***
 |
| source |
Running is a precious 30 or so minutes for me. It's a drug. If the pace and the light and the rock'n'roll in the earpods are just right, it's god. But today while I ran on the old railroad-turned-trail in our neighborhood, everything was more or less ungodly, more or less routine. As always, I passed by many walkers, cyclists, runners, dogs, cats, squirrels going the other direction. Most humans say hi or wave. I give the peace sign. I live in Peace Dale. I like words and peace and cute.
And as I'm apt to do, I meditate on the people I see, sizing them up, giving them roles, stories, assessing their general vibe, riffing on them until new thoughts hijack those neurons, which is frequent on a run. And I want to tell you about a specific people-passing incident from this morning because it illustrates, just in that fleeting, mundane, snapshot of a throwaway moment something much more profound, not just about human nature but about how we perceive it which folds back on the nature of human nature itself. (whoa)
He's about 50 yards away when I first notice him: White, in his twenties, gray hooded sweatshirt and jeans, hood up over his hair, walking a dark-brown pitbull-looking breed.
And I think to myself, I bet his dog's leash is made of hemp.
To me, all those traits I'm observing together scream 'leash of hemp.'
And sure enough, as the space between us narrows, I can see it's a leash of hemp.
Naturally I'm thinking something like, See? See, politically correct world? Stereotypes can be true. Some biological and cultural traits cluster together predictably. Calm down everybody. It's just human nature! We vary predictably in many ways.
And nobody can argue against the fact that some traits do cluster and that you can predict some things about people based on things like their sex, their clothes, their age, their gait, their dog breed, ...
Okay, cool. But whoa whoa whoa.
Did I really use all those observations to successfully predict the leash was made of hemp? Did I really just validate that stereotype about 'hemp dog leash people?' Did I really just support that theory (stereotypes are real, baby) by forming a hypothesis that ended up being correct?
Of course it could have been a coincidence, my correct guess. There are only so many kinds of dog leashes: Leather, acrylic, and hemp are the main ones I think. So, given a leash exists, the odds are pretty good that I'll guess what kind it is, regardless of what the guy or the dog look like who are tethered together by it.
But that's not what I meant by my doubt. I'm wondering about something other than coincidence, something quite sinister.
I'm wondering whether I actually predicted the leash was made of hemp or if my brain tricked me into thinking I did.
I mean, don't you think it's suspicious that I caught myself predicting what the leash would be made of? Doesn't that seem weird?
I could, just as easily, have tried to guess his shoe or jeans brand, whether he was wearing a watch or not, if he was going to smile at me or not, harass me or not. Many things that I could see or experience upon closer proximity were available for prediction and, instead of any those things, I chose to predict the material of the dog leash.
Why? What was my consciousness up to?
Let's cut to the punchline: I don't think I predicted anything at all. Right after the whole thing went down, I caught my consciousness red-handed.[1]
I'm wondering whether I actually predicted the leash was made of hemp or if my brain tricked me into thinking I did.
I mean, don't you think it's suspicious that I caught myself predicting what the leash would be made of? Doesn't that seem weird?
I could, just as easily, have tried to guess his shoe or jeans brand, whether he was wearing a watch or not, if he was going to smile at me or not, harass me or not. Many things that I could see or experience upon closer proximity were available for prediction and, instead of any those things, I chose to predict the material of the dog leash.
Why? What was my consciousness up to?
Let's cut to the punchline: I don't think I predicted anything at all. Right after the whole thing went down, I caught my consciousness red-handed.[1]
From as far away as I was, I could still have quite easily perceived that the leash draped and swung like hemp, and unlike leather or acrylic. I could also have very easily perceived the pale color, unlike the dark colors that acrylic and leather usually are.
So I could have known it was hemp without yet knowing it, consciously, since there's a delay between perception and consciousness.
And instead of coming to know 'hemp' from my immediate perception of it, I think my consciousness narrated my experience in such a way that I was predicting something I already knew! My consciousness made me believe that I had a clever hunch, a hunch that was consistent with a stereotype of this 'hemp dog leash person.'
Put another way, my consciousness was taking creative credit for the observations that the perceptive parts of my brain were already processing. Sounds a bit like some people you work with, doesn't it?
