4 ms·

>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 bas

by 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 :-)

Dylan16807 5y ago
> We aren't in disagreement and it's interesting to me how you keep framing it as if we are. Because you keep saying things like: [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.] and [your advice to "just ignore it"] Because no, I'm not saying either of those things. It might not be strictly "disagreement" but you're not understanding my argument at all. Let me try one last time too. There are two scenarios: A) If region 1/2 is making the decision then it's understandable but irrational to show up late. We seem to agree on this. B) Region 3 is making the decision. This is where we're having difficulty communicating. Early on you said "it often takes a lot of training and experience to truly know the difference when both both fear and anxiety feel the same physiologically." That's region 3 decision-making, right? Region 3 is trying to interpret region 1/2 and decide if there is real danger. Then region 3 plots a course of action. So my direct reply, saying you "should" either "not go at all" or "ignore it" was specifically talking about scenario B, where region 3 is making decisions. Because region 3 is the part that's trying to interpret a gut feeling. But then you saw the words "ignore it" and thought I was criticizing scenario A. I wasn't. If region 1/2 causes someone to be late, I'm not calling them a bad decision maker. If region 3 causes someone to be late, then I am calling them a bad decision maker. And I think I'm justified in this. Since then it's been a huge mess of talking past each other. I can only hope that by wording it this way we can finally reach understanding. At no point am I telling the theoretical chooser that they're expected to just suck it up and ignore regions 1/2. I'm very sympathetic if they fall victim to regions 1/2. I do say it's a bad reason to be late, but I don't blame them. But if region 3 is in charge, I expect a semi-rational decision. And while I totally agree that it can be hard to distinguish between fear and anxiety, that quandry is not an excuse for showing up late. Because that quandry only has two answers, and neither answer is "show up late". Even if you don't know which answer is correct, you should know the answer is not "show up late". Again, this paragraph is only if region 3 is in charge.
- bumby 5y ago
  Thanks for explaining. It seems our talking past each other stems from statements like: >where region 3 is making decisions >If region 3 causes someone to be late >if region 3 is in charge As you state, "this paragraph is only if region 3 is in charge." Central to my point is that Region 3 is not in charge like we generally think. Your perspective that the rational brain is in charge is common, but it's an error in understanding the way we make decisions. There's interesting research on this, but unfortunately not a lot of it because (for ethical reasons) it was previously required to find someone for damage to a specific portion of their brain. (Now they have other techniques). There are instances of people who have damage to their limbic system and literally take hours to make a decision with something as simple as where to get lunch. That should be a fairly easy decision if the rational Region 3 was in charge, right? But it's not; most of our decisions get initiated in Region 2 and then our Region 3 rationalizes an explanation. So someone will be late because Region 1/2 is scared and Region 3 comes up with a reason to justify their behavior like "I was afraid to meet you on my own." Is it a good reason? No, but I was just laying context as to why it happens. To your point, we can learn to override it but often that is what results in a delayed decision because it takes time to reduce the cognitive dissonance. Hence being late.

by bumby 5y ago

Dylan16807 5y ago

> We aren't in disagreement and it's interesting to me how you keep framing it as if we are. Because you keep saying things like: [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.] and [your advice to "just ignore it"] Because no, I'm not saying either of those things. It might not be strictly "disagreement" but you're not understanding my argument at all. Let me try one last time too. There are two scenarios: A) If region 1/2 is making the decision then it's understandable but irrational to show up late. We seem to agree on this. B) Region 3 is making the decision. This is where we're having difficulty communicating. Early on you said "it often takes a lot of training and experience to truly know the difference when both both fear and anxiety feel the same physiologically." That's region 3 decision-making, right? Region 3 is trying to interpret region 1/2 and decide if there is real danger. Then region 3 plots a course of action. So my direct reply, saying you "should" either "not go at all" or "ignore it" was specifically talking about scenario B, where region 3 is making decisions. Because region 3 is the part that's trying to interpret a gut feeling. But then you saw the words "ignore it" and thought I was criticizing scenario A. I wasn't. If region 1/2 causes someone to be late, I'm not calling them a bad decision maker. If region 3 causes someone to be late, then I am calling them a bad decision maker. And I think I'm justified in this. Since then it's been a huge mess of talking past each other. I can only hope that by wording it this way we can finally reach understanding. At no point am I telling the theoretical chooser that they're expected to just suck it up and ignore regions 1/2. I'm very sympathetic if they fall victim to regions 1/2. I do say it's a bad reason to be late, but I don't blame them. But if region 3 is in charge, I expect a semi-rational decision. And while I totally agree that it can be hard to distinguish between fear and anxiety, that quandry is not an excuse for showing up late. Because that quandry only has two answers, and neither answer is "show up late". Even if you don't know which answer is correct, you should know the answer is not "show up late". Again, this paragraph is only if region 3 is in charge.

bumby 5y ago
Thanks for explaining. It seems our talking past each other stems from statements like: >where region 3 is making decisions >If region 3 causes someone to be late >if region 3 is in charge As you state, "this paragraph is only if region 3 is in charge." Central to my point is that Region 3 is not in charge like we generally think. Your perspective that the rational brain is in charge is common, but it's an error in understanding the way we make decisions. There's interesting research on this, but unfortunately not a lot of it because (for ethical reasons) it was previously required to find someone for damage to a specific portion of their brain. (Now they have other techniques). There are instances of people who have damage to their limbic system and literally take hours to make a decision with something as simple as where to get lunch. That should be a fairly easy decision if the rational Region 3 was in charge, right? But it's not; most of our decisions get initiated in Region 2 and then our Region 3 rationalizes an explanation. So someone will be late because Region 1/2 is scared and Region 3 comes up with a reason to justify their behavior like "I was afraid to meet you on my own." Is it a good reason? No, but I was just laying context as to why it happens. To your point, we can learn to override it but often that is what results in a delayed decision because it takes time to reduce the cognitive dissonance. Hence being late.