How Dysfunctional Instincts Have Become Systemic and How AI Can Fix it?
Executive Summary
Human beings evolved powerful instincts – for self-protection, social belonging and hierarchy, feeding, and imitation – that once promoted survival. Today these same instincts are hijacked by modern systems for profit and power. Social media and online platforms exploit our fear, anger and desire for status to capture attention and ad revenue. Processed-food industries exploit innate cravings for sugar, fat and salt, triggering addictive overconsumption. Political and media elites exploit tribal fear and outrage to polarize societies. Even schools and workplaces now feed off instinctive drives through constant digital distraction and competition. These feedback loops – fear → engagement → profit or hunger → eating → industry growth – entrench dysfunction across society.
This paper explains the biological basis of key human instincts (fight-or-flight, status-seeking, tribalism, food craving, mimicry), documents how modern institutions amplify them, and presents cross-sector case studies (technology platforms, food systems, education, governance). We identify vicious feedback loops and propose actionable policy solutions – from algorithm audits and design standards to food taxes, media literacy education, and new economic incentives – to realign systems with human well-being. The result is a set of interdisciplinary recommendations that can guide policymakers and leaders in redesigning institutions and markets to mitigate harm and promote human flourishing.
Introduction
Humans are a social species whose minds and bodies evolved under ancestral conditions very different from today’s environment. Evolutionary psychologists note that “the human mind has evolved to be a highly social mind, comprising many functional psychological adaptations specifically designed to solve problems associated with group life”. We naturally form in-groups and out-groups, favoring our own community members and distrusting outsiders. We also evolved a fight-or-flight stress response that mobilizes adrenaline and cortisol to escape threats, and a drive to consume high-calorie foods in times of scarcity. Importantly, status-seeking – striving for respect, prestige and esteem – is a universal human motive. Research finds people’s well-being, self-esteem and even health depend on the social status they receive, and that individuals “engage in a wide range of goal-directed activities to manage their status” (from networking to bragging) and react strongly when it is threatened. These drives were adaptive in our evolutionary past, but today they can be manipulated.
In modern industrial and digital societies, institutions and markets have learned to prey on these innate instincts. Media companies push sensational and fear‑inducing content, social networks sell “likes” and followers for status, and food manufacturers engineer ultra‑palatable products to stimulate cravings. Political actors exacerbate tribal divisions by vilifying out‑groups. As a result, behaviors that were once private or low‑stakes (scanning for danger, sharing with neighbors, enjoying food) have become monetized and systematized by algorithms, advertising, and organizational practices.
This white paper first reviews the biological roots of core human instincts (Section 1), then illustrates how each is systematically reinforced or hijacked by modern systems (Section 2). We draw on case studies from technology, food and health, education, and governance to show how these dynamics play out in real life. We then identify the reinforcing feedback loops that lock in dysfunction (Section 3). Finally, we offer a broad set of policy and design interventions (Section 4) – from regulation to education and economic incentives – that can break these loops and promote healthier outcomes. Our aim is to provide an integrated analysis for policymakers and institutional leaders across disciplines, highlighting how reconfiguring incentives and designs in multiple sectors can mitigate the harms of instinct-driven exploitation and better align our systems with human flourishing.
1. Biological Basis of Key Human Instincts
Human behavior is deeply shaped by evolved instincts and drives. Below we highlight several fundamental instincts that underlie much of our social and personal behavior:
Fight-or-Flight (Fear/Stress) Response. This automatic physiological reaction to perceived threats is triggered by the amygdala and hypothalamus, releasing adrenaline and cortisol. Its purpose is survival: as Harvard Medical School explains, this “well-orchestrated sequence of hormonal changes” evolved so “people and other mammals [could] react quickly to life-threatening situations”. Heart rate, breathing and senses intensify under stress, priming the body to fight or flee. Once life-threatening dangers have passed, the body normally returns to calm via the parasympathetic “rest-and-digest” system. However, modern stressors (job pressure, social threat, media alarms) can chronically activate this survival response even when no real physical danger exists. Over time, repeated “false alarms” harm health – contributing to hypertension, immune dysfunction, anxiety and depression. In sum, the fight-flight instinct is a built-in alarm system, but in today’s world it can be triggered by every clickbait headline or frightening rumor, with harmful long-term effects.
