Quirks of the Evolving Human Mind / Brain

It has been a long journey from the brain of a vole to the brain of homo sapiens sapiens. At times, I doubted whether we would ever make it. And surprise! We haven't.

We have a long distance yet to travel, and many innate quirks and weaknesses to grow beyond. Here is more on one surprising brain-quirk that may leave you scratching your head:

Brain's Evolution

People can be tricked into reversing their opinions on moral issues, even to the point of constructing good arguments to support the opposite of their original positions...

The researchers, led by Lars Hall, a cognitive scientist at Lund University in Sweden, recruited 160 volunteers to fill out a 2-page survey on the extent to which they agreed with 12 statements — either about moral principles relating to society in general or about the morality of current issues in the news, from prostitution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

...Each survey was given on a clipboard, on the back of which the researchers had added a patch of glue. When participants turned the first page over to complete the second, the top set of statements would stick to the glue, exposing the hidden set but leaving the responses unchanged....Two statements in every hidden set had been reworded to mean the opposite of the original statements. For example, if the top statement read, “Large-scale governmental surveillance of e-mail and Internet traffic ought to be forbidden as a means to combat international crime and terrorism,” the word ‘forbidden’ was replaced with ‘permitted’ in the hidden statement.

Participants were then asked to read aloud three of the statements, including the two that had been altered, and discuss their responses.

About half of the participants did not detect the changes, and 69% accepted at least one of the altered statements.

People were even willing to argue in favor of the reversed statements: A full 53% of participants argued unequivocally for the opposite of their original attitude in at least one of the manipulated statements, the authors write.

...The study raises questions about the validity of self-report questionnaires, says Hall. The results suggest that standard surveys “are not good at capturing the complexity of the attitudes people actually hold”, he says, adding that the switching technique could be used to improve opinion surveys in the future.

...The possibility of using the technique as a means of moral persuasion is “intriguing”, says Liane Young, a psychologist at Boston College in Massachusetts. “These findings suggest that if I'm fooled into thinking that I endorse a view, I'll do the work myself to come up with my own reasons [for endorsing it],” she says. _SciAm

Original Study from PLoS One

Why am I not surprised that a college psychology professor would see these findings as a possible means of moral indoctrination -- or brainwashing? Perhaps because so many college professors consider indoctrination into "correct ideology and morality" to be their primary goal.

My first inclination is to suspect that the researchers tumbled across some particularly stupid or brain-damaged volunteer subjects. Since the "survey" for the study took place in a public park in Sweden, one has to wonder whether most of the respondents were tourists or immigrants who lacked a firm mastery of the Swedish language. Or are survey respondents so eager to please pollsters that they are willing to go out of their way to "play along?"

I admit that it was a great shock to learn that at least half the people of most communities and societies have IQs below 100. I had always wondered why people did so many idiotic things, and created such perverse systems of government and education. Of course, in countries such as Haiti, around 90% or more have IQs below 100. When seen in that way, the dysfunction of Haiti -- and nations with similarly low average IQs -- do not seem so surprising.

But the extent of quirkiness of the human brain goes far beyond low IQ, poor EF, cultural blind spots, and predictable sensory illusions. Even intelligent humans can be led into logical traps and delusions, without being aware. Popular news and entertainment media are geared to exploit these human weaknesses, as are political campaigns, attorneys, advertisers, educational indoctrinators, organisations that solicit funds from the public, religious groups, and any good salesperson.

Try not to be a sitting duck for a society that is likely to be packed with grifters and arrogant and demanding public "servants." As for your children, don't you think it's time you set about making them truly dangerous? In today's world, their survival is apt to depend on it.

Girls Suck at Math; But True Grit Can Help Sum

World class psychologist David Geary looked into the issue of why girls suck at math, and came to the conclusion that you cannot blame "stereotype threat" or any of the other usual suspect excuses.

There is a large body of research about why more girls aren’t at the top of the spectrum in math skills. One study in 1999 blamed poor self-image for underachievement in math among girls. The theory was popular, Geary said, “because it gives a sense that you can do something about it easily, so it’s taken off as an explanation.”

