Hello Casey2012 - and welcome. You sound like a person after my own heart. So doubly welcome to me.

Interbane:

The amount of sense datum that reaches our conscious is a fraction of what our brain is processing at any given time. Most is unconscious, filtered, ignored.

True, I have been a typist, and using that skill for fifty years, but honestly, my fingers know where the letters are, but my brain hasn't a clue. If we get a question in the pub-quiz about the keyboard, I cannot tell you what letter comes between two others, without typing out 'The quick brown fox...etc'.

Casey, 'Thinking Fast and Slow' is, I think, a very relevant book. I don't know why I am finding it so depressing and it is perhaps just the take on it we're following. Having merely read the introduction and talked at some length on here, I've just set it aside for awhile, to read 'Dark Nature' by Lyall Watson. It it is doing the trick and lifting my spirits, so I'll just type out the blurb for you all, so that you know why I have been temporarily diverted:-

When violence threatens to become epidemic and genocide and organised rape take the place of diplomacy, the usual moral, religious and philosophical explanations for human behaviour seem inadequate. To help us understand what is happening, Lyall Watson redefines good and evil in biological terms. Drawing on the latest insights of evolutionary ethology, anthropology and psychology, he takes a fresh look at life and the problems our species faces as a result of being too numerous, too greedy or too mobile.

Taking evil out of the realm of monsters and demons and putting it back where it can be controlled - in our lives - Dark Nature is a vital and timely antidote to despair.

You might like it Youkrst.

I can't put it down. It is awhile since I found a book which I try to read whilst doing the ironing.

A couple of things which have delighted me, are:- 1) That mathematics, precision, geometry are already there in nature. Man didn't invent maths, he just discovered what was already there!!!! 2) We, as humans, are not just flesh animated by the life-force, as we are taught, religiously speaking, but we are the life force manifesting itself.

I don't really know why I want to give three hearty cheers on reading this.

Penelope, there are nerve plexes in various parts of the body that process signals and yield outputs without or prior to them reaching the brain. That is how pianists and typists can play or type faster than the nerve impulses can reach the brain and return to the fingers.

With respect to filtering out, yes, a lot of extraneous inputs get filtered out--by the brain itself. They brain is a committee of different structures that process different types of signals, and a good deal of sensory inputs are filtered out early in the process. An example is the cocktail party effect. When you're at a cocktail party, you are focused on the conversation in your group, and you seemingly don't hear the conversations going on in other groups...unless someone says your name (or something that is of particular interest to you). Then you "hear" it. But if you hadn't already been monitoring to the conversation, how could you have "heard' your name? Psychologists have replicated this effect under controlled conditions in the laboratory using a technique called dichotic listening. The participants put on headphones deliver two different conversations, stories, or other materials simultaneously, and they are told to pay attention to only one headphone (e.g., the one on their right ear). Sometimes they have to repeat what is being said. The rate of delivery is kept fast enough so that they don't have time to switch back and forth. Yet if their name is mentioned in other other headphone, they hear it and can report it, but can't remember anything else that was playing in the unattended ear. In one study, one headphone played a story and the other played a list of words. The participants were supposed to repeat the story as it went along and ignore the other headphone, which they did just fine. Except that at one point, the story switched to the other unattended headphone and the list switched to the ear they were supposed to be ignoring. People followed the switch over--they followed the story--without realizing they had switched ears. So both messages were getting processed at an early stage of perception, then the message from the unattended channel was suppressed later on, making it difficult to remember.

Here's another example: In another experiment, people were fitted with goggles that delivered two different inputs to the eyes. In one goggle, there was a square that had plus signs inside all four corners. In the other goggle, there was a square with plus signs in three of the corners and a minus sign in the fourth. Their task was to (a) report what they saw and (b) guess where the minus sign was. This was done over many trials, and the position of the minus sign was varied inside the square, sometimes in one eye, sometimes in the other.

