Mind Archives - Page 18 of 31

How Free Is Your Will?

September 4, 2014 by Joycelyn Campbell Leave a Comment

Here are links to a few articles and videos by some of my favorite scientists, researchers, and writers who focus on the brain—specifically on the part of the brain we’re not aware of but which so strongly affects every aspect of our lives.

Of course, much of what is being discovered about how the brain actually works is revolutionary in and of itself. But the access we have to it is no less revolutionary. An internet connection is all it takes to read, watch, or listen to the latest developments. By now, I take that access for granted. But that doesn’t stop me from appreciating it.

Click on the titles to get to the articles.

The Possibilian

David Eagleman, author of Incognito

The brain is a remarkably capable chronometer for most purposes. It can track seconds, minutes, days, and weeks, set off alarms in the morning, at bedtime, on birthdays and anniversaries. Timing is so essential to our survival that it may be the most finely tuned of our senses.

When I came across Incognito on a bookstore shelf, I picked it up because I had read (and torn out) this article from The New Yorker. There’s a local connection, too. Eagleman attended Albuquerque Academy, which is only a few minutes away from where I live. So far, he’s the only scientist I’m aware of who uses the terms alien subroutines and zombie systems to describe our unconscious processes.

How Your Mind Works

Daniel Kahneman, author of Thinking, Fast and Slow

Any video with Daniel Kahneman in it is worth watching. Thinking, Fast and Slow can be a bit of a slog to get through in places (at least if you’re mathematically challenged like I am). But Kahneman’s spoken explanations are disarmingly clear and straightforward.

How Free Is Your Will?

Michael Gazzaniga and Joseph LeDoux

Philosophers have debated for years whether we deliberately make each of the many decisions we make every day, or if our brain does it for us, on autopilot. Neuroscientists have shown, for example, that neurons in the brain initiate our response to various stimuli milliseconds before we’re even aware that we’re taking such an action.

This link includes the video conversation between Gazzaniga and LeDoux along with the song “How Free Is Your Will?” performed by Le Doux’s band The Amygdaloids. The concept of a rock band composed of neuroscientists is mildly mind-bending. But they’re not bad.

Gut Feeling: How Intestinal Bacteria Could Manipulate Your Brain

David DiSalvo, author of What Makes Your Brain Happy, and Why You Should Do the Opposite

We’ve all heard about the bacterial universe within our bodies, but what’s less well known is just how vast this universe is in comparison to the rest of us: bacteria outnumber all of the cells in our body 100 to 1. And just like us, certain bacteria have a taste for certain nutrients, and they’ve developed ways of influencing their hosts to deliver more of their preferred vittles to the dinner table.

Yes, DiSalvo says, your brain may have made you eat that huge piece of chocolate cake. But apparently “the nervous system superhighway that runs from the digestive system all the way to the base of the brain” is a two-way street. What you eat can influence your brain in constructive–or non-constructive–ways.

The Invisible Gorilla (featuring Daniel Simons)

If you haven’t seen this one yet, just watch it.

How to Beat the Planning Fallacy

August 28, 2014 by Joycelyn Campbell 2 Comments

The planning fallacy is a tendency to “describe plans and forecasts that are unrealistically close to best-case scenarios.” [Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversy] In other words, people tend to make plans, set goals, schedule their time, etc., based on an assumption that everything will go smoothly, easily, and according to the plan they have created.

One effect of the planning fallacy is underestimating how long something will take to complete. If a deadline is involved, the result can range from a period of burning the midnight oil to catch up to a major catastrophe—depending on the situation.

Another effect is an inability to tolerate the inevitable delays and obstacles that are a normal part of any project or process and to interpret them to mean that something must be terribly wrong or someone must be to blame (because things haven’t gone according to the plan).

The way to beat the planning fallacy is to focus on process rather than on outcome.

Concentrating on process—the steps or activities necessary to achieve the desired result—helps people focus their attention, leads to more realistic expectations, and reduces anxiety. This allows people to anticipate potential problems as well as potential solutions.

Of course, it’s important to identify the desired outcome so you know where you’re headed. But once you have done that, if you keep your attention on what it will take to get there, you’re much more likely to arrive and to maintain your sanity.

What’s the Condition of Your Metacognition?

August 17, 2014 by Joycelyn Campbell 2 Comments

Metacognition is the awareness of our own thought process and the ability to make judgments about our thoughts. Another way to describe it is “thinking about thinking.” Although this is an abstract concept it has very practical implications.

Metacognition is how we identify our limitations and compensate for them. –Stephen M. Fleming, Scientific American Mind

In order to identify our limitations (as well as our strengths), we need to be able to assess them objectively, yet it can be difficult to be objective about ourselves. We have a tendency to feel confident about many things, but often that confidence is unwarranted. It’s part of the human condition. And, as Dan Ariely has said, “Thinking is difficult and sometimes unpleasant.”

Some of us have better metacognitive skills than others, and metacognition can be impaired as a result of mental illness or substance abuse. But most of us can develop the ability to observe and reflect upon our thinking. We can get better at metacognition.

