With our mobile phone always at hand, when we meet a person and we arrive at the meeting point and we don’t see them, the first thing we do is send them a message to ask them where they are. Most of the time, they are just a few meters away but we have not seen them.
Could it be that by using the mobile phone so much we are losing capabilities?
Let’s leave the question in suspense to look at a curious experiment carried out in 1958 by a Nobel Prize-winning American economist. This researcher recruited a group of law students from the University of New Haven, in Connecticut.
He told them his goal would be to meet someone in New York City. However, not being able to contact that person beforehand, they did not know the location of the appointment. Where would they go?
As you know, New York is a huge city so it is logical to assume that the chances of them meeting would be few. However, most students chose the same place: the Grand Central Station information booth, one of the most emblematic sites in the city.
Before answering this question, we better continue with the experiment. Next the researcher asked them an even more difficult question: what time would they show up at the meeting place? The result was even more surprising: almost everyone pointed to twelve o’clock.
This experiment shows us that if we drop two people with a common frame of reference in one of the largest cities in the world, there is an enormous chance that they will be able to find each other, even if they cannot communicate.
This and subsequent experiments gave rise to what are known as “Schelling points” or “focal points.” This theory states that when two people cannot communicate, they tend to choose specific patterns that are relevant to them. Basically, we put ourselves in the other person’s shoes and imagine what they could do, based on that, we decide.
Let’s look at another very simple example: imagine that a panel with four squares (three blue and one red) is placed in front of you. In an adjacent room there is another participant and they tell you that if you both select the same square, you can take home a prize. However, you can’t talk and you have no idea who the other person is. What would you do?
Most people who participated in this experiment selected the red square because it is the most striking alternative and they assume that the other participant will do the same. By making these inferences, both choose the same alternative. It is simply about putting yourself in the other person’s shoes and calculating the probabilities that they will choose a certain option.
Of course, the more we know the other person, the more likely we are to get it right. To the same extent that we share a greater number of references, the more we can agree. Furthermore, it has also been seen that we have a tendency to choose the simplest and most obvious alternative, without complicating ourselves too much, because this way we ensure that the other person chooses the same. Instinctively, we choose the shortest path and minimize the chances of error.
Neuroscientists believe that when we receive the order to find a joint strategy, specific neural circuits are activated in our brain in which convergence with the other is decisive. It is evident that if there is no convergence in the process, the prediction fails, so the key is to think about a common task, not an individual one. It is very likely that mirror neurons play a leading role in this type of task, although there is still much to study in this regard.
And regarding the question about the use of cell phones that I left in suspense at the beginning of the article, I encourage you to draw your own conclusions. However, keep in mind that all of our cognitive functions need training or we run the risk of them deteriorating.
References:
Salazar, B. (2007) Thomas C. Shelling: La paradoja de un economista errante. Revista de Economía Institucional; 9(17): 12-68.
Bacharach, M., & Bernasconi, M. (1997) The variable frame theory of focal points: An experimental study. Games and Economic Behavior; 19(1): 1–45.
