5 ms·

Common human behavior is a lot more schizophrenic than any of us are comfortable with understanding. I recommend the book "Hare Brain Tortoise Mind" to everyon

Common human behavior is a lot more schizophrenic than any of us are comfortable with understanding. I recommend the book "Hare Brain Tortoise Mind" to everyone who will listen. It explains one form of multi-mindedness that leads to you getting your best insights while in the shower --what it's good at and what it's not. "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat" is another classic.

reallydude 8y ago
Multiple Intelligences Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligenc... to which I subscribe, in a form.
- _Nat_ 8y ago
  I think that Wikipedia article is about a different idea than the parent video. The parent video is about the idea that an "individual" human mind can be described as being composed of subordinate minds. In this case, left-side vs. right-side. The Wikipedia article is about the idea that there's no single metric by which we can judge human intelligence. This is, it's theoretically impossible to have any score, like IQ, that cleanly qualifies how smart people are relative to one another.
- keyle 8y ago
  Seems overly simplistic to me, I mean, one of us.
maddyboo 8y ago
Another interesting read is “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” by Julian Jaynes, which outlines hypothesis of bicameralism [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)
- x3n0ph3n3 8y ago
  The hypothesis of bicameralism is mostly debunked, though.
  - 725686 8y ago
    Any references?
    - x3n0ph3n3 8y ago
      Did you not look at any of the criticisms included on the wikipedia page? "Debunked" may have been overly strong, but it certainly lacks evidence and there are some good arguments against it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)#Issues_with_Jaynes'_proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)#Issu...
      - PixyMisa 8y ago
        I'd say "debunked" is putting it mildly. "Vacuous nonsense fuelled entirely by cherry picking and special pleading" is the phrase I'd use. See for example his response to the Epic of Gilgamesh.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
Waterluvian 8y ago
I'll check out those titles, but put simply, are you referring to how I talk to myself in many voices in the shower, having a narrative about a problem I'm picking away at?
- corysama 8y ago
  TLDR of HBTM is that there is a nonverbal, background thread of consciousness in your mind. It has the advantage of a larger working set (short term memory) compared to the verbal, foreground thread. Therefore it can more easily integrate more complicated observations over time than your foreground thought process. It has the disadvantage that it is non-verbal and does not work quickly, on command or under pressure. You need to give it time to work and you need a quiet, non-focused environment for it to bubble up it's conclusions. Basically, you need to study as much as you can, then go for quiet walks where you relax and don't think about the problem. It also has the disadvantage that, because your foreground process did not do the work to understand the problem (it just got a cliff notes answer), if the problem changes, your foreground process won't be in a good position to re-integrate the knowledge it didn't work through in order to deal with the changed problem.
  - Waterluvian 8y ago
    Fascinating. Thank you.
    - corysama 8y ago
      btw: Your shower routine sounds like http://wiki.c2.com/?RubberDucking http://wiki.c2.com/?RubberDucking The act of explaining a problem verbally to someone else forces you to be explicit about details that you gloss over when you think about the problem internally. The fun part is that you don't actually need a real person to explain to. Just going through the motions and explaining out loud to no one (or to a toy) is nearly as effective.
  - war1025 8y ago
    Hmmm. That pretty well explains how I've solved problems my whole life. Interesting. Will have to look into the book.
dmitryminkovsky 8y ago
Hare vs tortoise thinking is basically why I built Pony [0] an email service that sends and receives once a day. I find that time is critical for cognition, processing, basic reflection. Without the passing of time for me it’s really difficult to communicate at anything but the most basic level. Pony has let me tap into my tortoise brain for corresponding with people. [0] https://www.pony.gg https://www.pony.gg
devoply 8y ago
schizophrenia in japan is called integration disorder. meaning the many different parts of the mind, or many minds, are not integrating into a single mind.
- dmitryminkovsky 8y ago
  Reminds me of something from a really great piece about schizophrenia that I read: > In 2007, they announced a startling discovery. Stevens was trying to identify the proteins that recognized and eliminated neuronal synapses during visual development. “The strangest finding was that a protein that usually tags and removes pieces of dead cells, bacterial remnants, or cellular debris was also being reworked to tag and remove the synapses,” she said. Mice designed to lack tagging proteins—called complement proteins—had problems both in clearing cellular debris and in tagging and pruning their synapses. > The Stevens and Barres study, published in the journal Cell in 2007, documented one of the most arresting instances of repurposing in biology: a protein designed to ticket germs and junk for destruction had been co-opted by the nervous system to ticket synapses for destruction. “It reinforces an old intuition,” my psychiatrist friend Hans, in Boston, told me. “The secret of learning is the systematic elimination of excess. We grow, mostly, by dying.” https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/28/the-genetics-of-schizophrenia https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/28/the-genetics-o...
- azeirah 8y ago
  That's slightly odd to me, that description sounds like it would better for a dissociative disorder.
solipsism 8y ago
Common human behavior is a lot more schizophrenic than any of us are comfortable with understanding. How presumptive. Speak for yourself.
- akvadrako 8y ago
  Indeed. I basically consider myself a corporation, with the conscious part playing the role of elected CEO.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    I think that's wishful thinking, actually. We like to believe there's a singular being in charge that we can label 'self', but I don't buy it. It seems to me that our minds operate more like a society or, at a higher abstraction, a committee, and it only seems like there's a singular entity in charge because the rationalization portion of our brain does its thing after decisions are made, making it seem as though there were a singular will determining our behavior.
    - mpa000 8y ago
      Like Minsky, who I've been waiting to be referenced in this subject but haven't seen yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind
dwighttk 8y ago
Does Hare Brain Tortoise Mind talk about the same things that Thinking, Fast and Slow calls system one and two?
- corysama 8y ago
  I've not read Thinking Fast and Slow. But, I'm convinced Malcolm Gladwell read Hare Brain, replaced most of the research stories with funny anecdotes and sold 1000x as many copies of Blink.

reallydude 8y ago

Multiple Intelligences Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligenc... to which I subscribe, in a form.