All this is happening in split seconds. It's not hard to imagine how my consciousness--since it's already very busy trying to constantly make sense of the world--could garble this input and the timing of it by inserting a narrative. It's not hard to imagine, given the delay between perception and consciousness, how my mind could mangle the more likely true story which was simply...
by editing it into a story of ...
OK. Besides how fascinating this cognitive delay is, with all its relevancy for studies of ESP, pre-cognition, magic tricks, and falling for them. Besides all the implications for the existence (or not) of free will ... since, if your consciousness is delayed, are you really deciding your life or are you just experiencing life and narrating it as if you're deciding it?
Aside from all those fascinating supernatural and existential implications, this is the kicker: This illusion stemming from our slow and overbearing consciousness probably affects how we relate to other human beings who we encounter every day.
See, the leash of hemp boosted my confidence in two things that are already boosting one another to begin with:
1. I think I'm good at predicting human nature.
2. I think human nature, especially in stereotyped and categorical terms, is predictable.
These two things may be true in many regards. But my experience, my little experiment, my leash of hemp, lead me to believe that 1 and 2 are stronger than they are and that they're realer than they probably are, in reality.
And a leash of hemp moment is just so exhilarating, at least for a scientist like me, when it's about traits untied to value, like leash material. It's a similar feeling you get once you're so familiar with the chimpanzees you're observing that you can predict, given a set of circumstances or time of day or whatever, what they'll do next, where they'll walk, climb, who they'll play with or groom. It's a real high.
But how about when those links, those predictions, are about value-laden traits like beauty, intelligence, sexual orientation, religious belief, violence? I'm more likely to believe stereotypes and my own abilities to predict human nature when it comes to these much more sensitive or much more volatile issues simply because I guessed that a dog's leash was hemp while running this morning.
A leash of hemp's no big deal when it's just about a leash of hemp,[2] but a taking a 'leash of hemp' about someone who's wearing a head scarf or a short skirt, about someone who speaks with a Southern accent or an educated accent, who goes to temple or to church, who has darkly or lightly pigmented skin? Maybe that's when we should humble our consciousness. Maybe that's when we should remind it that perception was there first. Maybe help it question whether it's really so smart. After all, maybe it already saw, heard, smelt what it so cleverly claims to have sensed, believed, predicted. Maybe it doesn't deserve the credit it's taking, thereby encouraging itself to apply its methods to other situations that require more nuance, more sensitivity, more observation, more time, actually getting to know a person, that whole human connection thing, you know?
It might feel like it, but we're not, objectively, human nature experts. We can be too easily tricked by our delayed and overbearing consciousness. We're too quick to be seduced by these split-second cognitive events that validate our intellect, our experience, and our beliefs all at once.[3]
Knowing this, being conscious of the lag between perception and consciousness, catching one's mind in the act, why is it still so hard to change our minds going into the future?
Maybe if leashes of hemp were more ubiquitous they'd serve as a nice gimmicky reminder about these illusions--dampening our habit of skyrocketing all the way up to "human nature" from a dog's leash. But would that really do any good? After all, skin colors, eye shapes, skirt lengths, accents... these things are ubiquitous and yet they clearly aren't gimmick enough to humble our consciousness, to help us remain skeptical of what each of us knows so well about human nature just from our itty bitty n of 1.
So I could have known it was hemp without yet knowing it, consciously, since there's a delay between perception and consciousness.
And instead of coming to know 'hemp' from my immediate perception of it, I think my consciousness narrated my experience in such a way that I was predicting something I already knew! My consciousness made me believe that I had a clever hunch, a hunch that was consistent with a stereotype of this 'hemp dog leash person.'
Put another way, my consciousness was taking creative credit for the observations that the perceptive parts of my brain were already processing. Sounds a bit like some people you work with, doesn't it?
All this is happening in split seconds. It's not hard to imagine how my consciousness--since it's already very busy trying to constantly make sense of the world--could garble this input and the timing of it by inserting a narrative. It's not hard to imagine, given the delay between perception and consciousness, how my mind could mangle the more likely true story which was simply...
input-input-input (ad nauseam)
input-prediction-input-I'mAGenius
OK. Besides how fascinating this cognitive delay is, with all its relevancy for studies of ESP, pre-cognition, magic tricks, and falling for them. Besides all the implications for the existence (or not) of free will ... since, if your consciousness is delayed, are you really deciding your life or are you just experiencing life and narrating it as if you're deciding it?