Geary, a curators’ professor of psychological sciences, and Gijsbert Stoet from the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom examined 20 influential replications of the original study and found serious scientific flaws. Among the most concerning was a lack of a male control group: Researchers told girls who were getting ready to take math tests that females typically don’t do well on the exams but did not give the same message to boys who took the tests. When Geary and his team adjusted the findings based on the lack of a control group and statistical flaws in other studies, they found little to no significant effect on performance based on stereotypes. _ColumbiaTribune

There are far more males at the top end of math ability than females, and that discrepancy tends to widen during the passage through puberty, into adulthood. Most knowledgeable cognitivists understand that the male hormone testosterone plays an important role in this notable and enduring discrepancy.

But for girls who are truly determined to succeed in fields where top level math skills are needed, besides a bit of math talent, there is nothing quite like "true grit."

“Grit entails working strenuously toward challenges, maintaining effort and interest over years despite failure, adversity, and plateaus in progress.”


...What differentiates kids who are gritty from kids who are not gritty is not just the hours of work they are putting in, (but) they’re putting the hardest kind of work in.


...Grit is also distinct from […] self-control, in its specification of consistent goals and interests. An individual high in self-control but moderate in grit may, for example, effectively control his or her temper, stick to his or her diet, and resist the urge to surf the Internet at work—yet switch careers [frequently]. As Galton (1892) suggested, abiding commitment to a particular vocation [..] does not derive from overriding “hourly temptations.” _Source

But of course, if you are practising the wrong things or the right things the wrong way, there is no amount of practise which will turn out right. Take as an example the way that some psychologists attempt to teach people about risk -- by using probability. How stupid is that? Risk is not a cerebral topic, it is visceral. If psychologists are too stupid to understand that fact, they should probably be working as janitors or parking attendants.

Here is an interesting study that looks at the effect of "make believe" personas in a virtual environment.

Video games constitute a popular form of entertainment that allows millions of people to adopt virtual identities. In our research, we explored the idea that the appeal of games is due in part to their ability to provide players with novel experiences that let them “try on” ideal aspects of their selves that might not find expression in everyday life. We found that video games were most intrinsically motivating and had the greatest influence on emotions when players’ experiences of themselves during play were congruent with players’ conceptions of their ideal selves. Additionally, we found that high levels of immersion in gaming environments, as well as large discrepancies between players’ actual-self and ideal-self characteristics, magnified the link between intrinsic motivation and the experience of ideal-self characteristics during play. _PsychologicalScience

As we approach the promise of virtual reality games and total sensory immersion environments, the ability to take on virtual identities which are either significant variations of our real selves, or even totally alien to our true selves, should prove to be a powerful learning tool -- not to mention a diagnostic and evaluative tool.

Along with grit and intelligent practise, one should also try to enhance one's own creative abilities. To that end, here is a useful infographic provided as a bonus, for no extra charge. Good luck.

Daniel Kahneman: Why You Can Never Find Yourself

Daniel Kahneman is a retired psychologist in his late 70's, who hid out in a chicken coop to survive Hitler, and grew up to win the Nobel Prize in economics. His latest book, "Thinking, Fast and Slow," was meant as something of a parting shot to the world, from a man who has experienced the best and the worst of it, and through it all had come to understand his species better than most. And still, understanding himself will always be beyond him.

This is not a book review -- there are dozens available on the web that focus on various aspects of Kahneman's book. It is not a summary of the book -- Google Books' preview of Thinking, Fast and Slow is your best bet for that. This is a short look at the key and titular idea that apparently summarises Kahneman's thinking and life's work, and what that idea means for modern, between-level humans and their quest to find themselves, find the truth, and have it all.

Regular readers of Al Fin will have seen Kahneman's basic idea in various forms: The human brain does most of its work unconsciously and automatically. It requires work to maintain the focus and attention of the conscious mind to learn something new, but once it is learned it tends to revert to the automaticity of the subconscious. In other words, we are capable of conscious, deliberate, and painstakingly logical thought. But usually we flow with the river of unconsciousness, automatically.

Kahneman's claim to fame -- which helped him win his Nobel prize -- is to expose how error-prone our intuitive and automatic thinking is, and why. He exposed this perilously "false intuition" in a number of different areas of "expertise." The reason a psychologist won a Nobel Prize in economics, for example, is because Kahneman and Tversky revealed the "illusion of expertise and certainty" utilised by experts when making economic and investing decisions. But the delusion is operative in every area of human action.

