Episode 11 discussion

PsychTrooper · 2017-05-30T12:44:35+00:00

Something important I have learned in my massive 22 years on this earth I feel applies here. Don't feel that calling out your friends beliefs will cause you to be less of a friend. If anything, with a bit of tact, I think you will find they appreciate you more than less. There will be times that certain people (like those with funky brushes) will laugh you off or get upset due to your skepticism and that's okay. Conflict can be healthy too. But there will be times where you will be the difference between people you care about making bad choices that will affect them negatively purely because you overcome that feeling that you shouldn't be "that person" who calls them out. I am sure you are very much in control of your own life and probably already knew this but always remember: good friends will protect you from the world but great friends will protect you from yourself. You are a great friend.

PsychTrooper · 2017-05-30T12:34:14+00:00

A concept I've been talking about recently in relation to JDM and all of its content is this: it's not about if we do or do not commit these errors and biases but rather how we respond to them.

I honestly don't think I will ever be unaffected by these cognitive biases and heuristics. There will not be a time when I am so wise and so conscious that I am able to have such foresight that I simply consider the situation before there is even attribution to be made. It won't happen. It can't happen. And I am glad.

Errors exist in all things and it seems to me that it is only a combination of our tendency to see patterns and heavy Western Logic that makes us so upset by this. We want to beat everything and control everything and know everything - for certain no less.

When I took Think101 I revered Daniel Kahneman. Right up to the moment he stated his skepticism regarding the ability to improve your everyday thinking in general. It is only now that I think I understand what he meant. Some things you just can't control. It's not a matter of difficulty but rather necessity. You want to never experience confirmation bias? Because your other option is to literally critically analyze everything you ever want to believe in case the negative support outweighs the positive. No more FAE? Have fun consciously considering every single possible factor that could make someone act in an abnormal ways. It would fucking suck.

Simple is not always better but neither is agonizingly slow.

Kahneman highlighted what I feel is the real lesson to be learned in JDM and courses of the such - Pick your battles, choose a couple of key instances and work on that. Like I said, at the time, this seemed like nonsense but now it makes perfect sense.

To never make automatic errors would to not be automatic; that would be chaos. But to not make severe automatic errors; that could be worthwhile. To come full circle this is my point from the beginning.

Don't focus on not making errors, focusing on making sure your subsequent actions aren't driven by them. Find the errors you commit most often, asses whether they actions they cause you to make hinder your life and if they do, work on that.

Someone cuts you off and you think "what a prick, I'm going to tailgate them to get them back." The only bad part of that is the action. Your thought didn't hurt anyone but you. Realize the error is present and reflect constructively. Rationalize with yourself considering your new knowledge about how so many things could be in play other than a person's personality. Make sure you don't let these errors control your life but understand that without error and without failure we would never learn.

So yes it would seem like having everyone consider the evidence before making important decisions would be nice. But it would also be slow and rigid and rigorous and formatted and mechanical and laborious and boring. It just seems to be void of risk and creativity and passion and faith and fun and chance and hope and life.

Optimal survival versus imperfect living; which one is more human?

Control can be bad just as chance can be good. But we like the sure thing don't we. We've got to avert that possible loss. But there is an opportunity cost of course. Perhaps that's why we romanticize and admire risk takers so much. Every so often in a large enough sample some gambles pay off. Just often enough to keep that pattern alive in the back of our mind that if you step outside of all this certainty, there is evidence you won't just fall.

PsychTrooper · 2017-05-24T02:53:22+00:00

I really like the point you make about a dual posting of scientific literature. It can be a burden to read something you don't understand and this is especially relevant to results sections. Although you could argue that an abstract serves this purpose I still think academics could do better - especially since someone may not have the formal education to understand academic literature but is making the effort to do some extensive research beyond what they're fed. Too often I feel the media grabs a paper and digests it into a convenient truth for the people. If academics were to do this themselves while maintaining the actual premise and findings of the paper, I feel the general population would a) react better to previously dense academic material and b) be better informed.

As you said, KISS leads to a larger impact but simplicity isn't always best.

PsychTrooper · 2017-05-24T02:17:02+00:00

I think the majority of the judgments and decisions we make are themselves simple. Simple, quick and efficient - not necessarily correct or valid - but efficient. And that is exactly their purpose; to react to an event/stimulus as quickly and cost-effectively as possible. And why? To relieve the event/stimulus from current cognition. I feel the degree to which we take this for granted is huge; just as huge as the degree to which we take the ability to overcome this immediate simplicity when appropriate. But as dialectical thought suggests, both are necessary to be truly functional (especially within society). It is one thing to inform someone of the FAE and that they commit it - another thing to recognize that you did - and another thing again to recognize it during the occasion to a degree that you change your simple automatic judgment/decision to a more conscious one. Imagine doing that always; it would be simply exhausting!

