Chapter 1: The Comfort Crisis Explained

Recently, I had the pleasure of being featured on NPR’s RadioWest to discuss my latest book, The Comfort Crisis. During the interview, host Doug Fabrizio prompted me to share an intriguing story about two Harvard psychologists, David Levari and Daniel Gilbert. Their observations while waiting in line at TSA sparked a study that sheds light on why many of us struggle to recognize just how fortunate we truly are.

You can catch the story on the show here. Essentially, Levari and Gilbert were at the airport en route to a conference when they noted that TSA agents often treat harmless individuals as if they pose significant risks.

We have all witnessed this phenomenon: a TSA officer meticulously inspecting a carry-on, convinced that a banana could be a concealed weapon, or a 90-year-old in a wheelchair being subjected to a thorough search for simply carrying a bottle of hairspray.

The principle of “better safe than sorry” seems to govern these interactions. Yet, Levari wondered, “If suddenly no one brought prohibited items and scanners remained silent, would TSA agents simply do nothing?” They suspected otherwise. “We believed that, much like everyone else, if they ran out of obvious threats, they would unconsciously start seeking out less apparent dangers because their role is to identify risks.”

With this hypothesis in mind, Levari embarked on a series of studies in 2018 to explore whether our brains instinctively search for problems, even when they are rare or non-existent. In one experiment, participants assessed 800 human faces, ranging from intimidating to harmless, judging which appeared “threatening.” Unbeknownst to the participants, the number of threatening faces gradually decreased after they had viewed the first 200.

Another study involved evaluating 240 scientific research proposals as “ethical” or “unethical.” Halfway through, Levari began presenting fewer “unethical” options.

These scenarios seem straightforward—someone is either threatening or they are not; a proposal is either ethical or it isn’t. If we cannot discern these distinctions clearly, it raises questions about the reliability of our judgments on larger matters.

Upon analyzing the data, Levari found that humans perceive a spectrum of gray rather than clear black and white. Our perception of gray is influenced by previous experiences. As fewer threatening faces appeared, participants began to see neutral faces as potentially dangerous. Similarly, as “unethical” proposals became scarce, ambiguous ones started to be viewed as unethical.

He termed this phenomenon “prevalence-induced concept change,” or what could be seen as “problem creep.” This concept suggests that as we encounter fewer issues, we do not become more content; instead, we lower our standards for what constitutes a problem. Thus, we maintain the same quantity of troubles, but they are often less substantial.

Levari pinpointed the psychological mechanism behind why people can find problems in almost any circumstance, even when conditions are favorable compared to historical standards. We continually adjust our expectations. There is a scientific underpinning to our so-called first-world problems.

“I believe this is a fundamental aspect of human psychology,” Levari explained. Our brains have evolved to make relative comparisons, which require less cognitive effort than recalling every past experience. This ability helped early humans navigate their environments safely. However, in today’s context, “As individuals make these relative judgments,” Levari noted, “they become increasingly dissatisfied with what once brought them joy.”

In my book, The Comfort Crisis, I delve into how our modern conveniences are intertwined with significant issues such as obesity, chronic illnesses, and feelings of emptiness. By stepping out of our comfort zones, we can greatly enhance our mental, physical, and spiritual health.

Levari also pointed out that this creep phenomenon directly affects our relationship with comfort, dubbing it “comfort creep.” When a new comfort is introduced, we quickly adapt, rendering previous comforts inadequate. What is comfortable today may feel insufficient tomorrow.

For instance, stairs were once celebrated for their efficiency, but with the invention of escalators, why would anyone choose to climb? A simple meal of lean meat and tubers was once a highlight, yet now we are surrounded by restaurants offering indulgent combinations of sugar, salt, and fat. Similarly, a basic shelter like a teepee or cabin has transformed into the expectation of climate-controlled homes.

As new comforts emerge, our benchmarks for discomfort shift ever further away. Each advancement constricts our comfort zones. The critical insight, as Levari emphasized, is that this process happens without our awareness. We are often oblivious to how comfort creep affects us and what consequences it brings.

To counteract this trend, I traveled 30,000 miles worldwide, consulting experts from Harvard researchers to Buddhist Lamas and Special Forces personnel. I also spent over a month in Alaska’s remote wilderness. Through these experiences, I uncovered several evolutionary discomforts that we can reintroduce into our lives to consciously combat comfort creep and restore our health and happiness.

Chapter 2: The Impact of Comfort Creep on Our Wellbeing

The first video titled "Science Isn't Dogma, You're Just Stupid (Response to Formscapes)" explores the concept of scientific reasoning and how it relates to our understanding of comfort and discomfort in modern society.

The second video, "The Science of Thinking," delves into cognitive processes and how they shape our perceptions of comfort and discomfort in our daily lives.