Tribalism (In-Group vs. Out-Group Bias). Humans evolved in small interdependent groups, leading to psychological adaptations for distinguishing “us” vs. “them.” People instinctively categorize others by group membership and preferentially help in-group members over outsiders. Scholars call this the “tribal instinct”. Van Vugt et al. (2019) note that “the social science literature abounds with examples of people’s tendency to categorize others on the basis of group membership” and that this is largely due to an evolved tribal psychology. This in-group favoritism likely aided our ancestors’ survival by strengthening cooperation within coalitions, but it also entrenches out-group suspicion and conflict. Importantly, tribal tendencies are often even stronger among men (the “male warrior” dynamic), reflecting evolutionary histories of group conflict. In modern times, tribal instincts manifest as nationalism, partisanship, religious bias or any form of identity-based division – tendencies that can be easily fanned by leaders or media.
Status-Seeking and Social Hierarchies. Among social living species, higher status confers real advantages. Humans evolved sophisticated motives to attain and maintain social rank. Anderson et al. (2015) reviewed decades of research and concluded that “people’s subjective well-being, self-esteem, and mental and physical health appear to depend on the level of status they are accorded by others”. The review found that individuals “engage in a wide range of goal-directed activities to manage their status” – watching status cues, striving to appear socially valuable, seeking high-status environments – and react strongly when status is threatened. This need for respect and esteem was adaptive (higher-status individuals historically got more resources and mates), and it remains a fundamental human motive. In our world, status can be measured in followers, titles, wealth or prestige, and people work hard to signal and accrue it. Status-seeking underlies phenomena from workplace competition to conspicuous consumption.
Food Craving and Reward. Evolutionarily, craving calorie-dense foods (sugar, fat, salt) was vital during scarcity, guiding humans to survive famine. Our brains are wired to reward feeding; dopamine circuits reinforce consumption of energy-rich food. Modern science shows that ultra-processed foods exploit this reward system. Studies repeatedly find sugar and fat “activate the brain reward circuitry in ways comparable to [addictive] substances”. In other words, hyper-palatable foods literally hijack the same neural pathways as drugs of abuse, encouraging compulsive overeating. Tarman (2024) reports that this addictive-like overeating persists “despite negative consequences,” with physiological markers (withdrawal, tolerance) similar to an addiction. High insulin and leptin resistance from processed diets further dysregulate hunger and satiety signals. The upshot: an evolved drive to eat when food is available is being exploited by engineered foods, contributing to obesity and chronic disease.
Mimicry and Social Learning. Humans also evolved a tendency to imitate others and follow social norms – a form of mimicry that promotes learning and group cohesion. Mirror-neuron systems in the brain allow us to automatically “mirror” observed behaviors and emotions, making social contagion natural. As a result, trends and behaviors (good or bad) can spread rapidly through a population. In the modern media landscape, this means viral ideas, fads, or even panic can sweep society very quickly. (We do not have a specific citation here, but decades of social psychology support that people unconsciously mimic peers to fit in or conform.)
Together, these instincts – rapid stress responses, group tribalism, status drives, pleasure-seeking, and social mimicry – form a powerful psychological infrastructure. In isolation, they help explain a wide range of human behaviors (from anxiety in crowds to overeating at a party). But in systemic combination, modern institutions exploit them relentlessly. The next section analyzes how economic and political systems, media and technology platforms, and other institutions have built on these instincts in ways that reinforce dysfunction at scale.
2. Modern Systems Hijacking Instincts
Contemporary institutions constantly trigger our evolved instincts, often for profit or power. Below we examine key sectors and mechanisms:
The Attention Economy and Social Media
Internet platforms and media companies compete in an attention economy. Their business model is simple: sell users’ attention to advertisers As the Harvard School of Public Health notes, “social media algorithms… have one purpose: to draw users in and maximize how much time we spend online so that our attention… can be sold to advertisers”. To keep people glued, platforms exploit our instincts: they show us fear-inducing, outraging or status-affirming content that triggers strong emotions.