_Nat_ 8y ago
I think that Wikipedia article is about a different idea than the parent video. The parent video is about the idea that an "individual" human mind can be described as being composed of subordinate minds. In this case, left-side vs. right-side. The Wikipedia article is about the idea that there's no single metric by which we can judge human intelligence. This is, it's theoretically impossible to have any score, like IQ, that cleanly qualifies how smart people are relative to one another.
keyle 8y ago
Seems overly simplistic to me, I mean, one of us.

maddyboo 8y ago

Another interesting read is “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” by Julian Jaynes, which outlines hypothesis of bicameralism [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

x3n0ph3n3 8y ago
The hypothesis of bicameralism is mostly debunked, though.
- 725686 8y ago
  Any references?
  - x3n0ph3n3 8y ago
    Did you not look at any of the criticisms included on the wikipedia page? "Debunked" may have been overly strong, but it certainly lacks evidence and there are some good arguments against it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)#Issues_with_Jaynes'_proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)#Issu...
    - PixyMisa 8y ago
      I'd say "debunked" is putting it mildly. "Vacuous nonsense fuelled entirely by cherry picking and special pleading" is the phrase I'd use. See for example his response to the Epic of Gilgamesh.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

Waterluvian 8y ago

I'll check out those titles, but put simply, are you referring to how I talk to myself in many voices in the shower, having a narrative about a problem I'm picking away at?

corysama 8y ago
TLDR of HBTM is that there is a nonverbal, background thread of consciousness in your mind. It has the advantage of a larger working set (short term memory) compared to the verbal, foreground thread. Therefore it can more easily integrate more complicated observations over time than your foreground thought process. It has the disadvantage that it is non-verbal and does not work quickly, on command or under pressure. You need to give it time to work and you need a quiet, non-focused environment for it to bubble up it's conclusions. Basically, you need to study as much as you can, then go for quiet walks where you relax and don't think about the problem. It also has the disadvantage that, because your foreground process did not do the work to understand the problem (it just got a cliff notes answer), if the problem changes, your foreground process won't be in a good position to re-integrate the knowledge it didn't work through in order to deal with the changed problem.
- Waterluvian 8y ago
  Fascinating. Thank you.
  - corysama 8y ago
    btw: Your shower routine sounds like http://wiki.c2.com/?RubberDucking http://wiki.c2.com/?RubberDucking The act of explaining a problem verbally to someone else forces you to be explicit about details that you gloss over when you think about the problem internally. The fun part is that you don't actually need a real person to explain to. Just going through the motions and explaining out loud to no one (or to a toy) is nearly as effective.
- war1025 8y ago
  Hmmm. That pretty well explains how I've solved problems my whole life. Interesting. Will have to look into the book.

dmitryminkovsky 8y ago

Hare vs tortoise thinking is basically why I built Pony [0] an email service that sends and receives once a day. I find that time is critical for cognition, processing, basic reflection. Without the passing of time for me it’s really difficult to communicate at anything but the most basic level. Pony has let me tap into my tortoise brain for corresponding with people. [0] https://www.pony.gg https://www.pony.gg

devoply 8y ago

schizophrenia in japan is called integration disorder. meaning the many different parts of the mind, or many minds, are not integrating into a single mind.

dmitryminkovsky 8y ago
Reminds me of something from a really great piece about schizophrenia that I read: > In 2007, they announced a startling discovery. Stevens was trying to identify the proteins that recognized and eliminated neuronal synapses during visual development. “The strangest finding was that a protein that usually tags and removes pieces of dead cells, bacterial remnants, or cellular debris was also being reworked to tag and remove the synapses,” she said. Mice designed to lack tagging proteins—called complement proteins—had problems both in clearing cellular debris and in tagging and pruning their synapses. > The Stevens and Barres study, published in the journal Cell in 2007, documented one of the most arresting instances of repurposing in biology: a protein designed to ticket germs and junk for destruction had been co-opted by the nervous system to ticket synapses for destruction. “It reinforces an old intuition,” my psychiatrist friend Hans, in Boston, told me. “The secret of learning is the systematic elimination of excess. We grow, mostly, by dying.” https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/28/the-genetics-of-schizophrenia https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/28/the-genetics-o...
azeirah 8y ago
That's slightly odd to me, that description sounds like it would better for a dissociative disorder.

solipsism 8y ago

Common human behavior is a lot more schizophrenic than any of us are comfortable with understanding. How presumptive. Speak for yourself.

akvadrako 8y ago
Indeed. I basically consider myself a corporation, with the conscious part playing the role of elected CEO.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  I think that's wishful thinking, actually. We like to believe there's a singular being in charge that we can label 'self', but I don't buy it. It seems to me that our minds operate more like a society or, at a higher abstraction, a committee, and it only seems like there's a singular entity in charge because the rationalization portion of our brain does its thing after decisions are made, making it seem as though there were a singular will determining our behavior.
  - mpa000 8y ago
    Like Minsky, who I've been waiting to be referenced in this subject but haven't seen yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind

dwighttk 8y ago

Does Hare Brain Tortoise Mind talk about the same things that Thinking, Fast and Slow calls system one and two?

corysama 8y ago
I've not read Thinking Fast and Slow. But, I'm convinced Malcolm Gladwell read Hare Brain, replaced most of the research stories with funny anecdotes and sold 1000x as many copies of Blink.