Aside from all those fascinating supernatural and existential implications, this is the kicker: This illusion stemming from our slow and overbearing consciousness probably affects how we relate to other human beings who we encounter every day.
See, the leash of hemp boosted my confidence in two things that are already boosting one another to begin with:
1. I think I'm good at predicting human nature.
2. I think human nature, especially in stereotyped and categorical terms, is predictable.
These two things may be true in many regards. But my experience, my little experiment, my leash of hemp, lead me to believe that 1 and 2 are stronger than they are and that they're realer than they probably are, in reality.
And a leash of hemp moment is just so exhilarating, at least for a scientist like me, when it's about traits untied to value, like leash material. It's a similar feeling you get once you're so familiar with the chimpanzees you're observing that you can predict, given a set of circumstances or time of day or whatever, what they'll do next, where they'll walk, climb, who they'll play with or groom. It's a real high.
But how about when those links, those predictions, are about value-laden traits like beauty, intelligence, sexual orientation, religious belief, violence? I'm more likely to believe stereotypes and my own abilities to predict human nature when it comes to these much more sensitive or much more volatile issues simply because I guessed that a dog's leash was hemp while running this morning.
A leash of hemp's no big deal when it's just about a leash of hemp,[2] but a taking a 'leash of hemp' about someone who's wearing a head scarf or a short skirt, about someone who speaks with a Southern accent or an educated accent, who goes to temple or to church, who has darkly or lightly pigmented skin? Maybe that's when we should humble our consciousness. Maybe that's when we should remind it that perception was there first. Maybe help it question whether it's really so smart. After all, maybe it already saw, heard, smelt what it so cleverly claims to have sensed, believed, predicted. Maybe it doesn't deserve the credit it's taking, thereby encouraging itself to apply its methods to other situations that require more nuance, more sensitivity, more observation, more time, actually getting to know a person, that whole human connection thing, you know?
It might feel like it, but we're not, objectively, human nature experts. We can be too easily tricked by our delayed and overbearing consciousness. We're too quick to be seduced by these split-second cognitive events that validate our intellect, our experience, and our beliefs all at once.[3]
Knowing this, being conscious of the lag between perception and consciousness, catching one's mind in the act, why is it still so hard to change our minds going into the future?
Maybe if leashes of hemp were more ubiquitous they'd serve as a nice gimmicky reminder about these illusions--dampening our habit of skyrocketing all the way up to "human nature" from a dog's leash. But would that really do any good? After all, skin colors, eye shapes, skirt lengths, accents... these things are ubiquitous and yet they clearly aren't gimmick enough to humble our consciousness, to help us remain skeptical of what each of us knows so well about human nature just from our itty bitty n of 1.
**
Related reading...
- How stereotypes are reinforced and how they are broken, in the NYTimes: click here.
- Dan Dennett's stuff.
- [a broad Scholar.Google.com search]
- http://cogprints.org/838/1/BJP2web.html
- http://behaviouralscience.net/2007/11/07/free-will-and-consciousness/
- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-free-will-an-illusion
- http://www.psych.usyd.edu.au/staff/alexh/lab/
- http://www.eaglemanlab.net/papers/StetsonetalNeuron2006.pdf
- http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/09/15/time-on-the-brain-how-you-are-always-living-in-the-past-and-other-quirks-of-perception/
[1] I thank running for opening my brain to such a thing--a good hypothesis considering how my most satisfying thoughts usually come during the 30 minutes of the day that I am pushing my body down the running trail.
[2] Unless you've got something against hemp, hippies, dogs, pitbulls, white people, men, hoodies.
[3] Implicit here is an assumption that all humans suffer from this delayed consciousness, that it's part of "human nature." oy, is it?
26 comments:
Why did you juxtapose Southern with educated?
In the U.S. having a southern accent leads some without that accent to believe you're not as well educated or not as intelligent as someone standard.
*some* not someone
I think about stereo-types. I took from your article that you do that from a scholarly view.
