knowledge. And even if it is higher quality, it may not be optimal for my situation (for a restaurant owner running a gukbap place in a traditional market, making effective flyers might matter more than MBA-level business theory) — which could lead to *relatively irrational judgment.
So in order to develop a body of knowledge, rather than one-sidedly piling up good information, we need to keep exposing ourselves to relative information so that we can hold critical thoughts about the information we first received, and form patterns across the knowledge we've collected. 

*Relative irrationality: in economic terms this could be seen as irrational behavior. But because the judgment standard built into the word "rational" itself is subjective (either group or individual), and because rational choices don't always produce good results, I used the phrase 'relative' irrationality.




Source: http://m.biz.chosun.com/svc/article.html?contid=2013053101715


Excerpt from the article

1. 

"Simple. It's because our brains are still optimized for the hunter-gatherer stage. Of the roughly 100,000 years humans have been on earth, 99% were spent as hunter-gatherers. Civilization has only just begun to take hold. Our brains weren't designed to understand concepts like cities, industry, globalization, or financial markets. 'Social proof' behavior — unconditionally copying what many people are doing — shows up often in modern financial markets, and it's a classic hunter-gatherer behavior.

On the Serengeti, if the people around you suddenly started running in the opposite direction from you, what would you do? Stand still to figure out why everyone's running, or run like hell too? We are all the descendants of the people who ran with the crowd. The ones who stood still became lunch for the lions and vanished from the human gene pool. That's how social proof got rooted so deeply in our minds. It doesn't fit modern civilized society. Even so, we're still stuck in that mold. We're just hunter-gatherers in suits."



2.

You lecture to executives a lot — what smart traits do successful CEOs share?

"Answering that question is exactly how you fall into the error of 'outcome bias.' Gathering only the cases of people who succeeded and retroactively finding what they have in common is a textbook outcome-bias error. Honestly, the one thing successful CEOs might share could just be 'luck.' Piling up every case where someone else tried something and it worked out says nothing about whether it'll work for each individual reader. Some people who follow that advice will succeed; others won't.

One other thing a lot of them share is that bad leaders are micromanagers. They try to manage and supervise every little company detail and every action of every employee. But if you step back, a company's success depends much more on whether they went into the right industry. That is — it matters that you row well, but it matters a lot more that you got on a good boat in the first place. Warren Buffett said that. When the industry itself is riding a wave, even a mediocre leader can get decent reviews. In a declining industry, even if you do everything right, it's hard to stop the leader's reputation from sliding with it."



3.

Young people about to enter the job market say, 'I want to join that company and do this kind of work.' The company's brand value and salary are the top considerations. Very few actually ask which occupations and industries will be promising in the future. When choosing a career, how the industry will trend over the next 30 years should be the most important thing."

*Where did I come from, where am I going, who am I, where is the real me, what is my true mind



4.

You're famously someone who doesn't consume TV or newspaper news.

"Correct. I haven't followed the news for over 3 years. This is an era of news overload. Modern people being tied to the news can be seen as a kind of 'information error.' Research has shown that once the volume of information being pumped into our brains crosses a certain threshold, the quality of our actual decisions drops. As I've mentioned in other interviews, news has the same effect on the mind that sugar has on the body. Stimulating, but bad for your health."



5.

What's the next step after pointing out these thinking errors?

"Emotional regulation. Emotion is a very important factor that swings success and failure. Emotion plays a huge role in all our decisions. Take 'jealousy.' If you envy someone else's success and jealousy blinds you, you overreach to catch up and make stupid decisions. When making decisions about things that matter but that you don't understand the background of, you decide purely based on how you feel. Emotion is extremely powerful because it was designed, from the start, to transcend thought. It's already been shown through various studies that controlling emotion is far harder than controlling thought and action."

This English version was translated by Claude.

친절한 찰쓰씨
Written by
친절한 찰쓰씨

Pleasant Charles — UI/UX researcher at AIT. Keeping notes on design, planning, and slow days here since 2010.

More on the author's page

Keep reading

Slow Days

With a single thought, a whole world arises.

Apr 30, 2026·1 min
Slow Days

부유함은 상태가 아니라 감정이다

Feb 16, 2026·1 min
Slow Days

Reading a book next to my coding

Jan 18, 2026·1 min