A telling example comes from Twitter/X. A 2023 randomized study found that Twitter’s engagement-based algorithm amplifies emotionally-charged, out-group hostile content. Compared to a simple chronological feed, users shown the algorithmic feed saw more anger and partisan attacks. Importantly, participants reported that these tweets made them feel worse about the other party, and they did not even prefer those algorithm-surfaced posts. This demonstrates a core feedback loop: users click on fear, outrage and tribal content (instincts at play), the algorithm learns this drives engagement, and so it shows more such content in the future. In effect, fear and tribalism drive clicks, clicks drive ad revenue, and revenue drives more fear-based content.
Platforms also exploit status-seeking. “Likes,” “shares,” and follower counts turn social approval into instant digital status. People instinctively crave these tokens of esteem and spend hours curating their feeds. Algorithms notice – posts that show someone in high-status activities tend to go viral – further reinforcing the cycle. Continuous scrolling, push notifications and auto-play features are designed to bypass our “rest and digest” brake. These are literal “deceptive design” patterns that keep us engaged: examples include infinite-scroll feeds and alerts that tug at our reptilian brain to check for threats (real or social).
Case Study – Algorithmic Outrage: The Knight Institute study above shows algorithms favor anger. Similarly, independent audits have found that YouTube, Facebook and TikTok feeds prioritize sensational or emotionally loaded content. For instance, YouTube’s recommendation engine has been documented to sometimes steer viewers toward extreme conspiracy videos or violent clips, because these keep watchers engaged longer. Facebook research leaked internally acknowledged that dividing posts increase “angry” reactions, and prioritized them for the newsfeed. Each click or share generates ad impressions, so the business incentivizes virality of anger, not truth. This process taps directly into our fight-or-flight instinct (fear/amygdala) and social instincts (tribal anger).
The Industrial Food System and Public Health
Food companies have built a multi-trillion-dollar industry on exploiting our innate hunger and taste preferences. By engineering foods rich in sugar, fat and salt, they tap into primal reward circuits. Classic examples include soda companies blending sugar to the brink of sweetness just before satiety is reached, or snack makers adding MSG and flavor enhancers so people lose track of how much they’ve eaten. Academic reviews note that ultra-processed foods “produce addictive processes in the brain”. Rodents and humans both show dopamine spikes after high-sugar or high-fat meals, and even “withdrawal-like” symptoms when deprived.
This exploitation drives a vicious cycle: the tastiest, cheapest foods make us overeat; increased consumption raises industry profits, which are reinvested into R&D for ever more palatable products; and heavily marketed junk food becomes ubiquitous and normalized. The result is skyrocketing rates of obesity, diabetes and other non-communicable diseases. Lustig (2020) argues that added sugar and ultra-processed foods meet the classic public-health criteria for regulation (being ubiquitous, toxic, and causing societal costs). He notes that some countries have responded with public policy: “some countries have … instituted sugar taxation policies to help ameliorate NCDs” (non-communicable diseases). This contrasts with the U.S., where voluntary educational campaigns have had limited effect, while food companies continue to flood the market with addictive products.
Case Study – Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes: Over 100 jurisdictions worldwide have imposed taxes on sugary drinks (a direct way to counter food-craving instincts). For example, Mexico’s sugar tax led to a sustained drop in soda purchases. Such policies work by realigning economic incentives away from addictive foods. Meanwhile, marketing creates demand: children’s cereal ads use cartoon characters and jingles that hack children’s social learning instincts, teaching them to associate the branded product with happiness and status. The food industry even uses data analytics (similar to tech firms) to target vulnerable consumers online, placing junk-food ads in social feeds and game apps to maximize cravings.
Polarized Politics and Media
Modern politics is rife with tribal appeals and fear-mongering. Politicians and media outlets package news and policies in terms of existential threats to “our way of life,” stoking fight-flight instincts. Research shows that emotional propaganda dramatically shapes opinions. Fearful or anger-laden political advertisements work because they trigger survival-related circuitry and group loyalty drives.
