A fairly long article, but a very interesting one, with a lot to react to, especially for those of you with a scientific bent. What do you think of neuroscientists trying to explain all human behaviour according to brain structure/chemistry? Do you think the studies given as examples are good ways of measuring how the brain can perceive things metaphorically? Would it interest you to carry out experiments like this? (Perhaps there are some good ideas for extended essays here.) Do you agree with the writer’s observations about the advantages and disadvantages of our brain’s tendency to confuse the literal and the metaphorical?
Many of the studies presented suggest that our behavior is unconsciously influenced by our brain and its processing of symbols and metaphors. The first study done by Chen-Bo Zhong of the University of Toronto and Katie Liljenquist of Northwestern University was aimed at a connection between guilt and dirtiness. The subject who had dark past or felt guilty tended to clean their hands and took the wipes since they felt dirty. But does this prove that there is a connection between a dirtiness and guilt that we do unconsciously make? The study presented rough data and a clear conclusion that cannot be easily denied, but I personally would not be so sure of this experiment. I am skeptical about the results and I do not favor the experimental method. For example look at the independent value of the experiment by which the subjects were categorized. If the subject took the wipes he automatically belonged to the category that is in favor with theory and if the subject took the pencil he belonged into other category. However this division looks nice and simply I think more factors should be considered. For example in modern days people tent to take wipes. The laboratory or the place where experiment was held was surely new place for the subjects and they tended to feel unprotected of microbes so they took wipes. In addition, I would like to know if the majority of subjects who had bright past took the wipes too. If generally the wipes were more wanted than the results are not relevant. With given facts about study we should blindly take this experiment as correct.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting but obvious fact was mentioned in the text. When we do not call thing by their real names but by other euphemisms or other names that do not have such value we might evaluate their value differently. It is easier for a soldier to kill a pig than a Taliban soldier. For instance, I can think of an example from past, during the WW2 there were facilities in China where experiments on humans were done. The scientist or the amoral creature as I would call them used word log for a subject. Since the experiments were so inhuman, I think they would not be able to perform them with referring them as humans even if they were as amoral disgusting creatures as they were. Moreover, I think this phenomenon is also present in army and may encourage a soldier to kill more. For instance, I did not like when our history teacher used to call famous people from history by nicknames and shortened names. In my opinion when you call such people by names their importance and value falls. This brings a conflict, we learn about them because of their activity and importance, and on the other hand we diminish their honor by calling them names. In short, this phenomenon is common and real therefore we can see it in our everyday life as I presented.
Mojmir
I sometimes wonder how the minds of other people work, how they make decisions and how they communicate. How many times they tell truth and when they lie. And this article is telling me that there is science to be found behind it and that our decisions do not depend only on our free will, but can be influenced unconsciously. Also that scientists are beginning to suspect how, from finding the position in our brain where the particular information is being processed. I find the fact that they are digging in our brains rather worrying, because knowledge like this can become truly dangerous. And the answer to the question if it does highly depends on decisions of the people who have gained it. This seems to me quite concerning, as it is a lot of responsibility. Of course, once we have found out how the human mind works, it might help us cure certain mental illnesses, which would be a very good thing. But I still believe that influencing other people’s decisions without them knowing about it is like stealing their personal freedom from them and it cannot lead to anything good.
ReplyDeleteAlso, since I used to be a member of Christian church, I see a connection of the content of this article with the particular religion. Christians believe that every human being has its body and soul. On the contrary, animals are said not to have souls and that is what distinguishes them from people. And now we are finding out that our brains work like animals’ brains, only that they are bigger. Of course, Christian religion has existed for centuries and I completely understand that this was the way to explain to everyone the difference in our and animals’ behavior. But if the religion wants to remain attractive also for today’s people, some changes should be done to it and this is yet another signal of it.
In my opinion Mr ROBERT SAPOLSKY, the author, did a great job writing this article. I know myself how it is to go through psychological material so i can anticipate how hard it was to assemble and connect all the studies noted. And yet we can gain new and interesting knowledge in the area of psychology from the article.
ReplyDeleteMany interesting points have been raised up in the text, but there are few that have some limitation. Specifically, i do not think that most of the mentioned studies have taken into consideration past experience or emotional states of the subjects as also Jonathan Haidt, of the University of Virginia objected and carried out his own study. Undoubtedly, these facts are being neglected in the studies as neuroscientists concentrate on only how brain works since it is what cognitive psychology is about. Therefore, i think that the study loses its initial meaning what was the study of connection between metaphors and our behaviour.
On the other hand i agree with the theory. I believe that we often associate the life events with metaphors within our lifetime, even though we might not notice at all due to our unconsciousness. Very interesting was the study of washing hands when it came to our sins and yes, the associated metaphor of Pontius Pilate burst in my mind immediately. However, not all of us know the act of Pontius Pilate and thus i would once again suggest that the past experience of a subject is not always considered. In other words, associations occurs only when the metaphor is already implanted in the memory and bad thing is that if one is unaware, he can be easily manipulated and even exploited as he would have get implanted false memory into his mind.
That leads me to another point, hopefully last, in which Mr Sapolsky claims that the manipulated associative thinking would solve many, mainly political, problems. I can only disagree because i think that manipulated subjects would sooner or later find out that they ware unconsciously exploited and as many people cannot control their anger and can only solve problems in relatively “easy” way, the war might break out. So I still believe that talking to one’s heart instead of talking to his mind is a better option of solving problems.
Responding to Petra:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the research in this science branch can be dangerous. On the other hand I also can imagine the positives, the cure for many mental diseases and lot of other benefits. But the question we should ask is how dangerous the notions about our brain can be? What can you do with such information? You have mentioned influencing others people decisions. That is surely impact on privacy but on the other hand I do not thing that results from presented researches can be used for such purpose. I think that they can only help us knowing what is processing in brain when making particular decision or when speaking about something specific. But I cannot really imagine how we could influence the decision making with knowing that your brain makes metaphorical connections.
The connection with religion you are making is really irrelevant. This is scientific topic and the author is trying to point out that mind processed involve brain activity not that animals do not have soul. Maybe it indirectly implies from the topic, but this is not the conclusion author is expecting you to make. Furthermore even if the soul is connected with brain activity the soul can be understood as a complex brain activity of which are animals incapable.
Mojmir
Petra, very interesting insight and I mostly do agree with all the points you mentioned. So I would like to share some of my ideas that I came across while reading your comment. First of all, when you mentioned the unconscious influence in our decisions, subliminal messages was the first thing that popped out in my mind. Though, every single ad and media itself has something hidden in it to exploit us in a particular way. I think that majority would say that every single research is beneficial for us but just few would say that it would result in catastrophe, to be precise that humans would not have ability to deal with result like reasonable beings but use it to defeat the others. And that is mostly the case of unconsciousness where those who could misuse the studies and used them for example in those subliminal messages. Therefore I consider your point of view in researching of brain function different from the others but same as mine. And I also am against these further researches, even though they might lead to an answer of many neural diseases. But I maintain more the idea of what is supposed to happen will happen and I just don’t see why people are mindlessly trying to change it.
ReplyDeleteVery surprising was the connection of neuroscience, well rather contradiction, with the religion that you have mentioned. I realized with this particular point, how much religion contradicts science and I suppose that it will be a huge issue of ours soon. The only thing I cannot agree with is that I don’t find religion to be attractive and let alone I don’t think it can undergo any major changes as it exists for decades and as a result it would lead to a rebellion. Otherwise I appreciate that somebody sees the situation as I do.
oli