3 ms·

I understand what you're saying but get the feeling you're painting in a light that just doesn't align with the way people make decisions. Have you ever known

by bumby 5y ago

I understand what you're saying but get the feeling you're painting in a light that just doesn't align with the way people make decisions. Have you ever known someone who procrastinates on an important task even though they know it's important? They rationally know it's in their best interest and needs to get done. They know it's not fear, because there's no real threat of bodily harm. Yet they can't get the initiative to begin the task. Maybe they eventually get around to doing it because they can rationalize themselves into action, but why was there a delay at all? I'm saying it's because the parts of our brain that help initiate decisions are affected by fight-or-flight stress. In the case above, the stress may be caused by the anxiety of an overwhelming task. Delayed action is a form of coping. It's not "fear", but there is still a delayed decision because anxiety initiates a similar response. Is it rational? Not at all. It still governed by the same mechanisms, but can be overridden even when it takes some time. Just like in a real fear scenario when people can't think straight enough to act. If you can understand that "being late" is, at times, a coping mechanism for that stress, then you can understand the relevance of my point.

Dylan16807 5y ago
If they know it's just anxiety then that's a completely different situation from what we were talking about, isn't it? Being bad at handling anxiety is a very different thing from not knowing if it's just anxiety. If you know it's anxiety then you know it's a bad reason to show up late. It's forgivable but that doesn't change it.
- bumby 5y ago
  >If you know it's anxiety then you know it's a bad reason To underscore the point ad nauseum, "they" do not know, other than "they" feel the pangs of anxiety that lead to to the inability to act. There is a disconnect between their rationality and their mechanisms to make a decision. It's possible "their" rational faculties understand while "their" lower systems do not. There's no mental gymnastics necessary to see how the two can coexist. As I said, it takes a whole lot of introspection for some people to override that. The mind is not a single all-seeing rational "decider", unfortunately, and that's why things like cognitive dissonance are difficult to overcome. All I can conclude from this discourse is we have very different ideas about the way the mind works. Yours does not seem consistent with the cognitive psychology of the last 30 or so years, particularly since fMRI studies became popular.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    My conclusion is that you keep mixing up scenarios. There is a scenario where they know it's anxiety, and a scenario where they don't. I have completely different arguments for each scenario. But you keep mixing up which of my arguments goes to which scenario, and then refuting it in a way that doesn't make sense. I mean, look at this part specifically: you: They know it's not fear me: If they know it's just anxiety you: To underscore the point ad nauseum, "they" do not know What the hell, how am I supposed to reply to this? And when I say "know" I mean at a rational level. I'm not demanding emotions be rational, and I'm not demanding they not be paralyzed by emotions. I'm saying that IF they make a choice, that choice should not be "show up late". And IF they don't make a choice, because emotions are overriding decision-making entirely, then that's understandable but it's not a good reason. But those are two different scenarios. If If If.
    - bumby 5y ago
      >What the hell, how am I supposed to reply to this? Ok, I'll try one last time to explain. Neuroscientists generally divide the brain into 3 crude regions based on function and evolutionary development. Region 1: the primitive "reptilian". This handles things like breathing and fight-or-flight response. Region 2: the limbic system, "old mammalian", or "unconscious" system. This concerns things like social emotions and how you can intuit someone's intentions based on things like body language, tone of voice, etc. Region 3: the neocortex or "new mammalian" system. This handles the rational processing of things like mathematics and logic. Usually when people are talking about the "brain" they mean region 3, but they all work in concert with each other. My point of "they" is that there isn't a single monolith; there are times when the systems are incongruent. So the rational brain may say "it's just a dinner party". To the rational brain there's no good reason to not go. But there's all kinds of reasons why Regions 1/2 may be screaming "don't go! It's dangerous!" It may not be rational, but those systems don't operate rationally. For example, one theory about the very common fear of public speaking is that it causes our limbic system to freak out because, from an evolutionary point of view, if you were speaking alone, in front of your tribe, it may be because you were at risk of being cast out. To a paleolithic human, that is a life-or-death risk. Unfortunately, that same functionality carries over to our current Region 2, and it doesn't know that it's just a powerpoint presentation without the same consequence. So what does all that have to do with your point? When the different systems don't align, it causes wonky, irrational behavior, like indecisiveness. Like showing up late. You seem to be saying "Region 3, the rational brain, has made a conscious decision to be late. That's a bad choice." I agree, except it may not be the result of a conscious choice. It's possible their neocortex knows it's not fear while their limbic system does not. Research shows many of the choices we think are rational are actually rooted in our limbic system, which makes the reasonable choice more difficult for many people than you seem to assume. We aren't in disagreement and it's interesting to me how you keep framing it as if we are. I agree being late isn't a good reason, as I've said previously. All I'm saying is that your advice to "just ignore it" requires a decent amount of introspection because of the way we're wired. Maybe you keep thinking we're in disagreement because it's on a forum and not face-to-face where your limbic system would be able to take in all the extra non-verbal/non-text information :-)