One way to do this is to maintain an attitude of curiosity. Notice when your assessments turn out to be accurate and when they don’t. You’re likely to find that your thinking is more accurate in some areas than in others, which is the case for most people. If you begin to recognize some patterns, you’ll have a better idea of when your confidence is justified and when it isn’t. It’s much easier to be objective—as opposed to judgmental—when we’re able to be curious about everything that’s happening.

We all analyze our inner thoughts and feelings, but some of us feel anxious about what we might discover about ourselves while others feel intrigued and fascinated about ourselves. –Alain Morin, Science & Consciousness Review

Meditation is another means of developing insight into your thinking process. Regular meditation leads to changes in the brain that seem to be linked to metacognitive abilities.

Metacognition is one of the ways in which we come to know ourselves. The better we know ourselves, the likelier we are to make sound decisions, understand and connect with other people, and identify and achieve meaningful goals.

The practice of self-observation begins with a desire and resolution on your part: “I want to know what really is, regardless of how I prefer things to be.” –Charles Tart, Waking Up

What’s the Link between Creativity and Mental Illness?

August 14, 2014 by Joycelyn Campbell 1 Comment

Do the words tortured and genius go hand-in-hand? If you’re highly creative does that mean you’re more susceptible to mental illness? Do you, in fact, need to have a mental illness in order to be creative?

The link between creativity and mental illness has been a subject of discussion and speculation at least since Aristotle suggested there was one. More recently, it has been the subject of much scientific study. The topic is in the limelight once again due to Robin Williams’ suicide.

This edition of Brain & Mind Roundup (#5) links to four articles by, or citing the work of, Nancy Andreasen and Shelly Cooper, two researchers who study creativity and who have published books on creativity and the brain.

Click on the titles to read the full articles.

Secrets of the Creative Brain

Nancy Andreasen (The Atlantic)

Andreasen is a psychiatrist and neuroscientist who began exploring the anecdotal link between creativity and mental illness in the 1960s when she studied a group of writers from the Iowa Writers’ Workshop. She writes:

I have spent much of my career focusing on the neuroscience of mental illness, but in recent decades I’ve also focused on what we might call the science of genius, trying to discern what combination of elements tends to produce particularly creative brains. What, in short, is the essence of creativity? Over the course of my life, I’ve kept coming back to two more-specific questions: What differences in nature and nurture can explain why some people suffer from mental illness and some do not? And why are so many of the world’s most creative minds among the most afflicted?

The Relationship between Creativity and Mental Illness

At brainpickings, Maria Popova provides a beautiful and thoughtful presentation of Nancy Andreason’s book The Creating Brain: The Neuroscience of Genius. Popova says:

One of the most interesting chapters in the book deals with the correlation between creativity and mental illness, bringing scientific rigor to such classic anecdotal examples as those evidenced in Van Gogh’s letters or Sylvia Plath’s journals or Leo Tolstoy’s diary of depression or Virginia Woolf’s suicide note. Having long opposed the toxic “tortured genius” myth of creativity, I was instantly intrigued by Andreasen’s inquiry, the backdrop of which she paints elegantly:

Did mental illness facilitate [these creators’] unique abilities, whether it be to play a concerto or to perceive a novel mathematical relationship? Or did mental illness impair their creativity after its initial meteoric burst in their twenties? Or is the relationship more complex than a simple one of cause and effect, in either direction?

And this is where the monumental importance of her study shines: What Andreasen found wasn’t confirmation for the “tortured genius” myth — the idea that a great artist must have some dark, tragic pathology in order to create — but quite the opposite: these women and men had become successful writers not because of their tortuous mental health but despite it.

The Real Link Between Creativity and Mental Illness

Scott Barry Kaufman (SciAm)

Scott Barry Kaufman, Scientific Director of The Imagination Institute and a researcher in the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania, investigates the measurement and development of imagination. He questions Andreason’s findings and looks deeper, writing:

The oft-cited studies by Kay Redfield Jamison, Nancy Andreasen, and Arnold Ludwig showing a link between mental illness and creativity have been criticized on the grounds that they involve small, highly specialized samples with weak and inconsistent methodologies and a strong dependence on subjective and anecdotal accounts.

Is there any germ of truth to the link between creativity and mental illness? The latest research suggests there is something to the link, but the truth is much more interesting.

It seems that the key to creative cognition is opening up the flood gates and letting in as much information as possible. Because you never know: sometimes the most bizarre associations can turn into the most productively creative ideas. Indeed, Shelley Carson and her colleagues found that the most eminent creative achievers among a sample of Harvard undergrads were seven times more likely to have reduced latent inhibition.

Latent inhibition is a filtering mechanism that we share with other animals, and it is tied to the neurotransmitter dopamine. A reduced latent inhibition allows us to treat something as novel, no matter how may times we’ve seen it before and tagged it as irrelevant. Prior research shows a link between reduced latent inhibition and schizophrenia.