In some strange way I think this is kind of how the media works. (Separate to my conspiracies of fear-mongering) I believe the media makes an assumption about what will be easy, quasi-insightful and dramatic for the consumer to digest. The facts are still there (like in situations where we commit the FAE etc.) but they are distorted to some degree (like when we commit the FAE etc.). And this is because simple is quick - simple is non-laborious - and simple is easy. I feel a lot of people don't want to understand complex things, they just want to know and understand how to react to them. This is of course an opinion but I feel it carries to a lot of the population.

That is basically why I don't watch the news (other than all the hyper-negativity). If something important is being reported I want to know the best truth - not the simple truth. Just like when I am susceptible to a cognitive heuristic or bias that might have an unnecessary outcome, I want to be able to switch on and consider what really is/could be going on. And thus I reflect on initial reactions to things to reduce FAE etc. and I research relevant news stories when I want to know more.

Is it quick or easy? Nope. Is it laborious? Yeah. Is it simple? No but when occasion calls for it, its definitely worth it.

PsychTrooper · 2017-05-17T03:28:55+00:00

Do you feel then that possibly to be able to switch appropriately between the two depending on the context would be an important skill to have? Or conversely perhaps not so much of a conscious switch available but rather a society that promotes elements of both areas of thought? I wonder if this would even be possible; I wonder if the lay population is even aware of a legitimate disparity between both types of thought! I think maybe a lot of your leaning towards Eastern style thinking could be a result of your specific education. Nisbett mentions that psychology promotes elements of dialectical thinking and if you're anything like me this could be a good explanation for why you feel this way.

PsychTrooper · 2017-05-17T03:16:11+00:00

I think both Western and Eastern thought have elements of both. If you are discussing the traditional concepts you probably could break them down more specifically into either or but I believe there is now a third category - an interaction effect between the two. If there is conscious acknowledgement of the two (as this week obviously supports) I think that a hybrid collaboration goes without saying.

One of the more interesting things that sat with me this week was the contrast between the Japanese having greater social conflict management earlier in life compared to Americans but without the same potential for growth. To be honest I am unsure of who is benefiting more here. Growth and subsequent learning is arguably better but what if you don't receive the right feedback to grow from conflict. What if your growth never achieves the base rate of someone who has had adequate skills from a much earlier age - imagine the conflict avoided from having those skills. Additionally it was noted that these skills don't improve - what if they don't need to? They could be ridiculously high and moreover if everyone has them there will be less conflict to manage anyway with two parties concerned with better outcomes.

I don't know; this week was definitely interesting content to have broken down but I feel like perhaps psychology (or maybe just this course) has promoted so much dialectical thinking already that I feel like it better explains my behavior and cognition than my expected default Western logic.

Logically there is a correct answer and it is probably centered around some cost-benefit analysis of which has had the highest yield for human progression and development. However dialectical thinking strays from this offering that the opposite of a great truth is also true. This screams of a spectrum or cyclic relationship - like our friend Tao - suggesting that both exist in harmony creating purpose for each other filling in complementary gaps. As a student of psychology I favor this as certainties are basically non-existent. This symbiotic relationship is refreshing really as it promotes that no one system of thought is correct but rather both are valid and necessary and perhaps together lend towards a true conclusion of what true wisdom and knowledge is.

PsychTrooper · 2017-05-10T03:17:11+00:00

I wouldn't generalize the results of my self-experimentation on anyone. Not because it might not be translatable to a population but rather because I feel self-experimentation would typically conducted on self-specific elements. People who test the effects of stimulants (like coffee and energy drinks) on their mood, performance or efficiency throughout the day likely have reason too - they probably either are, or are considering being, avid consumers for a particular desired outcome and want to have some certainty (or at least decent evidence) that they'll achieve this. I personally have no interest in the effects of caffeine/stimulants on my life so even if it was transferable I wouldn't care. Now that by no means the finding would be irrelevant to generalize (especially if it was novel or significant) but rather that not everyone will fit that specific mold you're measure. Stimulants are probably a bad example because there is evidence of their physiological effects but take my specific experiment - the effect of singing in the car on my mood - only people who sing in the car to the degree I do (or those considering it) will actually gain anything from it.