I would suggest Southern California Valley girl accent contrasted with Jersey girl. Perhaps an Appalachian speaker contrasted with an Upper Midwest Lutheran. Even better would be blue collar working class as opposed to academic elite.
It's not really a brain trick if all it amounts to is using stereo-types to think.
You lost me. Must be my pittsburgh/dixie accent.
I have been off reading the related readings. Thanks for those.
I went back and re-read your article to make sure that I didn’t mis-read or come away with the wrong generalizations. (I did that one time.)
I understood that we should move cautiously when we think that we have verified one of our stereotypes because it’s likely that our mind works in a way that “tricks” us into believing that we have made an actual confirmation.
I did mis-interpret the way you used the examples of stereotypes. That may be because I keep an eye out for the use of stereotypes about my peeps. However, I want to blame (naturally) some of that on you because you mixed false negative stereotypes with a true negative one. And for some reason which I can’t quite articulate that seems to help perpetuate a negative one.
Head scarf=terrorist sympathizer- likely not true
Short skirt=slut- likely not true
Southern accent=under-educated- likely true
Related question: As a scientist and scholar, isn’t it incumbent upon you to help find a way to write about these mind processes in a way that helps us laypeople shake the idea that our mind is a separate entity from our self?
Related trivia: Do you know the Jimmie Dale Gilmore song, “My mind’s got a mind of its own, takes me out a-drinkin when I oughta stay at home”?
Great blog! I found it a couple of months ago; haven’t worked my way through all of the archives yet.
Funny enough, your stance on southern accents is exactly what I assumed about you based on your initial comment/query.
I don't know what about my post suggests that mind and body are separate. To me it does not. Regardless, laypeople are not the only people who read this blog. And when it comes to the mind, I'm a laypeople. And also to the point of regardless, it's not incumbent on me, every time that I write something or wonder about something and share it, to persuade or to educate at all, let alone on behalf of a particular point of view.
No I don't know that song.
Thanks and I'm not sure that's humanly possible. There's a lot.
P.S. If you want me to continue to converse with you here, you cannot remain anonymous. It's not my style.
Sorry to have gotten off to a bad start and wasted your time because of a misread on my part. I admitted that I read the references to common stereotypes incorrectly.
"I'm wondering whether I actually predicted the leash was made of hemp or if my brain tricked me into thinking I did."
I and me, as opposed to some other entity, my brain.
I think that line is takes me out a-walkin instead of a-drinkin.
Great blog, sorry to have been critical because of a misread on my part.
Yes, that's a lot for a slow reader who has to read it more than once. I will manage. It is a great blog.
Thanks. Thank you. I'm thrilled someone read this *and* is thinking about it and pushing me to too. And I'm sorry I wrote defensively and less polite than I wish I had. I'm trying to figure out why I struggle with communicating with anonymous strangers online. One thing that occurred to me is that for most of my life off-line, remaining anonymous was/is a tool for harassment towards me and we've had some of that here at the MT. I need to stop jumping to negative stereotypical conclusions about anonymouses...
So this is the dualist culprit, eh?
"I'm wondering whether I actually predicted the leash was made of hemp or if my brain tricked me into thinking I did."
What about a reword like...
"I'm wondering whether I actually predicted the leash was made of hemp or if I tricked myself into thinking I did."
I guess I only used "my brain" there to signify "perception" and "me" to signify narrator/consciousness because, well, that's how my narrator operates ;).
My consciousness is a dualist, but I'm not!
"My consciousness is a dualist, but I'm not!"
I take this to mean you have a great sense of humor. In that light I offer the following for your amusement:
"Related question: As a scientist and scholar, isn’t it incumbent upon you to help find a way to write about these mind processes in a way that helps us laypeople shake the idea that our mind is a separate entity from our self?"
She ran circles around me in her response to my comment. So much so that I got myself confused as to what I wanted to say. I’ll be picky about a 2nd minor point. I’ll she how she handles that!
"Thanks and I'm not sure that's humanly possible. There's a lot."
Does she mean that I am going to spend so much time wearing out dictionaries looking up the big words that I will never get all of it read?
I read your, "Evolution is the only natural explanation. And it's all we need." That is an exceptional piece. Seamless exposition of one subject and concept after another.
Hearty laughs here. Thank you! And thanks for the kudos about that piece. It's one of my darlings so I appreciate your thoughts.