Creativity and Psychopathology: A Shared Vulnerability Model

In this paper, Shelly Carson, Harvard researcher on creativity, psychopathology, and resilience, and author of The Creative Brain: Seven Steps to Maximize Imagination, Productivity, and Innovation in Your Life, reviews “the empirical evidence for an elevated risk of three disorders in creative individuals: mood disorders, schizospectrum disorders, and alcoholism.”

While creativity is considered a positive personal trait, highly creative individuals have demonstrated elevated risk for certain forms of psychopathology. [In] this paper I argue that a model of shared vulnerability explains the relationship between creativity and psychopathology. This model, supported by recent findings from neuroscience and molecular genetics, suggests that biological determinants that confer risk for psychopathology interact with protective cognitive factors to enhance creative ideation.

Carson

Elements of shared vulnerability include cognitive disinhibition (which allows increased stimuli into conscious awareness), an attentional style that is driven by novelty-salience, and neural hyperconnectivity that may increase associations among disparate stimuli. These vulnerabilities interact with superior meta-cognitive protective factors, such as high IQ, working memory capacity, and cognitive flexibility, to produce an enlarged body of stimuli that is available in conscious awareness to be manipulated and combined to form novel and original ideas.

~ ~ ~

Reading and writing about this topic inevitably makes me think of my partner, who died nearly 10 years ago. He had a very high IQ, good working memory, and great cognitive flexibility, all of which seem to have mitigated the vulnerability factors, which were also present. He was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, which wreaked some havoc in his early and mid-life before it was treated. At times, he was more than a little eccentric, with maybe a touch of mad genius about him. (Always interesting, that’s for sure!)

He was extremely creative, prolifically so, in a variety of areas–especially writing, art, and music–and he continued to be creative while he was on medication, which was very effective for him. So clearly his bipolar bent, if you will, didn’t cause him to be creative. But there was definitely a link there. Those areas of shared vulnerability were significantly moderated by medication, but also by his own awareness and self-monitoring. And maybe that’s something to take away from this, too. Self-awareness and self-monitoring are great tools for keeping us grounded even in the midst of our wildest flights of imagination.

What’s Wrong with Precommitment Devices?

August 10, 2014 by Joycelyn Campbell 3 Comments

Odysseus tied on the mast. Icon for the Greek ...

A precommitment device is a strategy for forcing yourself to do something you think you should do but you don’t actually want to do. You might resort to a precommitment device if your will power and self-control have failed to do the trick. The most famous example of someone using a precommitment device is Odysseus having himself tied to the mast of his ship to avoid the temptation of the sirens.

The most common precommitment devices involve agreeing to forfeit a certain sum of money if you fail to achieve a goal or accomplish a particular task. You could make an agreement with yourself to donate money to a charity if you fail to attend the gym three times a week, lose a specific amount of weight, or complete the next chapter of your book. Of course, if you’re the only one who knows about this agreement, you can easily waffle and wiggle your way out of it.

A more binding agreement would be to agree to pay a friend that same amount of money if you fail to meet your goal. Not only would you lose money, you would also experience some degree of shame. That’s the premise behind precommitment devices: we will do what’s good for us in order to avoid the threat of negative consequences. That’s also what makes them problematic.

Underlying the popularity of precommitment devices is the assumption that we are, in general, rational beings who want to avoid negative consequences. But there’s not a lot of evidence support that idea, and if it were true, we wouldn’t need precommitment devices to begin with. Rational beings who were aware of potential negative consequences would all be healthy, law-abiding, diligent, honest, tidy, sober, rule-following good citizens. Obviously, we are not all that. Precommitment devices have something in common with affirmations, which is that the people they work for probably need them the least.

Loss aversion is one rationale offered for using precommitment devices. It’s true we are programmed to avoid losses, but a loss of enjoyment can be experienced as a loss, too. In some cases a more significant loss than the loss of a few bucks.

Another problem with precommitment devices is that they are black and white. Either you do it or you don’t. You win or you lose. You avoid temptation or you give in to it. This isn’t a scenario that allows for being present, noticing what’s actually happening, learning something about yourself or what you’re attempting to do, or adjusting your course. This is more about getting the upper hand over your recalcitrant, weak-willed self. And when the next such situation arises, you will have to do battle with that bad boy self all over again.

There’s Another Way to Make a Precommitment

Creating an intention is a form of precommitment, too, but one without the threat of negative consequences. Creating an intention also takes into consideration the fact that what you’re attempting is not easy, but without judging your supposed lack of self-control. Changing any behavior is difficult simply because we’re wired to keep doing whatever we have been doing. Creating an intention—as part of the I.A.P. process—allows you to focus on something you want to do or be as opposed to something you don’t want to do or be. It helps you keep your attention on your desired outcome and motivates you to keep going, one step at a time, even when the going is difficult. Instead of having to be good or pay the price for being bad, you aim to keep getting better. You don’t have to initiate or engage in an inner struggle with yourself. And instead of forking over cash when you fail, you get to reward yourself when you succeed.

Have you ever used a precommitment device? If so, how did it work for you?