The reason human intuition can go so badly wrong despite the strong certainty felt by the individual, is that the intuition uses a faulty source of information, according to Kahneman. The intuition relies upon "whatever comes to mind most easily," or whatever is salient in memory. For those who are consumers of the mass media, the most salient thing in memory is whatever the masters of the media decide to put on the menu. For those who are card carrying members of one devout orthodoxy or another, the salient thing is whatever they are soaking their minds in. Singers in echo choirs are particularly prone to the tyranny of the salient idea, which is reinforced with every chorus that is sung.

You may be thinking that Kahneman is warning against self-delusion, telling you to be careful not to fall into thinking traps or bogs of false belief. No. He is telling you that you cannot help but fall into the traps, bogs, and quagmires -- it is in your nature, and mine. And he does a better job of explaining why that is the case than most anyone else could do, in everyday language.

If you absorb the basic idea, and carry it forward, it will be easy to understand why all ideology is false. It will also be easy to understand why you can never find yourself -- and what the very idea of finding yourself has in common with catching your own shadow when the light is constantly changing directions and intensity.

Warning: This Tune Unsafe for Listening While on Zombie Guard Duty

...women were connected to sensors and given challenging puzzles to complete against the clock in order to induce a level of stress.

They were then played different songs as their heart rate, blood pressure, breathing and brain activity were recorded.

Studies found Weightless was 11 per cent more relaxing than any other song and even made many of the women 'drowsy' in the lab.

It induced a 65 per cent reduction in overall anxiety and brought them to a level 35 per cent lower than their usual resting rates.

The song features guitar, piano and electronic samples of natural soundscapes. It is pierced throughout by buddhist-like chants that induce a trance-like state. _DailyMail

"Weightless" is reputed to be the "most relaxing tune ever (mp3)." People are advised not to listen to it while driving, so it goes without saying that it should not be on your playlist while transiting zombie zones.

A British band and a group of scientists have made the most relaxing tune in the history of man (mp3)....

Sound therapists and Manchester band Marconi Union compiled the song. Scientists played it to 40 women and found it to be more effective at helping them relax than songs by Enya, Mozart and Coldplay.

Weightless works by using specific rhythms, tones, frequencies and intervals to relax the listener. A continuous rhythm of 60 BPM causes the brainwaves and heart rate to synchronise with the rhythm: a process known as ‘entrainment’. Low underlying bass tones relax the listener and a low whooshing sound with a trance-like quality takes the listener into an even deeper state of calm. _ShortList

Here is a top-ten list of most relaxing songs taken from a recent study, see if you agree:

The study - commissioned by bubble bath and shower gel firm Radox Spa - found the song [Weightless] was even more relaxing than a massage, walk or cup of tea. So relaxing is the tune, apparently, that people are being...advised against listening to it while driving.

The top 10 most relaxing tunes were: 1. Marconi Union - Weightless 2. Airstream - Electra 3. DJ Shah - Mellomaniac (Chill Out Mix) 4. Enya - Watermark 5. Coldplay - Strawberry Swing 6. Barcelona - Please Don't Go 7. All Saints - Pure Shores 8. AdelevSomeone Like You 9. Mozart - Canzonetta Sull'aria 10. Cafe Del Mar - We Can Fly _ShortList

Of course each person has his own grouping of tunes which elicit the greatest relaxation. But the list above serves as an example.

Using modern brain monitoring and imaging, scientists can test the relaxation effects of different types of brain inputs to all of the senses, as well as effects of internal inputs such drugs or electrical impulses via implants.

Audio relaxation utilising binaural beats and other subliminal effects are likely to grow ever more popular, as their effectiveness improves. When used in combination with complementary electromagnetic and advanced visual stimulation, it is likely that such non-invasive and time controllable mood control methods could become more popular than recreational drugs, among a certain smart set.

But when combined with structured mental training, meditations, and advanced neurofeedback, such an approach might revolutionise psychotherapy. For maximum effectiveness, such avant-garde psychotherapy would need to bring out a full range of emotions in an appropriate sequence -- much like the Sentic Cycles of Manfred Clyne. The deep relaxation segment would likely occur near the end, with a finishing touch of rejuvenatingly brisk wakeup to finish.

