Ever since our ancestors first stood upright and squinted at the horizon, we’ve been wired to notice patterns. A rustle in the grass might have meant a stalking predator. Dark clouds often meant rain. Those who made these connections and guessed that one thing caused another tended to survive. Over time, this ability to link events became one of our most significant evolutionary advantages. It’s how we built tools, tamed fire, and eventually invented Wi-Fi.

The instincts that kept us alive throughout history are also responsible for many of our problems. The brain can’t help but view stimuli as ongoing threats and tries to find a source or reason, even when there’s no valid connection. A seemingly obvious cause-and-effect relationship may merely represent a chance occurrence or a simple correlation that’s been exaggerated into a narrative framework. Although the effects are considered "minor" at first glance, the cumulative impact can affect virtually every aspect of our lives and may have ramifications for the world.

How Evolution Built Our Cause-Seeking Minds

Picture what it was like for early humans crouching down in a field of tall grass. When they hear an unexpected sound, like a fast rustling noise, the ones who shouted "Lion!" and ran away survived. The ones who thought, "Hmm, maybe it was the wind," did not always get to find out if they were right. According to M. Stuart-Fox (2015), an evolutionary biologist from Australia, this ability to think about cause and effect allowed early humans to identify potential threats before they occurred. This ability also allowed them to quickly react to an immediate threat rather than take time to think through a situation before responding. Therefore, this ability served to keep early humans alive. Essentially, evolution did not create us to be accurate. Evolution made us stay alive. To operate and respond quickly rather than analyze what was happening was most advantageous. Because of this need to respond quickly, the brain learns how to do so based on limited information. Thousands of generations later, we still carry that wiring. We jump from "A happened before B" to "A caused B" before the facts are even considered.

Fast-forward to modern life. That same split-second reasoning plays out every day. Someone forgets to text us back, and our brain writes a whole narrative: "They must be losing interest." As the economy slides, politicians scramble to pin the blame on a solitary policy or event. This quick reaction is called "coherence-based reasoning" by the cognitive scientists Dan Simon and Stephen Read (2025). The mind has a propensity to "fit" new information into the existing story lines that we think we observe around us. Therefore, the mind does not accept any inconsistencies or ambiguities. It uses whatever thread is available to create a consistent whole.

Correlation, on the other hand, is confusing. It tells us two things might be related, but not necessarily why. And that’s uncomfortable. We crave certainty. We want answers, even if they’re wrong. That desire for control and to know "what caused this" might just be the most human instinct of all.

From Couples to Countries: When False Causation Hurts

This instinct doesn’t just cause minor misunderstandings. It can unravel relationships and divide nations. Take love, for example. If your partner sighs when you mention work, you might assume they’re annoyed with you. Maybe they’re just tired. But your brain, eager for a cause, fills in the blanks. Before you know it, a shrug becomes an argument.

The same thing happens on a larger scale. Societies have a long history of confusing correlation with causation. It’s led to some dark places. When two groups’ fortunes rise and fall together, people invent causal links where none exist: "They took our jobs," "They caused this crisis." These are the echoes of a brain that’s still wired for the savanna, grasping for simple stories in a complex world.

• Why Relationships Matter
• Take our Can You Spot Red Flags In A Relationship?
• Find a therapist to strengthen relationships

Researchers Lynch, Morandini, Dar-Nimrod, and Griffiths (2019) have shown that our evolved sense of causal reasoning, once a tool for understanding behavior, can distort reality when applied to modern, intricate systems like genetics or social structures. In politics, the same pattern emerges. When there are increases in crime, there may also be corresponding increases in immigration. At which point, headlines will start proclaiming that crime rates are due to rising immigration rates or vice versa. Philosopher K.E. Lynch reminds us that we often form these kinds of causal relationships based on our biases rather than based on objective reasoning or actual evidence (Lynch, 2017). We’re looking for "the culprit," not the complexity of the situation. This type of thinking creates a framework through which we understand national stories. This ultimately shapes national conversations surrounding elections, policy decisions, and foreign wars. Each time a leader makes the claim, "The reason this occurred equals the reason that happened," without providing any proof whatsoever, the ancient mental process is speaking.

Choosing Curiosity Over Certainty

We need to slow down to escape this evolutionary trap. The small gap of time between when we see a pattern and name a cause is critical. In that moment of pause, we can allow ourselves to be curious about what could be connected to what we’re observing. Asking ourselves, "What could I be checking this connection against?" will give us an explanation rather than a list of reasons why we were hurt and why the other person acted the way they did. When you accept that correlation is not chaos, you’re not handing it over—you’re acknowledging there is complexity.

Relationships Essential Reads

Accepting correlation is also about giving people credit in your day-to-day interactions. In politics, when there are correlations to be had, those correlations should guide policy-making through using data that encompasses a larger population instead of an immediate response to an event. In science, correlations mean realizing that good data may still be misleading when it is associated with unrelated events too quickly. Education contributes to understanding correlations. Teaching statistical thinking and probabilistic reasoning gives people more tools in their thinking arsenal than they would otherwise have. People are less susceptible to believing correlational statements when they realize how often coincidental events appear as causes of events. As early humans developed survival strategies to protect themselves from lions’ attacks, modern society has to develop similar strategies to protect itself from misinformation attacks.

Ultimately, this issue is about trading comfort for clarity. Certainty feels good, but it’s rarely honest. Complexity, though harder to live with, is closer to the truth. Our survival no longer depends on guessing causes. It depends on questioning them. So, the next time you catch yourself saying, "That happened because of this," stop and take a breath. Maybe the two are connected, but maybe they’re not. In that moment of curiosity lies something our ancestors never had, the chance to understand without fear.