This is what people saw: A square with plus signs in all four corners. They didn't see the minus sign, and they didn't report than one corner was blurry or they couldn't tell. Why? Because the visual cortex (brain area just under the skull at the back of the head) suppresses conflicting inputs in order to produce a whole, meaningful percept. So it suppressed the input from the eye that was giving data (a minus sign) that conflicted with the input from the other eye and conflicted with the majority of the rest of the inputs (plus signs).

OK, now here is the really interesting part: When they guessed where the minus sign was (which corner of the square), they were right about 75% of the time. Chance performance is 25%, so they were way above chance. How could they do that? Because the information about the minus sign was available at an early stage of visual processing (in the structures that process visual information before it gets to the cortex), and that information influenced decision-making. This wasn't magic or psychic phenomena. It is just the way the brain works. It is a committee of specialists, and it works to create coherent perceptions of the inputs it receives.

I don't mean to peddle my wares, but I talk about this and many other phenomena in one of my other books The Other Side of Psychology: How Experimental Psychologists Find Out About the Way We Think and Act.

First, thanks to denisecummins for the explanation of why I can type fast after like 45 years. I did imagine it was something to do with the brain "remembering." It is interesting the ability the brain has to learn and adapt. I started on a manual typewriter (some may not know what that is, but it was painful, often got my fingers stuck between the keys!!!), and it was exciting to move to an "electric." So much easier. And on and on to the current technology!!! Not that I can actually figure that all out. Like with this website I still don't know how to use some of the tools others are using. Hope to get it eventually.

Even more valuable are the breakthroughs that tell us there are real scientific reasons why people have anxiety disorders and panic attacks. For a long time I thought I was just nuts!!! And unfortunately even with the science many don't believe that mental illness is even an illness; that people are just nuts. Like they did so many years ago. And to cure these people it was electro-shock!!! I am glad I am not living then!!

To Interbane (one of the things I don't know how to do is pick up quotes like I see being done by others) it is true that some people will always hold to their beliefs no matter what science learns. As the centuries roll on without us there will be many new discoveries. Like people living longer. Remember in the Middle Ages if a person turned 30 they were considered old!! Living to 50 was very rare.

Wouldn't it be great to talk to deceased family members that you love and miss? Or get messages from them through those who indicate they can talk to them. And don't some of these mediums appear to know details no one else could? And how do those people who work with the police do the job of helping to find people, whether dead or alive? How do they do that? But sometimes people just want to believe. That is why many people are as vulnerable to charlatanes (sp?) even today as when Arthur Conan Doyle visited spiritualists to talk to his dead wife. It gave him peace to believe he could contact her. And for all we know, he did!!! There have been people who have caught those who are tricksters, but can't actually figure out how others do what they do. Maybe future science.

Some beliefs are actually faith-based. People will not believe the science if it contradicts their faith. For example there have been several documentaries over the years concerning the Shroud of Turin. Scientists have wanted to solve this mystery (as they see it) once and for all. So they take tiny bits of cloth that the church lets them have and test with newer methods. Recent science has proven that this cloth was not made during the time of Jesus, and has been in many different parts of the world Jesus never traveled. Some people will always believe. And scientists are still arguing over it, so who is right?

Some new scientific discoveries are exciting; we are eager to learn of them. For me it is very exciting to watch documentaries on how scientists, using the high-technology never before available, have proven the lineage of Tuthankamum (sp?) and have several very credible theories on how he died based on the study of his and his ancestors' mummies. I am sure others would be bored to death. In fact we know that hundreds of thousands of people can't stand the study of history.

For me the key is to try to keep my mind open. I do remember being told many things when I was younger that I simply do not believe anymore. Doctors don't always know what is wrong; they are practicing. On us!! I have a friend who will probably die from the side effects of radiation that cured her of cancer, but luckily scientists are learning from her experience. I kind of would of liked it if they had known before. Most of us have had one or two experiences like this.

I do enjoy reading the various viewpoints, and it is clear that members think things through. Have not had this interesting conversation avaiable until just recently with this website and after I retired. Apparently the only thing I was able to think about was work, work, work!!! Although I am still concerned about what is happening to the programs that help people around our country, I am also now engaged and interested in a broader range of topics. Thanks!!!

