15 ms·
It’s Complicated: Unraveling the mystery of why people act as they do
- tucif 9y agoWhat would be a good book to read before this book? Or is it friendly enough for someone new to behavioral science?
- ralux 9y agoThe Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker
- tryitnow 9y agoI can't say for sure as I haven't read it, but my general impression of Sapolsky is that he's very good at explaining things - in other words not unnecessarily abstruse.
- chrismealy 9y agoI haven't read his new book, but I've read most of Sapolsky's older books and they're all excellent. "A Primate's Memoir" and "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers" are my favorites.
- mabub24 9y agoI would highly recommend [P.M.S. Hacker's "Human Nature: The Categorical Framework](https://www.amazon.com/Human-Nature-Categorial-Framework-Hacker/dp/1444332481/ref=pd_sbs_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1444332481&pd_rd_r=TKX5RASJ63XYHS9H1K7D&pd_rd_w=lz7UT&pd_rd_wg=vLoFR&psc=1&refRID=TKX5RASJ63XYHS9H1K7D https://www.amazon.com/Human-Nature-Categorial-Framework-Hac...). Hacker is an excellent philosopher and a very clear writer. He starts from broad categories to look at human nature and what it makes sense to say of the nature of sentient animals, insentient animals, and inanimate things. The main relevant chapters are: 1. "Agents and Actors", 2. "Teleological Explanation", and 3. "Reasons and Explanation of Human Action". His main point is that many "unanswerable" questions in neuroscience and behavioral science are simply nonsensical because they play with conceptual confusions. I would also highly recommend his sequel book "The Intellectual Powers: A Study of Human Nature".
- dredmorbius 9y agoQuite honestly, I'd give it a shot straight up, and pay close attention to references. I suspect Sapolsky will point you to the foundational works as necessary. (I've not read this book of his, or any others, but I've seen numerous lectures and interviews, and read several of his papers and essays. He's an academic, but one who explains things exceedingly clearly, and documents sources. Sort of the best of all possible worlds.)
- taurath 9y agoYou can see his lecture in my post here and decide whether he has too many underpinnings for you - I would guess not: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14591520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14591520
- adrice727 9y agoI'd say that it's friendly enough. The appendices provide short primers on neuroscience, hormones, and proteins, and help make sense of the rest of the book. I'm about 1/3 of the way through and every day I have something new that I'm excited to tell my wife about.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- givan 9y agoCall it anyway you want, lizard brain, flyers (Castaneda), Yaldabaoth (agnostics), this force that pushes evolution on earth at great speed through predatorial behavior like competition and flight or fight. We humans are the most intelligent species and still can't overcome it, as a civilization whatever political system or religion we tried no matter how hard we try we can't seem to overcome it, we still have wars and violence. When few succeed to inspire people to overcome it and fight without violence like Mahatma Gandhi did they inspire humanity and are called saints by their nation. When an individual can control his own feelings to such an extent that violence or anger feelings can no longer touch him we call him enlightened. Maybe this force is not only trying to help us evolve but wants to teach us something marvelous if we overcome it.
- david-gpu 9y agoEvidence, please. Vague speculation doesn't belong here IMO.
- agitator 9y agoWell, if you look at the human brain, it's just a larger cortex on top of the primitive brain stem. So I think, simply looking at our brain architecture, we are will always be impacted by the emotional low level impulses that were the main drivers of behaviors of our ancestors.
- JackFr 9y ago
- nope123 9y agoPer Deep Thought, the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42. It's a very deep thought, if you go past the literal interpretation. EDIT: Before you down vote, read what I meant, since it is obvious that if you are considering a down vote then you're not getting what I'm referring to, and probably think I'm talking about numerology. What I'm referring to is his choice of a number to represent the answer to life, universe and everything. Not a magical number, but just A NUMBER. It shows how futile it is to try and answer some questions in a mechanical/mathematical way. Some questions are not computable, and there is more meaning to life beyond the rational.
- livingparadox 9y agoI've heard that its intended to be the ASCII code for "*" which represents a wildcard (i.e., anything). Is that what you had in mind or do you have different interpretations?
- DougBTX 9y ago> The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story.
- nope123 9y agoYou obviously did not go past the literal interpretation and he was talking about the literal interpretation. What I'm referring to is his choice of a number to represent the answer to life, universe and everything. Not a magical number, but just A NUMBER. It shows how futile it is to try and answer some questions in a mechanical/mathematical way. Some questions are not computable, and there is more meaning to life beyond the rational.
