The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals. Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis
I'd just like to point out that when Darwin published his "hunch," he also included a tome of empirical evidence to support it (e.g., the power of artifical selection to mold pigeon breeds), and pointed to all of the weaknesses that he could find (e.g., caste sterility in the eusocial insects, later to be explained by Hamilton's inclusive fitness theory). He additionally highlighted what kinds of observations would disprove his theory. For example:
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." -The Origin, Chapter VI Darwin also made predictions, although his theory is fundamentally different from the kind you are describing, so the analogy is not an appropriate one. Your model is mechanistic - not functional. Darwin's theory was functional, not mechanistic. In other words, he was answering "why" questions, and you are trying to answer "how" questions. Look here Last edited by Carey N; May 2nd, 2006 at 05:41 PM.. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis
Carey said,
Quote:
Still, I am proceeding to provide better support as you have suggested - especially now that no credible person has said, "Your hypothesis could not possibly be valid because (insert reason here)". But here is the problem I face: My hypothesis sits opposite the conventional wisdom, that we are the thinking animals and that we intelligently think our way through life making our behavior choices . . . and that emotions are a side-effect of life that sometime get in the way - even though some scientists have admitted that emotion is important to decision-making in some as yet undetermined ways. I have seen no papers or theories that attempt to justify that assertion. It is assumed, even by well respected scientists. An example is LeDoux: Quote:
So, in that sense, you are asking me to prove something that conflicts with the conventional wisdom - that itself has never been established scientifically. So far, I have therefore approached this mostly from a common sense pov: Since all but a very few animal species operate almost entirely without intellect and since emotion is the only other element of the mind that has been identified as capable of causing behavior, it is even part of the CW that we can sometimes be driven by our emotions, it seems given that this same mechanism would operate in humans as well - except for the effect of our superior intellect. However, infants, the senile and those with impaired intellect and/or very low IQ still make thousands of behavior choices every day - even though those choices may not increase their fitness as much as more intellectually enlightened choices might. Also, there seems to be no point during development when a child or young adult switches over from the emotional decision-making they were endowed with at birth - to intellectual decision-making. It seems to be a gradual process where intellect has an increasing influence as a child's intellect becomes more capable. It also seems that someone who believes that human decision-making is a solely intellectual process would be at a disadvantage to show that emotion is absent even in most adult behavior choices - while it would be easy for me to show many examples where intellect seems to be almost entirely absent from many adult behavior choices. See Asch Experiments for one out of thousands of such examples. Circumstantially, that points to a mechanism whereby human intellect can take part in our behavior choice decisions - but does not always do so. I then ask what makes more sense - that in 50,000 years evolution completely replaced the mammalian behavior choice mechanism that had already undergone 65 million years of evolutionary refinement - with a completely different behavior choice mechanism based on our newly evolved intellect? Or, that evolution provided our evolving intellectual brain layer with it's own input channel into our existing emotional behavior choice computer - where it could participate on a qualified basis to enhance the objective quality of our human decisions - without throwing away the 65 million years of evolutionary decision-making based on instincts, dispositions, memories, beliefs and social sensitivity that brought us here. Our ego is the jealous master of our intellect that make it so difficult for us to see this simpler and more sensible explanation. It generates strong emotions when we consider this possibility that reduces the importance of our intellect in our decisions - that makes us discount the more sensible alternative. Margaret Last edited by Margaret McGhee; May 2nd, 2006 at 08:42 PM.. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis
Quote:
She must have taken the blue pill. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis
Margaret - for the last time, I'm not asking you to prove anything, but rather only to imagine circumstances that would distinguish your hypothesis from others. You see - I am not so concerned with the problem at hand as much as I am with the scientific process, which seems extraordinarily difficult to follow in the black-box realm of psychology.
In fact, upon re-entering this forum a few months ago and encouraging you to flesh out your idea in full, I was not expecting to criticize its conceptual content personally, but rather to expose it to other people in the forum who have more extensive backgrounds in this kind of subject matter. Todd Stark, for example, knows a lot about many, many things. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if, instead of eating and drinking, Todd just reads books and converts them into sustenance. I was hoping that he would see your post, and then comment upon it, which he did. If I remember correctly, he raised some key objections, which you never directly confronted: Quote:
So . . . in conclusion to this unwieldy post, it seems to me that you have, more or less, dodged the one person who has critically addressed the content of your hypothesis (whereas I have only criticized the way in which you are supporting it). So . . . what's the deal? |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis
Carey, I keep trying to respect your admonitions but we are talking past each other. I have definitely not dodged either you or Todd.
