That one strikes me mostly as being a subconscious standard of proof that says “it requires X level of confidence to accept an argument as convincing, but X+n confidence before I am so convinced as to do something that I intuitively expect to kill me.”
It also strikes me as eminently sensible, and thus doesn’t do well at illustrating compartmentalisation as a bad thing :)
It was explicitly written to show the evolutionary benefit of compartmentalization, not the problems it causes. Heuristics endure because (in the ancestral environment) they worked better on average than their alternatives.
That one strikes me mostly as being a subconscious standard of proof that says “it requires X level of confidence to accept an argument as convincing, but X+n confidence before I am so convinced as to do something that I intuitively expect to kill me.”
It also strikes me as eminently sensible, and thus doesn’t do well at illustrating compartmentalisation as a bad thing :)
It was explicitly written to show the evolutionary benefit of compartmentalization, not the problems it causes. Heuristics endure because (in the ancestral environment) they worked better on average than their alternatives.