Because there are some problems that seem to constantly recur, despite all the efforts we make to solve them?

Because as soon as we solve a problem that recurs in various forms, more mild, even though we perceive it again as a serious problem ,?
Apparently, c 'a bizarre mechanism of our brain that becomes even things problems or threats that before we would consider normal and harmless.
Take for example an organization for the safety of the neighborhood, run by volunteers who call the police whenever they see anything suspicious.
And we imagine that a new volunteer decides to join the group.
At first give the alarm in the face of cases of real danger, such as assault or theft.
Now imagine that the work of the group will bear fruit and that, over time, robberies and assaults become increasingly rare.
What will they do then these volunteers?
They could relax, sure.
After all, their duty done.
But as we speculated with my research group, c 'also the possibility that the volunteers are not able to relax.
On the contrary, indeed, they could begin to define "suspicious" circumstances that until recently would have never considered before such as a person who passes a red light or on the contrary, proceeds very slowly.
This happens because in a similar situation changes our perception of the problem itself.
This mechanism, also known as "creep concept," rather frustrating.
How do you know if you've made progress in solving the problem, if your conception of resolution of the problem continues to change?
Together with my colleagues we tried to understand when and why it sets in motion this mental process, and how to avoid it.
We brought some volunteers in the laboratory, and we gave them a simple task: watching some faces generated by a computer and decide which of these were "menacing."
The faces have been carried out by researchers and ranged from very threatening to very harmless.
After an initial phase we started to show participants ever less threatening faces, and automatically their definition of "threatening" is expanded to include many more faces than before.
In other words, finding more menacing faces among those offered, participants have begun to look dangerous even those who until a few minutes before they thought harmless.
What we consider "threatening" not a well-defined category, but varies according to the number of threats that we perceived around us recently.
In another experiment, we asked participants to make an even simpler choice: to determine whether the dots on the screen were blue or purple.
When the blue dots became scarce, the participants began to see more blue dots between those violet.
They continued to do so even after we told him that the blue dots were decreased, and even when we promised them a cash prize if they perform well the task.
The results we have obtained show that this behavior is not fully aware.
After analyzing the results, we wanted to repeat the experiment with a completely different parameter which did not involve visual choices.
So, we asked our volunteers to read some scientific studies and decide which were 'ethical' and which are not.
We were rather skeptical about the results, we believed that there would be greater consistency in the face of a request for moral judgment.
Besides, if you think a certain type of violence is wrong today, it too will think tomorrow, no matter how many episodes of violence are forced to see.
Instead, the result was the same.
During the experiment, when the number of unethical studies was reduced, the participants began to define more immoral harmless studies.
In other words, to reduce the proposed unethical studies, their judgment became more severe.
But because we tend to expand our definition of "threatening" when threats diminish?
cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists speculate that this behavior is due to the functioning of the brain and how it processes information, the brain evaluates every thing to the context in which it is located.
Instead of determining whether a face threatening than any of the other faces met in life, we can only compare it with the faces seen recently, or an average of those seen recently.
This type of comparison would explain the result of the experiments, in which, with decreasing of threatening faces, the less dangerous faces are judged more dangerous because placed in relation with those totally harmless.
In a sea of friendly faces and friendly, even the slightest suspicion is suddenly perceived as a real danger.
The comparisons are to require much less energy to our brains than absolute.
To understand this concept, think of how much easier to remember what the highest among your cousins rather than remembering how high each of them.
The human brain uses its comparison in many situations, because they often provide sufficient information to move in space and to make decisions with the least cognitive effort.
At times, their judgments work well and do not create any problem.
If you are looking for a stylish restaurant, very different from what you expect from Paris and from Texas.
But if we go back to the example of the security service, a relative valuation does not make you constantly expand the concept of "crime," and when serious crimes have been deleted, arriver to include the most innocuous transgressions.
As a result, no one can ever say really pleased with the district security level, because there will always be new threats to worry about.
From medical diagnostics to financial investments, human beings are constantly called upon to make complex decisions in which the fundamental coherence.
How, then, to take consistent decisions?
My research group is now working on a lab project to understand how to identify and counter the negative consequences of a misjudgment.
That's one of the potential strategies: when you stand in front of a choice where important consistency, try to clearly define the categories of reference before beginning.
For example, make a list of criminal actions or transgressive to pursue.
Otherwise, without realizing it, you could find yourself calling the police by a neighbor who walks with the dog without a leash.
David Levari a researcher and post-doc in psychology at Harvard University.
This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.

From Vice