You seem to prefer a discussion where each of us says, "I'm right because . . . and you're wrong because . . ." That's the scientific process that you are admittedly concerned about. When I get to the point where I have something to prove, then I will share that concern. For now I'm interested in discussion of the content of my ideas. Perhaps, no-one here shares that interest (except perhaps Todd) who is not around enough to make it very interesting. I saw that post from Todd as generally agreeing that emotions are a far more important component of decision-making than most scientists discern. I thought it was a very interesting view that caused me to reflect about my own position. He offered no proof or scientific evidence to support his assertions. Still, I thought his post was one of the most valuable in the discussion. I don't have to agree or disagree with someon'e pov to find it valuable. I suspect that every thought is accompanied by some emotion and therefore I agree in principle with what Todd said. Most of that emotion occurs well below our ability to detect it as feelings. But emotions are both the result of cognition and the force that drives cognition and mental focus. Emotions that result from cognition can both trigger additional cognition and can be available for decision-making when that is the task at hand. So they are intimately joined in the mind. I suspect our cognition automatically produces emotions as either . . a) when contemplating outside the need for a decision, this is how I feel about that as it may generally affect my survival, or b) when a decision is needed, this is how I feel about that as a component of this decision that will affect my survival. For example, thinking of sex can generally produce positive emotions as in a). If we are deciding if we should have sex while driving however, the idea may produce negative emotions - as in b). Emotion first causes us to think about something if we sense that our environment requires some decision-response and we feel emotionionally that our intellect could be useful for a decision. Many, perhaps most human decisions, don't require intellect. And then if we are making a behavior decision where we sense a need for intellect, the emotional value of that conclusion becomes available to the emotional computer that makes the decision. Most of the decisions we make in life have low emotional value. They don't have a great potential affect on our survival like - should I have another cup of coffee? for example. Our intellect is relatively free to calculate our time schedule, our caffeine load, the time until bed, etc. and produce a useful result. In these cases our other emotional sources are relatively silent which gives the relatively weak emotional signals produced by our intellectual conclusions free reign to guide our decision. When we are faced with a decision that may have a large effect on our survival, our automatic emotional sources such as instinct and disposition, beliefs, etc. are automatically energized and begin producing strong emotional signals. In most cases our intellect is also energized to seek some logical conclusion for consideration. Depending on our personality and the context of the decision we may heed that call with focus and mental energy. If we produce an intellectual conclusion where we have confidence (an emotion) in the result - we will tend to give a lot of (emotional) weight to our decison - or (if we are not very astute intellectually or if there is not good data upon which to base an intellectual conclusion) we may largely ignore that call and feel more comfortable with simply following the emotional signals from other brain regions. This is an interactive process that is completely intiated and mediated by emotional signals that are largely subconscious. Emotion is what goes on in our brain all the time. It can recognize the need for a decison and produce that decision and act on it without intellectual help - as all other mammals do, perhaps as all animals do depending on how broadly one defines emotion - and as humans do much of the time. Reasoning is what goes on in human brains some of the time. It is both driven by emotion and it produces emotional signals for decision-making. It can enhance our important decisions under the right conditions - and it can give us the ability to drive our car to the store and do other utilitarian things that animals can't. I fail to see the danger in offering this view of how the brain works. I see greater danger in refusing to consider possible explanations for human behavior because they don't fit into the existing conventional wisdom - when the conventional wisdom has little or no theoretical validity of its own. I see even greater danger in discussions where proving one's self right and others' wrong displaces the actual content of the ideas being discussed. I don't see discussion as a zero-sum game. You said, Quote:
This discussion seems to span psychology, philosophy and neurology. I think you are only comfortable in that latter zone - and in a discussion where someone wins and someone loses. It may be scary being in a discussion where psychological black boxes make it difficult to prove that you are correct and others wrong - or, more importantly, where that is not the purpose of the discussion - but that's where I am. Margaret Last edited by Margaret McGhee; May 3rd, 2006 at 02:37 PM.. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis
Quote:
Quote:
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis
Carey, I feel fairly certain he was referring to the conventional wisdom that I am opposed to. If you read the rest of that paragraph I find almost perfect agreement with several of my previous assertions.
I have repeatedly described intellect as an additional source of the emotions that are weighed in a decision. Weighing does not imply opposition - although an intellectual conclusion could produce opposite emotions from our instinct, for example. But it could just as easily produce the same (direction) emotions for another decision question. For that reason I also think that . . . it's a serious error to propogate the longstanding tradition that intellect and emotion are two different sorts of thing that are somehow in competition with each other. Do you thnk he was calling my hypothesis a longstanding tradition - or that my hypothesis agreed with it? In any case, I believe he was discussing ideas - and was not so concerned with who was right and who was wrong - except that he was expressing opposition to the conventional wisdom. I suspect that you saw his post differently because you can't imagine someone posting a comment that does not "win" some argument. Margaret Last edited by Margaret McGhee; May 3rd, 2006 at 02:05 PM.. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis
Yesterday I said,
Quote:
Quote:
A prediction: By manipulating those emotional forces, different decisions can be produced. In this case, without the emotions of social conformity the test subject could correctly identify the line 98% of the time. When the subject was made to feel the emotions of social conformity they misidentified the line 70% perent of the time - denying their intellectual conclusion. I think that is strong circumstantial evidence for my hypothesis. I predict that I could make it a slam dunk by extending the test to a third trial - wherein the subject was offered 20 dollars for correctly identifying the similar line in any trial where more than half of the other participants got it wrong. Of course, I'd set it up that way. I predict the emotional value for a student to get a quick 20 bucks would suddenly over-ride the subject's desire to be seen as conforming. Would anyone suggest that he suddenly got smarter? Or, does anyone have a better explanation for this than an accomodation to various emotional forces in a decision? Margaret Last edited by Margaret McGhee; May 3rd, 2006 at 03:30 PM.. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis
Quote:
Just poking at the logic, I'm sure you could design it correctly some other way... |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis
Well Tom, you may be right - but I suspect that if I was in that situation I would assume the test was to see who was more susceptible to optical illusions. If it seemed easy to me I would just think that I was not so susceptible (while those others were) - and I'd feel lucky that I was going to get the 20 bucks.
But, thanks much for following this thread - and getting my point. Margaret. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|