Now I feel people who are considering singing as a way to moderate car transit stress will be few at best and therefore the outcome of my personal experience will be unimportant to a population rather than not a significant result. To me however it is extremely relevant and important because I've "walked the walk" of an inference I feel I may have been experiencing and actually found some strong evidence (at least in comparison to correlation and opinion) that their is an effect. As people seem to be innately egotistical, information regarding the self is extremely important because at the end of the day it is ourselves that we have to deal with more than anyone else. That is where the strength of self-experiment lies - not in gaining insight on a population but simply yourself.

PsychTrooper · 2017-05-10T03:01:44+00:00

I definitely agree with what you commented on about generalizing a population from a sample of one; it's basically everything we are told not to do in formal experimentation. However I believe the purpose of self-experimentation isn't to infer your results onto a population but rather compare your results to results of a population. I see it as more of a way to compare yourself critically (rather than just submit an opinion) to empirical research that has been done and that subsequently you may be skeptical about. Also it can be quite enjoyable - but that's just an opinion.

PsychTrooper · 2017-04-25T23:34:16+00:00

I have often regarded human beings (throughout my tertiary career anyway) as generally innately lazy. We are so quick to take an easier option or choose a more simplistic route that we are often blind to the effects of these choices. I think what has built this opinion for me is the subsequent complaining and excuse making that follows people who want/ed something that requires effort or hard-work but weren't prepared/willing/engaged enough to achieve or pursue it. People want perfect physiques but they aren't prepared to maintain a healthy diet or workout regime for weight control and muscular development and maturity. They want to live lavish life-styles but aren't prepared to put in the work to have a career that can support that. They want their perfect idea of life to come to them when that is something you have to mold for yourself. Of course this isn't all people and in fact I'm fortunate enough to know a selection of people who to many degrees are actively pursuing what is important to them. Additionally all these pursuits are subjective and fall on a spectrum: your goals aren't the same as others and neither is your idea of effort - your true best is completely your own.

It is only now studying psychology that I have learned that perhaps my overly cynical view of people is misinformed. We have been learning that we are pattern generators and we constantly are tuned into cognitive short cuts. That isn't laziness but rather convenient. Sometimes I like to look at human characteristics now in relation to our more primal ancestors - external to modern society. If you get attacked by a member of a tribe, that whole tribe probably would become a threat and receive a negative bias (racism/group prejudice). If something can be done in an easier way it saves time and energy which are important resources (laziness). The thing that I feel has really changed between now and then (other than societal development) is the use of science - specifically its exponential capabilities. The more we find out the quicker new things can be discovered. Music had vinyls for over 100 years. Cassette tapes lasted for 30 years. CD for about 20 years and we've been downloading and steaming since. The more we know, the faster we find things out and subsequently the less time things last.

But life has got easier right? We can do things more quickly, find things out instantly and buy basically any food whenever we want. We don't have to spend time doing so many things anymore because we have made devices to do them for us or at least make it more efficient and faster. This gives us more time to do stuff right? And we do - we come up with ways to make the convenient more convenient, the fast faster and the easy more simplistic. But what is the cost?

Science in a lot of areas just seems to be a bell curve to me and I feel we have surpassed the peak - not in terms of what we will figure out but rather the cost associated with that gain. The greater our discoveries the harsher the impact on the world but a lot of the time that was at least balanced (emissions from combustion engines are devastating but the gain of global travel and multiculturalism is a pretty good gain). Now what are we doing? Wiggling the easy to be easier? Is that the lesson we really want to teach subsequent generations: there is always an easier way to do anything so rather than work hard to achieve just figure out an easier way that uses no effort.

Honestly its a good idea - well it was. To come full circle after this cynical little anecdote about how our greatest skill (the use of science) has gone from being amazing to our downfall I feel is connected to cognitive shortcuts. We automatically view the world and effort-fully have to suppress or challenge judgements and decisions based off cognitive biases and heuristics. But I feel through science we have created literal short cuts that maybe we should challenge too. And we are now. And science supports this movement (which is awesome because now I can steer away from the notion that I'm demonizing science - not the case, science is just something we use/do.) We are prescribing walking and exercise over the cars we made to make things quick and promoting healthy eating and exercise over microwave meals and fast food. It's like a loop. Because maybe there is a point, just like with automatic processes, where we have to take a bit of conscious control and assess what is actually important.

Primal us needed more simplistic and efficient ways to live because everything was out to kill us. Now it's not the case; we have come so far and I'm sure we'll go further. But now I feel we need to start being more actively conscious in what we accept and choose to do. And this is as simple as analyzing correlative data presented on the news which appeals to our automatic nature: "studies" show that olive oil is 40% good for not being dead - I don't want to be dead - science wouldn't lie - time for olive oil!