by bumby 5y ago

Dylan16807 5y ago

If they know it's just anxiety then that's a completely different situation from what we were talking about, isn't it? Being bad at handling anxiety is a very different thing from not knowing if it's just anxiety. If you know it's anxiety then you know it's a bad reason to show up late. It's forgivable but that doesn't change it.

bumby 5y ago
>If you know it's anxiety then you know it's a bad reason To underscore the point ad nauseum, "they" do not know, other than "they" feel the pangs of anxiety that lead to to the inability to act. There is a disconnect between their rationality and their mechanisms to make a decision. It's possible "their" rational faculties understand while "their" lower systems do not. There's no mental gymnastics necessary to see how the two can coexist. As I said, it takes a whole lot of introspection for some people to override that. The mind is not a single all-seeing rational "decider", unfortunately, and that's why things like cognitive dissonance are difficult to overcome. All I can conclude from this discourse is we have very different ideas about the way the mind works. Yours does not seem consistent with the cognitive psychology of the last 30 or so years, particularly since fMRI studies became popular.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  My conclusion is that you keep mixing up scenarios. There is a scenario where they know it's anxiety, and a scenario where they don't. I have completely different arguments for each scenario. But you keep mixing up which of my arguments goes to which scenario, and then refuting it in a way that doesn't make sense. I mean, look at this part specifically: you: They know it's not fear me: If they know it's just anxiety you: To underscore the point ad nauseum, "they" do not know What the hell, how am I supposed to reply to this? And when I say "know" I mean at a rational level. I'm not demanding emotions be rational, and I'm not demanding they not be paralyzed by emotions. I'm saying that IF they make a choice, that choice should not be "show up late". And IF they don't make a choice, because emotions are overriding decision-making entirely, then that's understandable but it's not a good reason. But those are two different scenarios. If If If.
  - bumby 5y ago
    >What the hell, how am I supposed to reply to this? Ok, I'll try one last time to explain. Neuroscientists generally divide the brain into 3 crude regions based on function and evolutionary development. Region 1: the primitive "reptilian". This handles things like breathing and fight-or-flight response. Region 2: the limbic system, "old mammalian", or "unconscious" system. This concerns things like social emotions and how you can intuit someone's intentions based on things like body language, tone of voice, etc. Region 3: the neocortex or "new mammalian" system. This handles the rational processing of things like mathematics and logic. Usually when people are talking about the "brain" they mean region 3, but they all work in concert with each other. My point of "they" is that there isn't a single monolith; there are times when the systems are incongruent. So the rational brain may say "it's just a dinner party". To the rational brain there's no good reason to not go. But there's all kinds of reasons why Regions 1/2 may be screaming "don't go! It's dangerous!" It may not be rational, but those systems don't operate rationally. For example, one theory about the very common fear of public speaking is that it causes our limbic system to freak out because, from an evolutionary point of view, if you were speaking alone, in front of your tribe, it may be because you were at risk of being cast out. To a paleolithic human, that is a life-or-death risk. Unfortunately, that same functionality carries over to our current Region 2, and it doesn't know that it's just a powerpoint presentation without the same consequence. So what does all that have to do with your point? When the different systems don't align, it causes wonky, irrational behavior, like indecisiveness. Like showing up late. You seem to be saying "Region 3, the rational brain, has made a conscious decision to be late. That's a bad choice." I agree, except it may not be the result of a conscious choice. It's possible their neocortex knows it's not fear while their limbic system does not. Research shows many of the choices we think are rational are actually rooted in our limbic system, which makes the reasonable choice more difficult for many people than you seem to assume. We aren't in disagreement and it's interesting to me how you keep framing it as if we are. I agree being late isn't a good reason, as I've said previously. All I'm saying is that your advice to "just ignore it" requires a decent amount of introspection because of the way we're wired. Maybe you keep thinking we're in disagreement because it's on a forum and not face-to-face where your limbic system would be able to take in all the extra non-verbal/non-text information :-)