4 ms·

>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 Regio

by 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.

Dylan16807 5y ago
Again, I used the word if. Why do you keep removing the word if and telling me I'm assuming things? Sometimes people rationalize things, and they're wrong about why they did something. But there are logical planning things that only region 3 is capable of. > 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. I don't understand this criticism, unless you're treating plan maker and plan decider as the same thing? I was already leaving it open for region 2 to be the decider. If region 2 is completely on its own then it's not making much of a plan, is it?
- bumby 5y ago
  >Why do you keep removing the word if and telling me I'm assuming things? Not only was acknowledging your "if" statement, I was quoting you directly in previous replies. The issue is that you're whole argument hinges on a conditional that, if anything, is the exception rather than the rule. If you heard a politician propose a policy that said "We can abolish the [insert arbitrary govt oversight organization here] because it isn't needed if people are rational, ethical actors", what would your reaction be? While that statement may still be true, the underlying assumption is flawed: people cannot be counted on to be rational or ethical in many circumstances. Likewise, your underlying assumption that decisions are made with our rational brain is not the general rule. Despite what we'd like to think, Region 2 governs our decisions and plans. Again, if your assumption was true, there would be no problem with a person making lunch plans if they had a damaged limbic system. Research shows otherwise, so either the research is flawed or your underlying assumption is flawed. >unless you're treating plan maker and plan decider as the same thing? I was already leaving it open for region 2 to be the decider Yes, I meant them to be the same, sorry if my terminology caused confusion. My point is the the plan decision/making is not initiated by our rational mind as a general rule. It's not that Region 2 "decides" and then Region 3 weighs that decision to figure out how to execute it. It's that Region 2 "decides" and Region 3 makes up a story so that the decision is congruent with our mental models. My Region 2 decides it wants a doughnut and my Region 3 says "Yeah, you've worked out hard this morning so the doughnut isn't necessarily unhealthy." Region 3 has ensured my decision is congruent with my mental model that I'm a hard worker who deserves a reward. That's easier than confronting a mental model where I'm a fatty who lacks willpower. Region 3 is our logic center so it will jump through hoops to make sure our mental models and decisions are logically consistent. Your "if" statement can be true, while also being largely inconsequential because the underlying conditional is not the general rule. This creates some irony in you underscoring that my point is irrelevant if your statement is about real world application.

by bumby 5y ago

Dylan16807 5y ago

Again, I used the word if. Why do you keep removing the word if and telling me I'm assuming things? Sometimes people rationalize things, and they're wrong about why they did something. But there are logical planning things that only region 3 is capable of. > 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. I don't understand this criticism, unless you're treating plan maker and plan decider as the same thing? I was already leaving it open for region 2 to be the decider. If region 2 is completely on its own then it's not making much of a plan, is it?

bumby 5y ago
>Why do you keep removing the word if and telling me I'm assuming things? Not only was acknowledging your "if" statement, I was quoting you directly in previous replies. The issue is that you're whole argument hinges on a conditional that, if anything, is the exception rather than the rule. If you heard a politician propose a policy that said "We can abolish the [insert arbitrary govt oversight organization here] because it isn't needed if people are rational, ethical actors", what would your reaction be? While that statement may still be true, the underlying assumption is flawed: people cannot be counted on to be rational or ethical in many circumstances. Likewise, your underlying assumption that decisions are made with our rational brain is not the general rule. Despite what we'd like to think, Region 2 governs our decisions and plans. Again, if your assumption was true, there would be no problem with a person making lunch plans if they had a damaged limbic system. Research shows otherwise, so either the research is flawed or your underlying assumption is flawed. >unless you're treating plan maker and plan decider as the same thing? I was already leaving it open for region 2 to be the decider Yes, I meant them to be the same, sorry if my terminology caused confusion. My point is the the plan decision/making is not initiated by our rational mind as a general rule. It's not that Region 2 "decides" and then Region 3 weighs that decision to figure out how to execute it. It's that Region 2 "decides" and Region 3 makes up a story so that the decision is congruent with our mental models. My Region 2 decides it wants a doughnut and my Region 3 says "Yeah, you've worked out hard this morning so the doughnut isn't necessarily unhealthy." Region 3 has ensured my decision is congruent with my mental model that I'm a hard worker who deserves a reward. That's easier than confronting a mental model where I'm a fatty who lacks willpower. Region 3 is our logic center so it will jump through hoops to make sure our mental models and decisions are logically consistent. Your "if" statement can be true, while also being largely inconsequential because the underlying conditional is not the general rule. This creates some irony in you underscoring that my point is irrelevant if your statement is about real world application.