Casey wrote:For me the key is to try to keep my mind open.

Keeping an open mind is excellent, but it should be tempered by introspection. Be a fly on the wall to your own thoughts, and learn to recognize when emotion is tugging you away from reason. This usually manifests in the form of self-serving bias, but can be true of any of the biases we share. I'm well aware that I'm guilty of confirmation bias each time I search Google for argument fodder.

Casey wrote:Some people will always believe. And scientists are still arguing over it, so who is right?

I've found that it's not only faith that cements a person's position. In fact, it's not really faith at all. Rather, it's a consequence of bias and predisposition, with emotion acting as the blinders to a person seeing through their bias. The bias could be that of an accumulation of polarized facts over a long period of time(which is painful and difficult to unseat), or it could be an in-the-moment anchoring bias.

That faith is held as a virtue is stinky. It's as though we've sanctified the position of stubborn belief in the face of alternative explanations. Who had the brilliant idea that stubborn belief was a good thing? Regardless of where it came from, it has proven useful in the longevity of various religions.

I enjoy your posts Casey. Welcome to Booktalk. The books we read here are good brain food, pick one up and join the conversation.

This is what people saw: A square with plus signs in all four corners. They didn't see the minus sign, and they didn't report than one corner was blurry or they couldn't tell.

That's great. There's a component in electronic principles that attenuates certain inputs. I know you're a professional, so the computer analogy may push some of your buttons. I apologize if so.

Denise wrote:I don't mean to peddle my wares, but I talk about this and many other phenomena in one of my other books The Other Side of Psychology: How Experimental Psychologists Find Out About the Way We Think and Act.

Perhaps your book can be the discussion book at some point? We pick a new book every couple of months. The human mind is one of my scholarly passions, and your book is right up my alley. Do you spend any time reading about philosophy of the mind? Would that be a prerequisite for an experimental psychologist?

@Interbane: Yes, I enjoy reading Philosophy of mind, but it isn't a prerequisite for experimental psychology (although maybe it should be!) It was my minor in graduate school. I would be delighted to have any of my books discussed; Good Thinking (2012) is the most recent, and Other Side is specifically about experimental psychology.

http://www.goodthinkingbooks.com

I'd be willing to check that out. I fancy myself as a one man experimental psychologist, due to my depressingly acute introspection. But every time I try to apply controls to myself, I go into a fit of spasms. I'm definitely 'riding an elephant'.

I'm definitely 'riding an elephant'.

Interbane: the regal mahout of booktalk!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/181/4144 ... 9beaca.jpg

I am enjoying reading Thinking, Fast and Slow. The extent to which experiment has proved our thoughts are conditioned by unconscious factors is intriguing. We are easily primed to shift our opinion depending on context. Voting booths located in schools tend to vote higher for education related spending measures, just because of the unconscious associations from the environment. People who are nodding are more likely to agree than people who are shaking their heads. Eating glucose improves thinking. Putting words in people's minds causes associated ideas to spring more easily to mind. Words associated with oldness cause people to walk more slowly. We imagine internally that we are rational, without realizing the extent to which our views are primed externally by our context.

I am particularly interested in how these psychological findings affect people's views on religion. Priming the mind through positive association with church community must drive out the capacity for logical thought. Faith is a form of pleasure, providing a comforting explanation of the world. Ideas that conflict with our faith are an affront to our sense of comfort. People often construct a plausible reason to reject a difficult idea, without realising that their response is largely an unconscious reflex rather than a coherent engagement with the content.

Kahneman observes that tests on self-control, mental laziness, reluctance to check the accuracy of answers, etc, correlate well to success in life. Thinking about how to form good habits of mind by engaging System Two (logic) rather than System One (intuition) depends far more on physical and cultural factors than we usually recognise.

