Being oriented towards threat, towards danger, is how we operate as a species. Over the long haul, this has served us well, and is a part of how we navigate the world. Imagine you are part of a group of hunter-gatherers, and have just come across a large blueberry patch. As you begin to pick blueberries, you notice a group of wolves looking at you like you might be their dinner. Now, consider two scenarios: scenario one, you ignore the wolves and keep eating blueberries– in which the wolves eat you, and your genes are not passed down. Scenario two, you pause on the blueberries to respond to the threat of the wolves– in which more of your genes get passed down. In short, the cost of ignoring a threat is higher than the cost of pursuing an opportunity.
This shows up as the idea of loss aversion, as described by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky: losing things bothers us more than gaining things delights us. In a famous series of experiments, these researchers showed that gaining $20 makes us feel as good and losing $10. In other words– losing hurts twice as much as gaining. In another example particularly relevant to our modern world, each additional negative or threatening word in a headline increases the chance that we will click on it by 2.3%.
In attentional bias research done with “dot-probe” experiments, participants are shown a threatening image (like a snake or angry face) next to a neutral one, followed by a target appearing in the location of one of the images. People are consistently faster to respond when the target replaces the threatening image—suggesting that their attention has already shifted there, automatically and outside of conscious awareness. Even before we think, we are already oriented toward what might harm us.
This observation about our human nature is not good or bad, it is just a reality of how our brains are wired. However, it creates some real challenges for us in the modern world. Moreover, in an economy that runs on attention, this tendency is often exploited by organizations that are looking to capture– and then monetize– our attention.
The same bias that once kept us alive now makes us predictable– and is exploited. We no longer encounter threats at the scale or frequency our brains were designed for. Instead, we live inside systems that have learned to continuously supply them. Threat is no longer something we detect—it is manufactured, refined, and delivered to us. Headlines become sharper, more alarming. Content becomes more polarizing. Conflict compels our attention– nuance does not. This is not accidental. When each additional negative word makes us more likely to click, the system naturally selects for negativity. Over time, we are not just consuming information—we are being trained to see the world as more dangerous, more divided, and more urgent than it actually is.
The machinery of our brain was built for acute, intermittent threats—wolves at the edge of the clearing, not a constant stream of symbolic danger. In that older environment, a false positive—mistaking a rustle in the bushes for a predator—cost very little. In our current environment, those false positives accumulate. Emails feel like attacks. The news feels like a crisis. Social interactions feel charged with meaning and risk. The brain circuitry that once helped us survive now quietly exhausts us. Worse, we become what we do. Bankers tend to see the world through the lens of money, lawyers see the world through the lens of law, and engineers see the world through the lens of building. Constantly being trained to look at threats encourages us to see the world through that lens.
There is an opportunity cost that comes with this as well. When our attention is consistently pulled toward threat, it is pulled away from everything else. Attention, after all, is finite. If we spend it scanning for what might go wrong, we are not spending it noticing what is actually here– or what might go right. Moments of connection pass without being registered, and the beauty of daily life becomes harder to appreciate. It is difficult to be curious when we feel besieged. Our experience of the world becomes disproportionately shaped by its sharp edges, not its full texture. This is problem because it leads to unhappiness, but also because it is untrue (link)
Not only do threats shape our attention, they shape the lens through which we interpret the world. Over time, this does not just change what we feel—it changes what we believe reality to be. If we are mostly exposed to conflict, we begin to assume conflict is the norm. If we are mostly exposed to outrage, we begin to see the world as something to react to rather than engage with. Bias becomes a worldview.
We cannot escape our human instinct to orient toward danger, but we can update what we treat as dangerous. In the modern world, the real threat is often what interrupts our attention: the alerts, the notifications, the headlines crafted to pull us out of the present. The algorithm is the wolf, looking for dinner. By reorienting to modern threats, by framing distraction as the danger, we reclaim agency. In the modern world, we do not lose out on the blueberries because we instead get eaten by wolves, we lose out on eating the blueberries because we are investigating every rustle in the bushes concerned that it is a sign of a threat that is no longer present. Fortunately, our brains can be re-trained, but doing that requires us to redefine the threats we face in our modern world.
Love,
Doc
PS: For many of us, our phone is what most readily pulls us away and distracts us. I recently came across this piece about one person’s struggle with this, which includes some concrete steps you can take if you struggle with this too.
Forwarded this email? Sign-up here
See past posts here.