Stephen Pinker Thinks We are Growing Less Violent

Cognitive psychologist and linguist Stephen Pinker's latest book details what he sees as "a historical decline in human violence." Pinker provides a large amount of documentation for his point of view, but a lot of people are not convinced. Political philosopher John Gray thinks that Pinker's argument is more an exercise of faith than a scientific theory. Journalist Ron Rosenbaum does not address Pinker specifically, but he backhandedly scolds cognitive scientists who think they can define away "evil" using scientific theories in the manner of an exorcism.

Pinker appears to have more or less identified a historical trend of decreased violence in advanced societies. His idea is worth a look:

Images via Steven Pinker Edge.orgPinker's recent Edge.org article describes how human violence has subsided in recent years, providing a glimpse into his newest book.

As seen above, deaths from warfare in the UK have come down significantly from historical times. The chart below illustrates the reduction in European homicides since the year 1200. The bottom graph demonstrates the large peak in genocides in the middle of the 20th century, with subsequent decline. More from Pinker:

Believe it or not—and I know most people do not—violence has been in decline over long stretches of time, and we may be living in the most peaceful time in our species' existence. The decline of violence, to be sure, has not been steady; it has not brought violence down to zero (to put it mildly); and it is not guaranteed to continue. But I hope to convince you that it's a persistent historical development, visible on scales from millennia to years, from the waging of wars and perpetration of genocides to the spanking of children and the treatment of animals.

...The extraordinary 65-year stretch since the end of the Second World War has been called the "Long Peace", and has perhaps the most striking statistics of all, zero. There were zero wars between the United States and the Soviet Union (the two superpowers of the era), contrary to every expert prediction. No nuclear weapon has been used in war since Nagasaki, again, confounding everyone's expectations. There have been no wars between any subset of the great powers since the end of the Korean War in 1953. There have been zero wars between Western European countries. The extraordinary thing about this fact is how un-extraordinary it sounds. If I say I'm going to predict that in my lifetime France and Germany will not go to war, everyone will say, "Yeah, yeah; of course they won't go to war." But that is an extraordinary statement when you consider that before 1945, Western European countries initiated two new wars per year for more than 600 years. That number has now stood at zero for 65 years.

And there have been zero wars between developed countries at all. We take it for granted nowadays that war is something that happens only in poor, primitive countries. That, too, is an extraordinary development; war used to be something that rich countries did, too. Europe, which traditionally has been the part of the world with the biggest military might, is no longer picking on countries in other parts of the world, or hurling artillery shells at one other with the rest of the world suffering collateral damage. This change has been extraordinary. _Edge.org

It is worth at least skimming the entire piece, paying particular attention to the graphic images. Civilisation seems to be growing less violent in most of the ways that can be measured -- at least on a historical scale.

But can we expect this drop in violence to continue? To answer that question, one must look at demographic trends. The populations which are growing are those that exhibit higher rates of violence, and those that are shrinking are the ones which exhibit lower rates of violence -- as a rule. For example, populations within Africa, Asia, and South America which exhibit the world's highest rates of violence are also generally showing the highest birthrates. Even within advanced nations, the subpopulations which show the highest rates of violence also exhibit the highest birthrates.

If these demographic trends continue, the shrinking, less violent populations, are apt to either die off, or be killed off. The violent and prolific populations may just inherit the world.

In modern politically correct cultures, violence is often condemned outright, without qualification, as if violence itself were evil. But violence in defence of one's life, family, and property is the hallmark of civilisations which survive. Without the threat of defensive violence, the weak and passive become prey to any violent person who comes upon them.

Law enforcement cannot be everywhere, protecting everyone. Any society which forbids individuals from using violence to protect themselves or their property is a society in decay. The law is meant to be taken into the hands of citizens. Otherwise the law will serve only a corrupt oligarchy.

So while advanced societies may seem to be experiencing lower rates of violence overall at this time, demographic changes suggest that this trend toward less violence is only an ephemeral one.

Modern civilisations that do not look to their own survival are likely to fall to primitive civilisations that are merely following the growth imperative. The ongoing popularity of the doom cults in the west: carbon catastrophe doom, peak oil doom, resource scarcity doom, etc. speak to the undertow of defeatism eating at the foundations of the culture.

Violence is an integral part of the human condition, as long as humans live in the world within the universe. The modern west may turn its back on violence, imagining itself to have grown morally superior to the old, brutal ways. But having your back turned simply means that you will not see the violence that inevitably seeks you out and finds you, unprepared.

Parts of this article are adopted from an earlier posting on Al Fin, the Next Level