Media fragmentation amplifies this tribalism. Cable news and online outlets cater to niche audiences by emphasizing stories of crimes or betrayals by the “other side.” In a positive feedback loop, audiences drawn in by anger or fear give higher ratings and clicks, which funds more such content. A Carnegie study notes that affective polarization (hatred of political opponents) is largely driven by fear and misperception: many Americans harbor the misbelief that the other party wants to “break democratic norms,” a baseless fear that nonetheless fuels hostility. This shows how the tribal instinct is being manipulated: people innately fear out-groups subverting the group’s safety, and modern political rhetoric exploits that fear.
Case Study – Echo Chambers: Social media platforms have accelerated political tribalism. Algorithms that track user likes and follows quickly create “echo chambers” where people see only confirming viewpoints. In recent elections, data firms like Cambridge Analytica used psychographic profiling to micro-target voters with emotionally charged political ads, exploiting personal grievances and fears. For instance, racially charged immigration ads use imagery of crime and danger to trigger tribal fear and defensive status-protection. Although these ads may distort reality, they succeed because they tap into deep-seated psychological instincts (fear of outsiders, desire to protect one’s community).
Education and Youth
Our instincts are now shaping even education and child development. Children and students, with less mature impulse control, are especially vulnerable. Digital devices and social media seep into classrooms and homes, fragmenting attention and playing on reward drives. According to OECD’s PISA surveys, about two-thirds of students worldwide report being distracted by digital devices in class. This distraction correlates with worse academic performance: students who are frequently interrupted by peers’ smartphone use scored 15 points lower in math than those who were not distracted.
FIG. 1: In many schools students are surrounded by devices and screens, which can trigger instinctive distractions (credit: Getty Images).
In this environment, mimetic social learning also spreads rapidly. Viral online trends influence youth behavior – for example, a dangerous challenge on TikTok might see thousands of teens copying each other for social status. Advertisements on these platforms often glamorize unhealthy foods and lifestyles, exploiting cravings and status drives among children. At home, parents’ anxieties broadcast through screens can trigger children’s own fear responses (think alarmist news).
Feedback Loops Entrenching Dysfunction
Across these domains, feedback loops lock in the pathology: our reactions fuel the very systems that prey on them. Some prominent loops include:
Fear-Engagement-Profit Loop (Media/Social Media): Sensational or fear-inducing content attracts clicks (because fight-or-flight is triggered), increasing ad revenue. Platforms then use those profits to prioritize even more sensational content. This spiral can escalate: more anger → more clicks → more polarizing algorithms → more anger.
Status-Approval Loop (Social Platforms): Posting content that wins social approval (likes, shares) triggers dopamine and satisfies status drives. Platforms learn which posts generate status affirmation and amplify similar content. Users then post even more for recognition, becoming more entwined with the platform’s dynamics.
Hunger-Consumption-Profit Loop (Food System): Our craving for sweet/fatty foods leads to overconsumption, which boosts sales. Food companies reinvest in R&D to make products even more irresistible, or heavily market them, further increasing consumption. As obesity rises, food firms market diet and wellness products (often sugar-laden themselves), creating new cravings (craving relief), feeding the next loop.
Tribal Polarization Loop (Politics/Media): Fear and mistrust of an out-group drive engagement with partisan media. Media outlets cater to these fears for ratings, which heightens public polarization. Politicians see that extremism plays well and run more extreme candidates. Society becomes more fractured, giving further ammunition to fear-based messages.
These loops are self-reinforcing: the very system outputs become inputs for the next cycle. Breaking them requires interventions that interrupt the triggers or realign incentives.
3. Policy Recommendations: Toward Healthier Systems
Addressing systemic instinct hijacking demands cross-cutting strategies. Below are actionable recommendations across technology, economy, education and policy.
Regulate Digital Platforms and Algorithms:
Transparency and Audits: Mandate independent algorithmic risk audits and transparency reports for social media and news platforms. These audits, conducted by third parties, would reveal how content ranking promotes specific behaviors (anger, misinformation, addiction). Publicizing the results holds companies accountable. Several jurisdictions (e.g. proposed U.S. state laws) are moving toward requiring such audits.
