3 ms·

That is... meaningless drivel, at best. The author is likely looking at the Sperry/Gazzaniga experiments, and... getting them wrong. The insight was that the l

That is... meaningless drivel, at best. The author is likely looking at the Sperry/Gazzaniga experiments, and... getting them wrong. The insight was that the left brain fills gaps in information, and yes, it is confabulating. If your right and your left brain lobe happen to be severed. Our reasoning is far from unknowable in a non-severed brain. Yes, people are sometimes lying, and yes, "actions speak louder than words", but that doesn't mean you should blanket-dismiss explanations.

ryanklee 4y ago
I think calling it meaningless drivel is a bit much, but you are right that we should be careful drawing inferences. It's "at the very least" worth considering: What does it mean that under specific circumstances we can be so sure of ourselves about such basic stuff and so totally wrong at the same time? It might not be a strong inference from split-brain phenomena, but it'd be a shame to /not/ wonder about whether and how much such confabulatory mechanisms are at play in normal functioning brains, then
partdavid 4y ago
It seems like I've seen an increased number of these low-effort blog posts, with short, pithy, unsupported and almost-content-free "advice."
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  As commonly as "advice" is a form of nostalgia ("Don't make the same mistake I did.") it can still be useful if read from that perspective. This person isn't giving advice but rather explaining a mistake they made. Any calls to action in the article are just behavioral changes learned by the author after noticing their mistake.
- mw888 4y ago
  It’s a good conversation starter this one is, at least.
maxbond 4y ago
I'd say the statements at the end were a bit stronger than was warranted, and I'd say something like, "be skeptical of explanations" or "be cautious of explanations." I don't think they said that our brains are _like_ people with lobotomies, but that this was an illustrative example. I've definitely experienced people's stated beliefs continually disagreeing with their actions, and their producing a font of rationalizations when I asked them about it, until I was forced to conclude they were lying to me only because they'd first lied to themselves. Or confabulated, if you prefer. And I think it's important to understand that this can happen & that one's self can do it too. Which is, yanno, a meaning.
pessimizer 4y ago
We do the same thing when we're not split brained, but just damaged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispatial_neglect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispatial_neglect When we have brain damage that causes us to neglect one side, we don't notice that we're neglecting one side. If it's pointed out, we unintentionally give specious reasoning as to why it happened. This is common knowledge, not based on a particular study, but many of them. edit: > Our reasoning is far from unknowable in a non-severed brain. Are you saying this based on something, or is it just a personal belief? If there's anything we know about introspection, it's that it is untrustworthy.
- maxbond 4y ago
  I suppose it's an example of the age old adage, all models are wrong but some models are useful. Our models of ourselves, derived from from introspection and observations others make, are wrong, but if we're honest with ourselves, they'll be a useful reflection of reality.
- groby_b 4y ago
  There is a large difference between "not entirely trustworthy" and "unknowable". And in both cases - severed lobes, and hemispatial neglect - serious trauma needs to be present to observe this effect. I do think the changed title here on HN is doing the subject much more justice than the attention-grabbing attempts of the article.
dang 4y ago
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Your comment would be fine without the first bit. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- groby_b 4y ago
  I'd withdraw it, but edit period has passed.
chicob 4y ago
It is meaningless drivel. Some people confabulate, memory is not perfect, people with severe brain injuries visibly confabulate, so all explanatory power is meaningless and we should never trust it. Never mind that some specific lesions to the brain actually provide explanations for how we create narratives and confabulate. Those explanations are equally illusory...

ryanklee 4y ago

I think calling it meaningless drivel is a bit much, but you are right that we should be careful drawing inferences. It's "at the very least" worth considering: What does it mean that under specific circumstances we can be so sure of ourselves about such basic stuff and so totally wrong at the same time? It might not be a strong inference from split-brain phenomena, but it'd be a shame to /not/ wonder about whether and how much such confabulatory mechanisms are at play in normal functioning brains, then

partdavid 4y ago

It seems like I've seen an increased number of these low-effort blog posts, with short, pithy, unsupported and almost-content-free "advice."

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
As commonly as "advice" is a form of nostalgia ("Don't make the same mistake I did.") it can still be useful if read from that perspective. This person isn't giving advice but rather explaining a mistake they made. Any calls to action in the article are just behavioral changes learned by the author after noticing their mistake.
mw888 4y ago
It’s a good conversation starter this one is, at least.

maxbond 4y ago

I'd say the statements at the end were a bit stronger than was warranted, and I'd say something like, "be skeptical of explanations" or "be cautious of explanations." I don't think they said that our brains are _like_ people with lobotomies, but that this was an illustrative example. I've definitely experienced people's stated beliefs continually disagreeing with their actions, and their producing a font of rationalizations when I asked them about it, until I was forced to conclude they were lying to me only because they'd first lied to themselves. Or confabulated, if you prefer. And I think it's important to understand that this can happen & that one's self can do it too. Which is, yanno, a meaning.

pessimizer 4y ago

We do the same thing when we're not split brained, but just damaged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispatial_neglect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispatial_neglect When we have brain damage that causes us to neglect one side, we don't notice that we're neglecting one side. If it's pointed out, we unintentionally give specious reasoning as to why it happened. This is common knowledge, not based on a particular study, but many of them. edit: > Our reasoning is far from unknowable in a non-severed brain. Are you saying this based on something, or is it just a personal belief? If there's anything we know about introspection, it's that it is untrustworthy.

maxbond 4y ago
I suppose it's an example of the age old adage, all models are wrong but some models are useful. Our models of ourselves, derived from from introspection and observations others make, are wrong, but if we're honest with ourselves, they'll be a useful reflection of reality.
groby_b 4y ago
There is a large difference between "not entirely trustworthy" and "unknowable". And in both cases - severed lobes, and hemispatial neglect - serious trauma needs to be present to observe this effect. I do think the changed title here on HN is doing the subject much more justice than the attention-grabbing attempts of the article.

dang 4y ago

"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Your comment would be fine without the first bit. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

groby_b 4y ago
I'd withdraw it, but edit period has passed.

chicob 4y ago

It is meaningless drivel. Some people confabulate, memory is not perfect, people with severe brain injuries visibly confabulate, so all explanatory power is meaningless and we should never trust it. Never mind that some specific lesions to the brain actually provide explanations for how we create narratives and confabulate. Those explanations are equally illusory...