Like most predators, we were not only the hunter, we were also the hunted. For this reason, we developed various anti-predator defense mechanisms, one of which is agent detection – something that we share with most other species. Our version, however, is theorized to be hair-trigger-like and prone to falsely detecting things that aren’t there. This is termed the Hypersensitive Agency Detection Device (HADD).1 It wasn’t the sleekest of mechanisms by any measure, but it protected humans better than the real and/or hypothetical alternatives.
In fact, I liken the HADD to an AK-47. The latter isn’t as ergonomically refined or as accurate as an AR-15. It’s actually very inefficient inasmuch as an inordinately large percentage of each chambered round’s chemical energy is converted to mechanical energy not to impart momentum to the projectile but to just work the action. Moreover, the latter is rough operating as actions go, which indicates that a hefty percentage of its mechanical energy at T = 0 doesn’t accomplish anything. Instead, it is lost in the form of useless heat. But the AK-47 always works – critical if to ‘Hell and back’ is your mission.
Returning to the point at hand, the HADD yielded many energetically expensive false positives that increased stress and resulted in quite a few foregone opportunities. It was inefficient. But according to theory, the likelihood of the HADD failing catastrophically – yielding a false negative when a very large, toothy, and stealthy cat (or something) possessing razor-sharp claws was positively there lurking in the high grass about to pounce – was quite low. In short, you made it back to camp.
Now for the sake of argument, imagine an alternative cognitive device calibrated for 100-percent accuracy every time, all the time. Let’s call it the Accurate Agent Detection Device (AADD). Unlike the HADD, this variant is sleek and efficient. On paper, it optimizes both stress reduction and opportunity exploitation. However, it possesses a two-fold problem. Firstly, the AADD would have to work against the grain of entropy because there are always more ways for something to be wrong than to be right. Entropy always wins. Secondly, it is impossible to simultaneously optimize two variables in the same relationship. Something has to give. The implication then is that the AADD would have yielded a false negative much sooner than later, resulting in catastrophic failure. In this scenario, you wouldn’t have made it back to camp.
If the theory is correct, then the HADD won out as our ancestor’s defensive cognitive measure of choice as a consequence of natural selection. There was likely a number of agent detection alternatives present in Homo sapiens at the population level, but they were filtered out thanks to predators. That’s Darwinian evolution for you – “red in tooth and claw.” Lastly, some believe the HADD contributed to human religiosity. Hmm, what’s that about?
Article 1 Introduction
Article 2 Ecclesial Postmodernism
Article 3 Men
Article 4 The Odds
Article 5 Argument from Beauty
Article 6 The Trinity in the Taconics
Article 7 Not By Spirit Alone
Article 8 A Tough Sell
Article 9 A Tight Fix
Article 10 Catch More Fish!
Fieldsports and The Faith Vignettes
- Barrett, J.L. Why Would Anyone Believe in God?. Lanham MD, Altamira Press, 2004. ↩︎