Design Standards: Ban or limit “deceptive design” features that exploit instinctive attention. For example, require built-in friction (break reminders, easy disable of infinite scroll and autoplay) and disallow hyper-stimulating alerts. The EU’s Digital Services Act and child online safety laws are beginning to address algorithmic harms; such policies should explicitly target time-on-site maximization.
Privacy and Choice: Enforce strict limits on data collection used for behavioral targeting. If platforms cannot harvest endless personal data to refine each person’s feeds, the power to manipulate instincts will diminish. Give users meaningful control over personalization (e.g. an “opt out of algorithmic feed” toggle). Require platforms to let users see chronological timelines and to delete engagement histories easily.
Reform Food and Agricultural Policy:
Sugar and Junk-Food Taxes: Follow evidence-based public health models by taxing sugar-sweetened beverages and ultra-processed foods. Revenues can fund nutrition programs. Such taxes directly counter the food-craving loop by making unhealthy choices pricier. Mexico and parts of Europe have seen success in reducing soda consumption this way.
Marketing Restrictions: Prohibit advertising of unhealthy foods (high sugar, salt, fat) to children, in schools and on children’s media. Limit celebrity/influencer promotions of junk food, and require healthy food marketing (like TV shows funded by food industry must balance with health messages). Many countries already ban tobacco marketing to youth; similar rules should apply to obesogenic foods.
Nutrition Labeling and Reformulation: Enforce clear front-of-package labeling (traffic-light systems, warning labels) so instinctive attraction to a candy bar is tempered by visible health warnings. Set limits on salt/sugar content (e.g. similar to WHO guidelines), encouraging food producers to reformulate products with less addictive potential. Provide subsidies or tax breaks for companies to develop and sell genuinely healthy (high-fiber, low-sugar) foods, realigning profit motives with nutritious options.
Strengthen Education and Media Literacy:
Curriculum Integration: Teach media literacy and cognitive self-awareness from an early age. Students should learn how algorithms work, understand concepts like echo chambers and behavioral advertising, and recognize emotional manipulation techniques. Psychology and economics courses can explain evolutionary instincts and how they can mislead modern choices. Studies (e.g. by CSIS and APA) show that training youth to fact-check and reflect can reduce the impact of fake news.
Digital Wellness in Schools: Create device-free times and zones in classrooms to reduce the constant stimulus triggers from phones. Incorporate lessons on attention management (e.g. mindfulness, single-tasking) and emotional regulation. Encourage extracurriculars (sports, arts, community service) that provide real status and belonging outside screens.
Resilience Education: Given the toxic stress of 24/7 news and social media, schools and employers should teach stress-management techniques (mindfulness, deep breathing, seeking social support). For example, programs that teach students “how to meditate to counter the stress response” have shown positive effects. (Indeed, individuals can learn to “brake” chronic stress by practices like those at MGH’s relaxation-response institute.) Emphasizing wellness and emotional intelligence can mitigate the harm of the fight-or-flight loop.
Economic and Social Incentives:
Nudge Structures: Use “nudge” techniques that align small-scale behaviors with instincts productively. For example, organize default healthy choices in cafeterias (making water and salads the easy options) so people can satisfy hunger instinctively with nourishing foods. Place social media apps on a second screen away from daily routines to reduce mindless engagement. Behavioral “pre-commitment” tools (e.g. apps that limit social media use after a set time) help users override impulses.
Community and Infrastructure: Build community spaces that provide social status and mimicry cues in pro-social directions. Public spaces (parks, community centers, makerspaces) can become focal points for collaborative projects and recognition (e.g. local innovation awards) that compete with online validation. Investing in broadband for rural areas paired with communal hubs can reduce isolation and tribalism by fostering real cross-group contacts.
