Ideas are the most powerful things in existence. Here are mine.
There are two types of traits which people refer to as “intelligence”, and two regions of the brain with their storage infrastructure: there’s the ability to draw new insights from disparate data, mediated by inductive long-term retrieval (hippocampus) and there’s the ability to draw formal and rapid mathematical/logical conclusions from existing theorems, mediated by working memory (anterior cingulate cortex).
“Strength in numbers” indeed: I had posted an observation in the past that a key component of social identity was finding a “scapegoat” group which was in some way similar to one’s own and trying one’s best to put that group down or set it as the “lesser” group. (As an aside, because this sort of similarity is kind of like a Hamming distance – number of things that need to change to transform one into the other – which is a symmetric measure, such things tend to be reciprocal: “A thinks B is less and B thinks A is less”. Who is right? Probably neither; both are equally petty).
Well, that would imply that social identity is built on top of a deep-rooted sense of insecurity, which is countered by gathering many people with the same characteristics. Having others who think like us makes us feel Secure. Confident. Right.
An interesting corollary of this is that people who tend to feel confident/secure/right enough on their own have no need for social identity. This would seem to link self-confidence to traits ranging from individuality to creativity or an entrepreneurial mindset.
Here’s a fun and revealing thought experiment: What would you do if stranded on a deserted island (no other people on it) with all of your basic needs (hunger, water, shelter, …) completely provided for as long as you remained?
Upon examining several “psychosomatic” conditions, noting their hypothesized causes, observable signs (and lack thereof), and suffering through some of them myself over the years from time to time (as someone prone to somatization disorder but self-aware enough to recognize it for what it is), I’ve come to the conclusion that these disorders are largely neurological rather than psychiatric in origin. That’s not to say that stress or other psychiatric factors can’t provoke these diseases; they very often do. However, the predisposition to these conditions appears to be largely innate, with lower pain thresholds and increased visceral sensitivity prevalent in a number of conditions, as well as objectively observed differences in the levels and balance of neurotransmitters (particularly serotonin). And then there’s the resistance of somatization to psychiatric treatment (probably exaggerated; one study found that CBT worked well), suggesting a neurally-grounded cause.
All this is to say that we should be paying more attention to the neurological basis for these diseases. I haven’t run across any good fMRI studies of patients with somatiform disorders, both at rest and when suffering from the disorder. It’d be an interesting direction to explore.
The Flynn effect is an observation that IQ test scores tend to rise among the general population (and among many subpopulations) at a rate of about 3 points per decade. The cause of this trend has been the subject of much debate. Despite this, I found it difficult to find standard deviations or other moment statistics over the time period studied by Flynn. Aside from the increased knowledge of IQ testing today (which would cause more of the gifted to get tested and presumably raise the mean score), there isn’t any reason why more would test gifted. However, it’s possible that improvements in medicine have prevented many from falling below the mean due to disease (congenital or early developmental, most likely). These stats would allow testing of these hypotheses.
Kohlberg’s stages of moral development indicate not only moral codes, but what people are primarily motivated by (an inseparable consequence of how one sees the world). This makes it useful for marketing.
The majority of individuals fall between stages 3 and 4 of this theory – the “conventional” stages: these people consider actions proper if they support social roles or a position of established authority (“following laws for their own sake” or “doing something because everyone else in my situation does”) or if they promote interpersonal accord (“this will help bring the community closer together”).
Particularly within the area of non-profit advertising, I am finding that this is how a message must be tuned – not “why is it good for its own sake?” but “how will this benefit the most people?”
Holding the position that there is no conflict between individual goals and those of society has made me eager to demonstrate it, however. Particularly when creating a new educational paradigm, this isn’t difficult.
I’m currently reading an interesting book on the philosophy of the Legend of Zelda games (that sort of thing immediately jumps out at you when you see it in a bookstore). The first chapter is on why we care about what happens in the game world, knowing full well that it is fictional.
The author first criticizes the “suspension of disbelief” and “pretend” theories, as we are fully aware that the game situation is not real on a rational level yet are unable to fully control the emotional responses it evokes. The author then proposes a multilevel system of consciousness, under which we may locally consider the game world real yet may be globally aware that the world is still a game (performance anxiety is another example of this – some performers, myself included, become very stressed out prior to a performance, but are we in any mortal danger? No.
I think the author’s theory explains part of the scenario: just as we would pull away from the touch of a hot oven without thinking (a reflex arc), we apply the rules we’ve learned in the real world to the game world:
Fire -> Danger
Spikes -> Sharp pointy objects -> Danger
Monsters -> Deadly animals -> Danger
etc.
When under threat, it has been evolutionary advantageous for us to react quickly, with little to no intermediary processing. We apply our rules to the character, determine that we’re in danger, and respond as if the danger were real.
But there’s the rub: why do we care what happens to the protagonist? Link isn’t a real person. He can’t even speak. We don’t have any situations that can literally relate to his dungeon crawls (although it can be argued that Link’s adventures can be conveyed as metaphors for frightening scenarios in our own lives).
The answer lies in our capacity for empathy: we identify with Link’s motives, with the interactions he has with other characters, and in how his actions move the storyline forward. Because we are controlling Link, we often internalize his actions (“I just found the Master Sword” vs. “Link just found the Master Sword” are both plausible statements when playing the game), but we are just his guide. And because we are responsible for him and we have come to empathize with his motivations and struggle, we endeavor to protect him when threatened.
All of human history is a battle between simplicity and complexity. It is reflected in our culture, our science, our philosophy, our governments, our conflicts, and our actions.
We constantly build large, intricate, complex systems, only to later knock them down and return to basics.
I hypothesize that evocation of one concept triggers additional concepts learned to be similar to that one by association. Think of one thing and related things are involuntarily pulled in as well; you import a whole cluster of memories rather than a single one. (Incidentally, this is how disks pull in data – by block – except that there is usually little conceptual locality to the way the data is arranged on disk… maybe there should be, as this would be far more optimal for caching and other purposes?)
Furthermore, I hypothesize that this influences the use of additional associated concepts even outside of their intended use; i.e., it is a more general form of priming. For example, the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on retributive justice makes use of the term “eye” outside of the obvious association “eye for an eye” (which appears further below):
“Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers that proportionate punishment is a morally acceptable response to crime, with an eye to the satisfaction and psychological benefits it can bestow to the aggrieved party, its intimates and society.”
I postulate that this is not at all incidental, but due to the pulling in of “clusters” of related ideas in memory.
There is a further use for this theory in pedagogy: by moving on from a single topic but integrating certain “key ideas” or even “key words” from a previous topic, you can reinforce that topic while introducing new material. For example, if I used the term “phylogeny” extensively while teaching students about tree data structures, then moved on and discussed genetic algorithms, I could cause students to recall the tree lecture by using the term “phylogeny” in a different context. It has essentially become a trigger point for recalling an unrelated memory.
It does not converge on the best solution, merely a good one. And it persists long after it ceases to perform its function.