4 ms·

Why your brain never runs out of problems to find

145 points by oblib 8y ago

dredmorbius 8y ago
This dynamic seems to share elements in common with some auto-immune disorders. Starved of true threats, the immune system attacks elements of itself, either with perceived or imagined variance from some norm. Social, political, and, intelligence, doctrinal, and police systems seem to show similar patterns.
- LolWolf 8y ago
  I think the dynamic is true of many (stable) non-linear systems which operate in a large range (i.e. frequency/bandwidth) of inputs. If there is large noise coming in, the output is bounded, but dominated by the large noise, yet if a small amount of noise is coming in, then this noise is amplified to be a large (again bounded, but still large) output. One good example is why you begin to hear things or hallucinate after an extended absence of stimuli.[0] Perhaps an overgeneralization which is not always nice and granted, but it is not uncommon behavior in the non-linear systems we usually analyze. --- [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    Staring into analogue-television static for 10-30 minutes is an interesting experience. Things appear.
- Florin_Andrei 8y ago
  On many levels we're optimized to over-respond to threats. We grew up in a tough neighborhood.
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    That, though also to see patterns where none exist.
colanderman 8y ago
I have another explanation: the scope of things one considers a problem doesn't change. Rather, each person has a fixed amount of energy for reporting problems, and they will report the more serious problems in preference to less serious ones when they are energy-limited. I see this with myself with code reviews. I tend to nitpick more on good reviews, not because the (minor) problems seem "relatively" bad, but because I have the energy to report them (and I assume the reviewee has the energy to fix them). Whereas on very bad reviews, I can let a lot slide, because I spend so much energy convincing the reviewee of the most egregious issues with their code. Same deal with "neighborhood watch": the watchers probably have an idea of the "ideal" neighborhood in their mind. At first, they report only the egregious problems, because doing so takes energy both on their part and on the part of the police. Once those problems are "cleared away" they're free to focus on the more minor issues. (Though I suspect that my explanation, and the explanation offered in the article, are actually two sides of the same coin.)
- zedderled 8y ago
  The article does mention that relative comparisons often use less energy than absolute measurements which is in line with your thinking.
  - s-shellfish 8y ago
    When scope changes, relative comparisons yield absolutes. Everything that is relative turns into background reasoning, base foundation, some comparisons strengthen, others weaken. The strongest thoughts survive through meticulous pruning. This yields the idea of absolutes, but that's also the problem from the onset. All that pruning is either relative to context or .. eventually yields self reference? Absolutes in that regard, I would think, would use less energy, eventually. Or it's always the same thing. Comparing absolutes to relatives. What's absolute is relative, what's relative is absolute, hm, nonsense, maybe.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- CocaKoala 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jeabo 8y ago
This psychological phenomenon seems to be prevalent in various political movements as well.
- snegu 8y ago
  It explains a lot around how the terms "racist" and "sexist" are now applied to a much larger (and more subtle) range of behaviors and speech.
newswriter99 8y ago
Karl Pilkington addressed this a decade or two ago with his "problem hole" theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdZHl0yqP6M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdZHl0yqP6M
Zarath 8y ago
New information is always being obtained, and abstract frameworks are not always logically consistent.
joddystreet 8y ago
Short summary: first world problems. But, that is how progress is made - shifting the baseline.

145 points by oblib 8y ago

This dynamic seems to share elements in common with some auto-immune disorders. Starved of true threats, the immune system attacks elements of itself, either with perceived or imagined variance from some norm. Social, political, and, intelligence, doctrinal, and police systems seem to show similar patterns.

LolWolf 8y ago
I think the dynamic is true of many (stable) non-linear systems which operate in a large range (i.e. frequency/bandwidth) of inputs. If there is large noise coming in, the output is bounded, but dominated by the large noise, yet if a small amount of noise is coming in, then this noise is amplified to be a large (again bounded, but still large) output. One good example is why you begin to hear things or hallucinate after an extended absence of stimuli.[0] Perhaps an overgeneralization which is not always nice and granted, but it is not uncommon behavior in the non-linear systems we usually analyze. --- [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  Staring into analogue-television static for 10-30 minutes is an interesting experience. Things appear.
Florin_Andrei 8y ago
On many levels we're optimized to over-respond to threats. We grew up in a tough neighborhood.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  That, though also to see patterns where none exist.

colanderman 8y ago

I have another explanation: the scope of things one considers a problem doesn't change. Rather, each person has a fixed amount of energy for reporting problems, and they will report the more serious problems in preference to less serious ones when they are energy-limited. I see this with myself with code reviews. I tend to nitpick more on good reviews, not because the (minor) problems seem "relatively" bad, but because I have the energy to report them (and I assume the reviewee has the energy to fix them). Whereas on very bad reviews, I can let a lot slide, because I spend so much energy convincing the reviewee of the most egregious issues with their code. Same deal with "neighborhood watch": the watchers probably have an idea of the "ideal" neighborhood in their mind. At first, they report only the egregious problems, because doing so takes energy both on their part and on the part of the police. Once those problems are "cleared away" they're free to focus on the more minor issues. (Though I suspect that my explanation, and the explanation offered in the article, are actually two sides of the same coin.)

zedderled 8y ago
The article does mention that relative comparisons often use less energy than absolute measurements which is in line with your thinking.
- s-shellfish 8y ago
  When scope changes, relative comparisons yield absolutes. Everything that is relative turns into background reasoning, base foundation, some comparisons strengthen, others weaken. The strongest thoughts survive through meticulous pruning. This yields the idea of absolutes, but that's also the problem from the onset. All that pruning is either relative to context or .. eventually yields self reference? Absolutes in that regard, I would think, would use less energy, eventually. Or it's always the same thing. Comparing absolutes to relatives. What's absolute is relative, what's relative is absolute, hm, nonsense, maybe.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
CocaKoala 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jeabo 8y ago

This psychological phenomenon seems to be prevalent in various political movements as well.

snegu 8y ago
It explains a lot around how the terms "racist" and "sexist" are now applied to a much larger (and more subtle) range of behaviors and speech.

newswriter99 8y ago

Karl Pilkington addressed this a decade or two ago with his "problem hole" theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdZHl0yqP6M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdZHl0yqP6M

Zarath 8y ago

New information is always being obtained, and abstract frameworks are not always logically consistent.

joddystreet 8y ago

Short summary: first world problems. But, that is how progress is made - shifting the baseline.