Healthcare and Tax Reform: Reform healthcare and taxation to reflect instinct-driven harms. For instance, extend health insurance incentives for regular exercise (leveraging our drive for immediate rewards by offering instant feedback apps). Redirect agricultural subsidies currently favoring commodity crops (e.g. corn for high-fructose corn syrup) toward fruits, vegetables and alternatives to incentivize production of healthy foods.
Regulation of Algorithms and Content:
Content Moderation Standards: Governments should require platforms to demonstrate they take down or demote disinformation and hate content that exploit fear and tribal hatred. While free speech is vital, platforms currently favor extreme posts for engagement. Regulation (or court rulings) should hold them accountable for societal harms caused by amplifying violent or false content.
Cross-Platform Accountability: Encourage or require social media “portability,” so that extremist behavior on one platform doesn’t simply migrate to another. Joint industry standards (similar to WHO’s advertising codes for tobacco) can harmonize efforts to reduce harmful content across the web.
Promote Positive Mimicry:
Public Campaigns: Launch widespread public education campaigns that use social influence to promote beneficial norms. Highlighting stories of cross-partisan cooperation, healthy eating, or digital detox winners can create social proof that mimics the viral negativity currently dominating media.
Supportive Peer Networks: Facilitate programs where individuals mentor and imitate positive behaviors (e.g. peer-led healthy cooking classes, community workshops on digital balance). When healthy habits become “contagious,” they tap our mimicry instinct for good.
These recommendations span sectors, but all aim to break the vicious cycles identified earlier. For example, taxing sugary drinks raises their cost and could fund nutrition education; at the same time, algorithms that currently reward outrage could be redesigned (or legally required to redesign) to reward constructive discourse. Education reforms that teach critical thinking reduce the effectiveness of media-triggered fear, while content regulation makes those fear-mongering tactics less profitable. In essence, we must realign market incentives, regulations and social norms so that acting on healthy instincts (e.g. choosing nutritious food, engaging in respectful dialogue, supporting real-world community) is more rewarding than succumbing to the instant gratification of clicks or junk.
4. AI SOLUTIONS: alleviatING systemic dysfunctions
Reducing Attention Exploitation
Algorithms currently exploit fear, outrage, and status-seeking for engagement and ad revenue.
Well-being-aware recommender systems: AI could prioritize content that fosters calm, insight, and constructive engagement rather than emotional reactivity. For example, content ranking could be guided by long-term user satisfaction rather than short-term clicks.
Emotion detection for moderation: AI can analyze emotional valence (e.g., anger, anxiety) in posts and flag or deprioritize those intended to incite or manipulate.
User-centric personalization controls: AI could enable dynamic adjustment of feed algorithms based on user preferences (e.g., opting into “mindful mode” or “curated for learning”), putting the user in control of how their instincts are engaged.
Reforming Food Systems
Processed food industries exploit cravings using data-driven marketing and product engineering.
AI for healthy product development: Use machine learning to discover taste combinations that satisfy human cravings with natural, nutritious ingredients.
Personalized nutrition coaching: AI chatbots and digital twins of nutritionists can deliver real-time dietary guidance aligned with individual biomarkers, goals, and preferences.
Targeted behavioral nudges: AI can help design smart grocery apps or meal planning tools that subtly nudge users toward healthier options based on past purchases and goals.
Countering Political Polarization and Tribalism
Social platforms and news sources feed in-group bias and intensify out-group hostility through algorithmic curation.
Contextual recommendation balancing: AI could promote a more balanced information diet—e.g., surfacing credible counterpoints or cross-cutting viewpoints without provoking anger.
Civic dialogue moderation: AI moderation tools can detect divisive or inflammatory language and guide users toward more constructive tone through real-time prompts.
Bridge-building content synthesis: LLMs can generate summaries that emphasize shared values or mutual understanding between opposing perspectives.
Enhancing Media and Emotional Literacy
Many people are unaware of how their instincts are being manipulated.
Educational AI agents: Interactive tutors that teach users about cognitive biases, emotional regulation, or algorithmic manipulation using real-world examples.
Real-time bias detection tools: Browser plugins or companion apps powered by AI could alert users when content is likely exploiting fear, tribalism, or status anxiety, with explanations of why.