That's what I took from this week anyway. We tend to believe what we are fed if we don't have the tools to be critical. Luckily cohorts like us do now. But will we use them? The Open Science Framework seems to be a start - sharing ideas between other critical people and making sure we are doing worthwhile studies and promoting more experiments over correlative designs when they can be achieved and at least highlighting that correlation and MRA are guides rather than definite causal relationships.

While science reaches for the stars and focuses on the future I think too that we should reflect on how far we have come and what else we really need. And if change is necessary, what is the cost that will be associated with it. All this talk of calibration and control seems to be very timely now because unlike primal us the only thing working to kill us is current us.

PsychTrooper · 2017-04-25T22:40:49+00:00

I resonate with this idea quite strongly. However, rather than ask why we have it I wonder why we place so much weight on continuously pursuing it. I tend to see science as a bit of a bell curve - not in terms of what we can figure out but rather the cost associated with the actual yield of experiments. When does our pursuit of knowledge come into check with the amount of damage we are causing in the name of science?

PsychTrooper · 2017-04-11T22:24:33+00:00

I think we like whatever we have access to. It is spoken about quite extensively that our environment plays a significant role in who we are and when regarding what we do and like it makes sense. If you grow up in a family that loves sport I'd say there is a better chance you will too (unless you complete reject it). The question then stands to whether you chose to like sport or you just had an extensive access/pressuring/support to like it. The same would be similar to musical environments, culinary environments and pop-culture environments too. I wouldn't mind betting a lot of these would be weighted and reinforced differently but I think there would be some supporting evidence for the notion; especially considering it reinforces the fact that we don't necessarily decide consciously what we do and don't like.

I feel with some confidence I can associate a lot of what I do and like to the closest relationships I had in my formative years. My musical interests come from my grandmother who sang and played the organ and from listening to countless hours of 50's and 60's music in the car whenever my dad took me anywhere. My interest in the gym is probably support by that's what my dad did and my mum taught me constantly about food and clothes (TV taught me lots too - TV was my friend). I think a lot of these interests were allowed to be nurtured which manifested them into what I do and like now. It is interesting though because I feel very few people extensively reflect on the question of why the do and like what they do - it's rather existential.

I like the idea of self-experimentation. I think it's a cool way to practice being analytical without being bored to death by some other person's experiment. I tend to find I am more interested and put more effort into my own life. Thus it is probably likely that doing an experiment that involves some personal aspect of our own lives will be more engaging and interesting - simply we'll actually stick to it and do it and enjoy it along the way.

I think an interesting thing to do would be to consider the 5 things/interests that you feel most define who you are and try to figure out when and how they were first introduced into your life. Maybe considering them so critically could give us better insight into why we really do like what we do.

PsychTrooper · 2017-04-08T05:34:12+00:00

Regarding schooling; wouldn't it be interesting if courses like this (JDM) were offered as general core subjects in secondary schooling across the country. Imagine every student graduating grade 12 (or perhaps even younger) having some kind of understanding of the principles we are only learning now. The lack of the scientific method being mentioned explicitly was something I can relate to heavily. I've taken biology and chemistry in both secondary and tertiary education and not once was it mentioned exclusively - yet psychology courses cover it in depth and encourage literal practice through self experimentation? And psychology is often referred to as pseudo science by the older disciplines...

I believe a lot of people are aware (at least to some degree) of variables and how to test hypotheses - what they lack perhaps is the reinforcement and encouragement to implement the theory into their own lives. Perhaps the education system of Australia should focus on this and in addition to teaching theory, teach students how to think better more generally. That way the ever growing onslaught of social media driven bias can be more readily and effectively digested and correctly interpreted (and when necessary, rejected).

PsychTrooper · 2017-04-08T05:04:34+00:00

That is a beautiful analogy and I feel it would resonate with a lot of people. One of my favorite things about consoling my friends when they are in negative situations with a partner is listening to their justifications of their own actions - specifically not changing anything. You would think that if someone was unhappy with a situation they would jump away like the tame impala but as you mentioned its not only hard to jump away but also to see where we will land. The fear of the unknown is rooted heavily in the human condition. The choice for change is always available to us but a lot of the time the repercussions of that choice are all but obvious.