- asdfasdf32r3 9y agoI interpret it to be that the answer is whatever we make of it. Your interpretation tells me more about your mindset than about any actual truth. Taken that way, meaning is what we project on it. You project a number as futility; a numerology-leaning individual could project a different meaning. You are both correct. It's a Rorschach test of philosophy.
- hyperion2010 9y agoThis is true even at a personal level. If you think you know why you act the way you do but you have never done an experiment to validate it you have a pretty good chance of being wrong. Even for simple things, like how fast you drive, is it the speedometer and you are looking at it, or is it how your engine sounds, and if turn up your music do you drive faster and is that because you are more aroused/excited, or is it because you can't actually hear how loud your engine is? Or maybe it is something else entirely.
- theseatoms 9y agoNot to mention major life decisions.
- dwaltrip 9y agoEveryone is living in fairytale narratives that we spend decades crafting for ourselves. And doing so has some great benefits! But it is also can be very problematic at times. I've been trying to figure out how to live while minimizing the extent of my personal fabricated narrative. It's a bit tricky... As with many things, I think basic awareness of the phenomenon is the first productive step.
- ux-app 9y ago>I've been trying to figure out how to live while minimizing the extent of my personal fabricated narrative. sounds interesting. Do you know of any suggested reading on the topic?
- Atlantium 9y agoThe human brain's electro-chemical makeup and its response to stimulus, both from the other organs and through the external sensory organs, are the reasons we act the way we do. Like the Human Genome project before it, this mystery can be solved with large amounts of personnel, money and time. Do not complain that it's complex (it is, we know, the sooner we commit the appropriate resources the sooner we'll be finished). [And yes, I am doing something about it - I'm a returned to school STEM-neuro student]
- goldenkey 9y agoYou've got it all figured out, don't you? How does figuring out how computation works somehow eliminate all the variables in a multidimensional turing complete system? What you claim is so simple is equivalent to solving the halting problem.
- s73ver 9y agoNo. Do not do that. The second that the cause/effect relationship is understood down to a neuron level like that, advertisers will abuse that to make things even more effective.
- wutbrodo 9y agoThis is truly peak HN. No matter how philosophical or universal the topic of conversation, someone is still so mind-killed that their reaction is "how will this affect advertising".
- s73ver 9y agoNot mind killed. Just a realist. You and I both know that's what would happen.
- wutbrodo 9y agoDude, way to _still_ not get the point. Whether or not you're correct has literally nothing to do with what I'm talking about. My complaint wasn't about you being wrong, it was that your small-minded enough that even in a conversation about the very nature of the human mind, your contribution is about advertising. It's just a more niche version of those people who manage to turn literally every conversation into "yea and if the fucking _republicans_/_democrats_ get their way blah blah". Whether or not they're correct in any given instance is entirely besides the point.
- ouid 9y agoIt's at least as complicated as all of mathematics, in the worst case.
- amasad 9y agoThe schism between our science and politics is finally getting airtime. Liberal western politics are based on individual liberty and free will. However, mainstream science maintains that we're neither individuals nor have free will. Do we try to reconcile both views? Or do we drop one in favor of the other? This, by the way, is also the subject of Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, by the same author behind Sapiens.
- TheCowboy 9y agoYou could argue that it has been shown that it isn't so black and white, not all decisions are a result of pure free will in all cases. But there has not been some conclusion that there is no free will by "mainstream science" as it is still an open topic. It's also not necessarily contradictory for it to be a bit of both.
- amasad 9y agoDo you agree with the following: - Mainstream science operates on the assumption of physicalism. - Mainstream science operates on the assumption that mind/consciousness is reducible to the brain organ. - Mainstream science operates on the principle of causation. What follows from that is that libertarian free-will is impossible. What you're left with is determinism (and compatibilism which isn't a scientific view, but a moral one).
- 77pt77 9y ago> What you're left with is determinism Not true even at a fundamental level. Why should it be true at a macro/aggregate one?
- ak4g 9y agoCan you clarify what you mean? How are we not left with determinism at a fundamental level? (And if it starts with a Q, then at most one can say is that it's possible that it's not deterministic. It's perfectly compatible with determinism, just not (AIUI) (and IANATP) currently known whether or not it is the case.)
- faragon 9y agoTL;DR: watching the movie "Taxi Driver" you'll learn more about about human behavior than reading that article.