Media authenticity scoring: AI models can help identify manipulated images, videos, or misleading headlines, reducing the viral spread of emotionally charged misinformation.
Supporting Positive Mimicry and Social Norms
Mimicry reinforces harmful behaviors (e.g., junk food consumption, toxic trends) via social contagion.
Social contagion analysis: AI can analyze social media trends and detect whether harmful behaviors (e.g., disordered eating trends) are gaining traction—and intervene with redirective messaging.
Reinforcement of prosocial models: AI can amplify stories, creators, or influencers that promote empathy, collaboration, and healthy habits—making “good behavior go viral.”
Gamified goal tracking: AI agents can support peer groups around positive behaviors (e.g., community gardening, digital detox) and reward participation using adaptive, values-aligned feedback loops.
Combatting Chronic Stress and Overstimulation
Constant stimuli trigger the fight-or-flight system, leading to anxiety, insomnia, and burnout.
Personalized mental health support: AI-powered cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) tools and stress-reduction apps can provide early intervention, emotional check-ins, and coping mechanisms.
AI-informed circadian design: Smart environments and wearables could use AI to optimize lighting, temperature, and sound to sync with natural circadian rhythms.
Digital hygiene coaches: AI agents can analyze device usage and suggest routines (e.g., screen curfews, mindfulness breaks) to reduce overstimulation and improve rest.
Realigning Incentives Through Transparent Metrics
Institutions optimize for profits, engagement, and consumption—metrics that exploit instincts.
Well-being analytics platforms: AI can track the impact of products, content, or interfaces on users’ emotional and cognitive health, allowing companies to optimize for healthier KPIs (e.g., sustained attention, reduced anxiety).
Social impact scoring for platforms: Regulators and consumers could use AI-powered dashboards to assess how apps or systems affect user well-being, polarization, and public trust.
Preconditions for AI to Help Rather Than Harm
For AI to alleviate rather than amplify instinct-driven dysfunction, the following governance principles are essential:
Conclusion: Toward Human Flourishing
Our biological instincts did not change – they remain powerful drivers of behavior. What has changed is the context: modern institutions have learned to exploit our instincts as if they were market opportunities. The result is pervasive dysfunction: anxiety epidemics, political hatred, obesity and polarization all grow out of amplified primal drives. But this cycle is not unbreakable. By understanding the root causes – the evolved human wiring – policymakers can design countermeasures that honor human nature rather than exploit it.
A coordinated approach is essential. Regulators, educators, technologists and civil society must collaborate to redesign systems around people’s true needs. For example, altering algorithms to value long-term satisfaction over short-term clicks, reshaping food subsidies so healthy meals compete with junk foods, or creating urban environments that fulfill social instincts through parks and community centers. Importantly, individuals themselves should be empowered with knowledge: when people learn how their instincts are being tugged, they can make wiser choices (e.g. taking breaks from screens, practicing mindful eating, seeking cross-group dialogue).
Ultimately, aligning institutions with human flourishing means curbing the exploitation of our wiring. We envision a future where technology enhances well-being (notifications that encourage a walk, not just another scroll), where industry profits from real health (affordable nutritious foods), where politics appeals to shared values rather than stoking fear. In such a society, our instincts would still guide us – but toward constructive ends: genuine safety, fulfilling relationships, and sustainable living – instead of being harnessed to corporate gain and division.
Only by treating these instincts as precious tools of human survival, rather than cogs to monetize, can we create systems that truly serve people. The policy interventions outlined here provide a roadmap: from algorithmic transparency and educational reform to fiscal policies on food and media, each step retools our system’s incentives. With informed leadership and public support, we can break the feedback loops of dysfunction and unleash the positive potential of our shared humanity.
Sources: This analysis is grounded in evolutionary biology and social science research. Key citations include expert reviews of human motives researchgate.net professormarkvanvugt.com, health and neuroscience studies of stress and food reward health.harvard.edu journalofmetabolichealth.org, and recent empirical audits of digital platforms knightcolumbia.org. We also draw on public health scholarship on food regulation pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov and political science analyses of polarization carnegieendowment.org.