Hi Holly. I hope amateur hour has not closed.
I was trying my hand at this *and* is thinking stuff. So again, you will have to accept some partial blame (credit?) for this comment.
“someone who's wearing a head scarf or a short skirt, about someone who speaks with a Southern accent or an educated accent, who goes to temple or to church, who has darkly or lightly pigmented skin”
The above quoted section was the speed bump that I hit at high speed when I read your article. One of that series is not like the others. The idea that a person with a Southern accent is below standard, education- wise, is a stereotype. The others are not stereotypes. A person who wears a head scarf or goes to temple is not a stereotype; those details may bring a stereotype to mind, but it is not the stereotype itself. I then tried to read the series as if a head scarf person was stereotyping a short skirt person rather than say an AWM stereotyping both. That didn’t work either. I can see the educated accent person stereotyping the Southern accent person but I don’t see that flipping round the other way.
I also have an idea as to why my personal Hal caused me to comment. I will send that along when I finish with some more *and* thinking.
I am curious to see if the post that your colleague, Ken, just put up will light up his comment section. You may need to help him out and not have any time for extended amateur hour.
Ken's post today is definitely one for the racists to troll, but they might not since we had our fair share over the summer and I think they've largely given up on us. Regardless, we also don't promise to post hateful comments. Twitter's where they seem to remain these days.
Thanks for your thoughts on this.
That list of cultural traits I spouted off ... they were just, to me, categorized/organized within commas. Clothing, language, religion, skin color. I wasn't thinking any more in depth than the fact that they are all traits that cause strangers to jump to conclusions. I included "educated accent" to note that people jump to conclusions about people with educated accents too, rather than name another regional one I thought this was adding another dimension to the language category.
(I guess they weren't all cultural traits since I included skin color.)
And maybe I should add, in case it's helpful, that I grew up in the south. Also, it's worthwhile noting that I wasn't even thinking, for example, terrorism-sympathizer about the head scarf in my list. I was thinking how people can assume, based on clothing, that a woman is oppressed. Just to give some insight into my mind as I wrote this.
And now having read it over so much I can see how the trait "educated accent" differs from the others because it's more constructed by the observer than any of the others which are more objectively apparent.
"I grew up in the south."
So did I.
You knew that from comment #1.
However, I didn't sell my soul to the devil and leave.
Just kidding. I have to give up these attempts at humor. I'm really not very good at it.
Some of your points tie directly to some additional thoughts that I have. I will get that comment to you later.
If Ken doesn't want to engage racists, is he not preaching to the choir?
This is Ken, his very self, responding! Of course, the choir will sing the same refrain, but our posts on this subject are, we think, about the points not just harangues (however you spell that). We try to say (and did in Dec 2's post) that measured discussion of the issues is largely impossible because of the polarization. The problem with constructive discussion (as we also see in the Ferguson case in current news) is that people come not just with viewpoints but without much interest in seeing other sides.
As far as a blog goes, the situation is worse because most comments from those in a different denomination's choir mainly submit abusive comments that are not intended as constructive discussion.
As to Watson, even most candid but thoughtful people on the 'other' side of the issues, would have to admit he lacks discretion and acts like a clown in some of the things he says.
Reply to DG: Ha!
I can tell you're bantering but I'll mention that teachers (like me) get a lot out of a post like Ken's today even if it doesn't reach a single racist reader.
Hello Ken. I think that the points that you make about the near impossibility of measured constructive discussion are correct.
As to blogs, I think they are the best tool to come along in a long time.
I am trying to put together some comments (more questions than anything) to Holly and a lot of it involves some of the points that you mention.
How do people change their mind?
If lay people look to the experts in a field to inform our view, what do we do if they disagree?
Communication among people that share the same biases and stereotypes is not the same as among people who do not share the same biases.
For example, I think you took the “preaching to the choir” as critical. In my mind, it does not have negative connotations. I drew a different stereotype about a head scarf than what Holly was thinking about. And so on.
I do have a question/comment on your post. I want to read the whole post again. Then I will post it there.
Technically, dictionary wise, I am a racist. However, I am not the bad kind. The reason that I know this is because it is not the same racism that I had 50 years ago (and believe me, that was the bad kind). Now y’all can take me to task for that if you want, I’ll be okay with it.