- peterwwillis 9y agoDoes nobody else find this to be time-wasting drivel? We do what we do because we're apes with hats. Any thing that acts does so with a system. The system determines the actions. This is true for the laws of nature as much as a football game. Even if someone cheats, they're cheating because of the system of the game. > "Sapolsky concludes that World War II really was the worst thing humanity ever did to itself." Really? Really now? Thousands of years of slavery, war, discrimination, class struggle, superstition, genocide, and at least a few centuries having to wear really stuffy clothes in the summer, and six years of war was the worst thing that happened? I didn't read the book, but this is a farcical idea that requires aggressively downplaying all of both the atrocity and perpetual minor trauma of recorded history. The worst thing humanity ever did to itself was religion, but second to that was politics, so WWII can take the silver medal. Ironically, the best thing humanity ever did to itself was war, as it necessitated the development of technology to maintain hegemonic dominance.
- md224 9y ago> there is no homunculus (or soul, or separate entity) calling the shots for you, but even if there were a mini-me inside of you making choices, that mini-me would need a mini-mini-me inside of it, ad infinitum. I find it kind of amusing that people think free will is an illusion. It's a great illustration of how you can get people to believe anything, including things that violate their most fundamental perceptions. This "Science disproves free will" thing has the epistemological hierarchy reversed: one of the surest things I know is my own will. Before Descartes could proclaim "I think, therefore I am" he had to choose to make that proclamation. The argument that free will can't exist because it involves infinite regress is not particularly convincing: if anything, we should expect that our agency springs from something as bizarre as a causal singularity. Consciousness is weird as hell, and I expect the true nature of consciousness will turn out to be weirder than we can imagine.
- d23 9y ago> I find it kind of amusing that people think free will is an illusion. It's a great illustration of how you can get people to believe anything, including things that violate their most fundamental perceptions. And yet, my own fundamental perceptions say otherwise. If I sit here and try to decide to do something, how do I do it? I kind of... wait. Wait for some idea to pop into my head. Wait for something to appear before me. Wait for some feeling to push me one way or another. Try as I might, I can't find anything inside me that could constitute free will. Just a jumble of perceptions and inklings that change with the wind.
- wickawic 9y agoThat's a different axis than the free will vs determinism debate though. What you are describing is your (and my) inability to convincingly prescribe meaning to our actions. Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it is determined.
- md224 9y agoAnd yet you still choose. You're trying to dissect your agency, but it's too fundamental to be analyzed like that. It isn't a decision-making process: it is the decision itself. Writing that reply to me required a series of decisions on your part. Do you feel like your words are under your control? Communication requires choice... if we have no free will, then we're mute prisoners. I'm pretty sure I'm not a mute prisoner, and if I am, then whoever is controlling my typing is making a cruel mockery of my plight. :(
- taurath 9y agoIf you haven't seen the lecture from Robert Sapolsky (author of the book the article is summarizing) on Depression, do yourself a favor and see it now! He's wonderfully eloquent and approachable even to the laymen in giving the neurobiological underpinnings of what is a terrible illness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOAgplgTxfc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOAgplgTxfc
- snsr 9y agoThank you
- alexvoda 9y agoThanks indeed. It clarifies a lot. We are lucky to live in a period when sufficient knowledge on the subject has accumulated and has been put together for us to have some understanding of how it works. Going from here to finding fixes is a long way since there are a lot of variables, but at least we have an idea of how the leverage points in the system interact.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y agoThanks for linking to this. This guy is extraordinarily thorough.
- xor1 9y agoLearning about Borderline Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and the rest of the Cluster B disorders (and their comorbidity) helped me understand ALOT about certain types of behavioral patterns that I previously found completely mind-boggling.
- myrandomcomment 9y agoSo I wonder now, how many murders are simply solved because it was I the monument vs. solved for cases that were planned with cold hearted logic?
- real-hacker 9y agoMaybe the core of so-called 'free will' or 'soul' is just a random-number generator. Other than that, we are just many layers of deep neural networks.
- vinutheraj 9y agoThen the question becomes: can there be a really random number generator ?
- real-hacker 9y agoPerhaps a pseudo random number generator, with the solar radiation level and the moon phase as seeds. ;)
- J-dawg 9y agoI'm surprised nobody has mentioned the analogy to taking away an epileptic's driving licence. People who regularly suffer epileptic seizures are not allowed to drive, for example, but we don’t think of this ban as “punishing” them for their affliction. “We’ve successfully banished the notion of punishment in that realm. It may take centuries, but we can do the same in all our current arenas of punishment.” I've long thought that one of the cruelest things about our justice system is that it barely takes into account the terrible circumstances that someone might have been through before they become a criminal. Is the epileptic analogy really the right one, though? By that analogy, we would pre-emptively remove freedoms from people who've had a bad upbringing, or a genetic predisposition to violence. That sounds like precrime, and a very dangerous road to go down. I would love to see a more compassionate and rehabilitation-based justice system, but I really don't think he has chosen the right analogy.