I read the final chapter of this book in a bookstore and hope to get further into it. Systems 1 and 2 seemed to align with Jonathan Haidt's elephant and rider. I checked the index and found one mention of Kahneman in a note, where Haidt draws the parallel and recommends the book. I guess because Haidt was focused on morality and moral reasoning, and Kahneman appears to work the cognitive angle, Haidt could avoid covering the same ground.

I remember in college it was all introspection and discussion of topics relative to social and psycological experimentation. What this told us about ourselves. How religion was something we were fed as youngsters, but we were older and wiser now and did not subscribe to that pap. We were realists, free from prejudices, and rational thinkers!!!

Since I was in college in the Ice Age, we did not have current discoveries to guide us in our talks. We did recognize the way we were raised played a huge role in what we thought before we became adults and were independent. Then we could, of course, move to our own viewpoints. We now had open minds.

A few at college with me are part of these new experiments. They went on to a much higher level of learning and are now committed to their findings. Of course it is current science and we can't very well argue with that. (Although there are various groups that questions scientific facts every single day!!! And of course they are idiots because while science does learn new things every day, there is usually enough verification of the experiments to be pretty sure of the findings.) But the greater majority of us are not as well-informed as these scientists. I probably fall none too gracefully into that category. And telling people often has no result. Look at how scientists have tried to warn of global warming. And how many documentaries were shown predicitng that New Orleans could not withstand a level 5 hurricane?

Of course I have friends and acquaintances telling me what to wear, what to think, which religion is best (and who will and will not go straight to Hell), what my political viewpoints should be (the country will be destroyed if "X" gets elected). The older we get, the more fixed our thinking becomes. I see people being interviewed as to how they will vote in our upcoming national election and some of the crap I hear is ridiculous. That President Obama meets secretly with Islam terrorists in order to take over the United States; that if a Mormon is elected most of his time will be spent trying to convert Americans because that is what Mormons do!!! (Can anyone remember when some voters thought Kennedy would be calling the Pope every day for directions as he was Catholic?)

This is the real world. If you sat some of these people down and explained why and how they were thinking the way they were, they would (a) think you were some Godless heathen, or (b) set the dogs on you while they went for their shotgun. They can't remember and don't care how they came by their beliefs.

Of course everyone hopes people who are way off will do no harm to others. We do see this type of thing more and more. (Like the guy that said he listened to an AC/DC record backward and someone told him to go out and kill a bunch of people.)

But what about situations where there is no harm done; where individuals just feel better with beliefs that science may see as irrational and not proven by science? Religion may soothe the suffering of people who have lost too many loved ones. They feel better saying it is a higher power who took the people they love. The more people they lose, the more they need this. Sometimes I wish I could find such an easy out and feel this same comfort.

For centuries people have visited oracles, or mystics, or spiritualists or mediums (or whatver). They want to see their own future, ensure that their loved ones are safe, or just talk with them again. As long as they don't get carried away and give all their money to crackpots, what is the harm? Because science has never proven the reality or lack of existence of these types of happenings (and they certainly have had centuries to do so), and people are soothed by the belief, are others harmed?

There are probably just as many books telling people the "truth" about the various deities and soothsayers as there are about the science being discovered every day revealing the reasons people think the way they do and how their brains work. And tomorrow science will make new discoveries as they are doing every day.

It is great that science has discovered exactly the parts of the brain that are responsible for each activity and how they work. Like me thousands of people suffer from panic attacks and anxiety disorder. I watched my mother go through this without knowing what was going on. And I and my friends who have this also experienced a lot of uncertainty when we were younger. Most of the peopel around us did not understand that there are chemical imbalances responsible, there were not medications and discrimination was rampant.

I am very hopeful that more will be learned. (Although frankly there is still a huge amount of discrimination and lack of understanding about this and all mental illness and it seems that the most criticism seems to come relative to illnesses suffered predominantly by women!)

So, what is all this in aid of? New scientific discoveries are wonderful. And it is great that many scientists and those who read the new discoveries are aware of why people do what they do and act the way they act. But regardless we are flawed humans. It is unlikely that any of this new science is going to change some behavior. Some that is harmless, some that is not so much.