Reply to DG: what to do when 'experts' disagree is a problem in any field, no? Should you or shouldn't you have a PSA for prostate cancer, a mammogram, drink alcohol for heart health, use antioxidants? How should kids be taught math, should you change the oil in your car every 3000 miles or every 7000? Do you need that root canal? Is it too late to do something about climate change?
I like your question -- 'how do people change their mind?' Different from the usual -- "how do we get people to change their mind?' I suspect advertisers know the answer to this better than any of the rest of us, though.
And, I wanted to weigh in on our run-ins with let's just call them people who agree with Nicholas Wade. And they are always run-ins, not discussions. Because they are always right. I suppose they would think the same of those of us they call 'heredity deniers' (because in their view everything is genetically determined, this is one of their terms for those of us who see complexity instead). But to me, their point of view seems to be more akin to religious fundamentalism than to science. But that's the danger when science bumps up against social issues. The history of eugenics being a prime example.
But, apparently you changed your mind. A rare event in human history... Perhaps you should bottle it.
Anne Buchanan said...
Reply to DG: what to do when 'experts' disagree is a problem in any field, no?
Yes it is. I try to evaluate the expert as best as I can. Of course I won’t be able to evaluate on the basis of the field because I am not an expert. I look to see if I can see their biases, determine their viewpoint. I look for consistency.
I can handle some of these.
Should you or shouldn't you have a PSA for prostate cancer- not until they have an effective test that can distinguish between fast growing and slow growing cancers
drink alcohol for heart health – no real evidence of health benefits, drink for the pleasure
antioxidants – no evidence that increased anti-oxidant intake will benefit your general heatlth
How should kids be taught math – Pick one method and stay with it so we can help our kids and grandkids with their homework.
should you change the oil in your car every 3000 miles or every 7000 – use the owner’s manual number, 6,000 or 7,000; the 3,000 number comes from people trying to sell you oil changes.
Do you need that root canal – personal experience, wait to see if the pain very gradually goes away. If after about a month it is ok, you're good to go.
Is it too late to do something about climate change? It is too late to stop it. It is not too late to begin making plans to deal with it.
I like your question -- 'how do people change their mind?' Different from the usual -- "how do we get people to change their mind?' I suspect advertisers know the answer to this better than any of the rest of us, though. They certainly know how to influence our behavior. I don’t think that they can flip a person from being say, an evolutionist to an IDer.
. Because they are always right. I suppose they would think the same of those of us they call 'heredity deniers' (because in their view everything is genetically determined, this is one of their terms for those of us who see complexity instead). - Staking out the higher level complex side for yourself here and leaving the simplistic side as the left-over.
But to me, their point of view seems to be more akin to religious fundamentalism than to science. I completely agree with you. I have personal experience with this as well. I think you must be referring to us common folk. I suspect you have reasoned debate with other people in your field.
But, apparently you changed your mind. A rare event in human history... Perhaps you should bottle it.
I’m not sure how to take this comment.
DG: Consistency, conspishtency, I say. People consistently rejected continental drift, or the idea that stomach ulcers could be due to an infectious agent, or that the earth revolves around the sun. I think our choices of what we believe or what we do are certainly more complicated than just weighing the evidence, as your own choices show. You're apparently making your decisions at least in part based on your personal experience and preferences. Which is what I think we all do. Experts schmexperts. But, where does that leave Truth?
I wish we could place bets on whether advertisers could change people from IDer to evolutioner, or vice versa. My money is on yes, actually.
'Staking out the high-level complex side' -- I guess, if thinking that the evidence shows that most traits are due to genes and environment, is the high ground. It's certainly not denying heredity which, to me, is a simplistic view, which those guys staked out for themselves.
It was a compliment about changing your mind.
AB
The Truth. The Truth. That's a human construction is it not?
I don't think we're on the same page with the consistency comment.
Thanks for the compliment. It was the "bottle it" line that threw me off.
Agree to disagree on the power of advertising.
I could take you to areas where we could see goats on the tops of clunkers and we couldn't tell whether the people who lived there were white or black. Let's squeeze that in with all the other simple stuff that we are thinking about.
Post a Comment