6 ms·

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

by 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.

Dylan16807 5y ago
Let me phrase it a different way then. Some decisions are made with region 3 as a critical part of the loop, and some aren't. You're not navigating a map or writing a comment with regions 1 and 2 doing everything. If it goes scared -> hide, then I don't blame region 3 for screwing up. If it goes scared -> make plans -> pick a plan, then I will blame region 3 if it makes bad plans. Is it wrong for me to say region 3 is "in charge" here? Okay, maybe that's too simple of a way of looking at it. But region 3 has a lot of power and responsibility when it comes to planning. So if it's the logical planning step that fails, not because it was disrupted by fear but because it went "oh I can't tell if the fear is real, better get stuck on that and not explore the two whole possibilities", then that's a non-emotional screwup and I expect better.
- bumby 5y ago
  >If it goes scared -> make plans -> pick a plan, then I will blame region 3 if it makes bad plans. The error in your mental model here is that you equate Region 3 with being the "plan maker". As I said previously, an awful lot of the time Region 2 is actually the decider and Region 3 just rationalizes it. You can see this with the priming research. The way it often goes is Region 1/2 gets a response -> Region 2 makes a decision on a course of action -> Region 3 rationalizes that course of action. A researcher may bring in a subject and ask them to describe their idea of a good vacation. Maybe around the room there are influences like pictures of a beach and oranges and the subject talks about planning a vacation to Florida. Meanwhile, with other subjects they use pictures of mountains and there is a higher likelihood the person describes a vacation in Colorado. It's not that their Region 3 was influenced by Region 2; it's literally that Region 2 made the decision without Region 3 even being cognizant of it. You can even see this on an fMRI where the limbic system makes decisions even before the person is consciously aware a decision was made. And then Region 3 comes up with all kinds of elaborate reasons why like "I've always wanted to go to Disney World" or "I grew up skiing and want to try it again." There's other classic examples of people thinking they are being rational but really just being subject to Region 2's decisions. The 1960 presidential election is a famous example. Different groups were selected (years after the election so the weren't politically biased); one watched the televised debate and the other listened to the radio broadcast. Time and again, each came up with different winners of the debate. The TV group thought Kennedy won, while the radio group thought Nixon did. Why? Because each group's Region 2 got different information. The TV group saw a young, vibrant, tan Kennedy with great hair and saw a pale, sick, Nixon without any makeup. The radio group heard a Nixon with an authoritative deep gravely voice and a Kennedy with a harsh, nasally Boston accent. Yet when pressed, each group was great at rationalizing their choice that had nothing to do with any of that; both based it on the same debate words. If a rational Region 3 made the plans to vote, it would only be based on the content of their words. The fact that it's not, just like the fact that the man with the damaged limbic system couldn't make simple plans like what to have for lunch, points to the fact that many of our decisions are actually rooted in Region 2. The common perception is that Region 3 gets influenced by the other parts of the brain but ultimately makes it's own decisions as if it's some ultimate judge who weighs all the evidence. We like to think we're rational and consciously in charge. That's understandable but not congruent with much of the research. What you're essentially doing is blaming Region 3 for Region 2's irrationality.

by bumby 5y ago

Dylan16807 5y ago

Let me phrase it a different way then. Some decisions are made with region 3 as a critical part of the loop, and some aren't. You're not navigating a map or writing a comment with regions 1 and 2 doing everything. If it goes scared -> hide, then I don't blame region 3 for screwing up. If it goes scared -> make plans -> pick a plan, then I will blame region 3 if it makes bad plans. Is it wrong for me to say region 3 is "in charge" here? Okay, maybe that's too simple of a way of looking at it. But region 3 has a lot of power and responsibility when it comes to planning. So if it's the logical planning step that fails, not because it was disrupted by fear but because it went "oh I can't tell if the fear is real, better get stuck on that and not explore the two whole possibilities", then that's a non-emotional screwup and I expect better.

bumby 5y ago
>If it goes scared -> make plans -> pick a plan, then I will blame region 3 if it makes bad plans. The error in your mental model here is that you equate Region 3 with being the "plan maker". As I said previously, an awful lot of the time Region 2 is actually the decider and Region 3 just rationalizes it. You can see this with the priming research. The way it often goes is Region 1/2 gets a response -> Region 2 makes a decision on a course of action -> Region 3 rationalizes that course of action. A researcher may bring in a subject and ask them to describe their idea of a good vacation. Maybe around the room there are influences like pictures of a beach and oranges and the subject talks about planning a vacation to Florida. Meanwhile, with other subjects they use pictures of mountains and there is a higher likelihood the person describes a vacation in Colorado. It's not that their Region 3 was influenced by Region 2; it's literally that Region 2 made the decision without Region 3 even being cognizant of it. You can even see this on an fMRI where the limbic system makes decisions even before the person is consciously aware a decision was made. And then Region 3 comes up with all kinds of elaborate reasons why like "I've always wanted to go to Disney World" or "I grew up skiing and want to try it again." There's other classic examples of people thinking they are being rational but really just being subject to Region 2's decisions. The 1960 presidential election is a famous example. Different groups were selected (years after the election so the weren't politically biased); one watched the televised debate and the other listened to the radio broadcast. Time and again, each came up with different winners of the debate. The TV group thought Kennedy won, while the radio group thought Nixon did. Why? Because each group's Region 2 got different information. The TV group saw a young, vibrant, tan Kennedy with great hair and saw a pale, sick, Nixon without any makeup. The radio group heard a Nixon with an authoritative deep gravely voice and a Kennedy with a harsh, nasally Boston accent. Yet when pressed, each group was great at rationalizing their choice that had nothing to do with any of that; both based it on the same debate words. If a rational Region 3 made the plans to vote, it would only be based on the content of their words. The fact that it's not, just like the fact that the man with the damaged limbic system couldn't make simple plans like what to have for lunch, points to the fact that many of our decisions are actually rooted in Region 2. The common perception is that Region 3 gets influenced by the other parts of the brain but ultimately makes it's own decisions as if it's some ultimate judge who weighs all the evidence. We like to think we're rational and consciously in charge. That's understandable but not congruent with much of the research. What you're essentially doing is blaming Region 3 for Region 2's irrationality.