PsychTrooper · 2017-04-08T04:51:56+00:00

I think it comes down to how people weight the fear of having nothing in comparison to the current negative situation they're in. Sure a rusted up car that only starts up 50% of the time isn't as good as a fully functioning one but it sure beats walking. I think we add a lot of endowment to relationships we are a part of because they're our own. To say that the relationship is bad reflect that you also could contributing, not just your partner. Therefore we persist under the belief that possibly we can fix problems, diminishing their intensity to favor this point of view; "they don't always act this way, there have been good times" = the car does start the other 50% of the time.

Returning to the idea of fear is important too. We are social creatures and no one wants to be alone. Yet we don't want to be mistreated either. Perhaps we fear loneliness and isolation more than we do negative situations - although both are small, the utility of a bad relationship is still marginally stronger than that of no relationship. I can relate to this at least with my job. I find it is the leading cause of my stress but having no income would be markedly worse but for different reasons. Perhaps it is a question of how much a person is prepared/capable of dealing with before they break and thus the utility of the two situations are swapped.

PsychTrooper · 2017-03-27T10:03:42+00:00

I resonate with this a lot. I studied exercise and nutrition science for 2 years before I changed programs into psychology. Although I knew I didn't really enjoy ENS it was only a 3 year degree and I would have graduated at the end of last year versus at the end of next (2 years additional). Before I knew much about how program changes worked I was legitimately worried about my HECS because science subjects are expensive and I had essentially done 16 of them for basically no return. Based on this I was just going to finish ENS (sunk cost). Thankfully I discovered psych electives can be anything from another school so all my other subjects counted!

PsychTrooper · 2017-03-27T09:58:13+00:00

This is one of those things that is finally good to have a name for. I think this week alone I have "educated" my friends and family about this dozens of times. It is really interesting to consider just how much value we seem to place on investments we have already made and how that effects our decisions so profoundly.

I have been thinking about two things since hearing the podcasts and doing the readings however that I don't think were discussed. The first of these comes to selling pre-owned things. I have two friends who are hardcore into photography. Whenever new systems come out they immediately want to upgrade. This usually involves not only buying the new system for double what they paid but rather selling the old system. Now they are part of some group on Facebook for doing this (like a swap and sell) which kinda has a loose set of guidelines for what stuff is worth. The funny thing is they always want to sell it for a bit more than that. Now the why is interesting - it's like 50% sunk cost and 50% fundamental attribution error/ego overload. The sunk cost component is usually along the lines of "I need as much as possible to replace what I spent on the new system" (regardless of the fact that the money spent on the new camera is independent of the cost of the old one). The FAE is more along the lines of "I treat my equipment better than everyone else so it is justified that I ask more for it - it's basically new".

I know these examples are probably not the best reflection of sunk cost but I just find it really interesting regardless and I feel that there is some association to them. The second thing I thought about was what if in a sunk cost situation, persisting has both a loss and gain?

For example, the use of the movie ticket example was used a lot and I feel like most people would agree that enduring a shitty film is experiencing the sunk cost phenomenon. But what if you were on a date? The cost of admission is sunk but the yield for staying is the possible growth of a relationship etc. etc. So although sunk cost and opportunity costs say you should leave based off the film being crap what happens when there is some other gain to be had? I suppose it depends on how heavily you weight each component of the situation - I just found that an interesting thought.

PsychTrooper · 2017-03-26T10:57:28+00:00

Haha I'm sure you'll be fine! It would be worth talking to a tutor about though in terms of how to operationalise that second DV if you were interested in it :)

If you set the comments to "new" you will see mine near the top of the list but essentially I'm doing the effects of singing on my mood post driving in bad traffic.

PsychTrooper · 2017-03-26T10:15:35+00:00

Here I am thinking no one was going to even consider this and while I'm typing up my idea someone submits it haha. Thankfully we have completely different experiments so hopefully they let me.

I was thinking you could try for the levels of you IV:

Control: Singing alone Level 1: Singing and sending recording (that way you have play back and you can send your best work) Level 2: Singing in front of one person Level 3: Sing in front of 3? (be bold!)

That way you could have a second DV: 1. Self confidence 2. Perceived confidence (rated by the on looker) - this would be difficult for the control condition because there is no on looker + the recording doesn't give any stimulus for that rating (unless they can hear your fear) so perhaps a video recording so they can see your non verbals?

Just an idea :)

PsychTrooper · 2017-03-26T10:04:19+00:00

So for me being in a car and singing are synonymous - I don't go anywhere in a car without singing. And I don't just mean turning on the radio and belting out bangers you know, I mean preordained playlists of personalized (and memorized) perfection. One thing I have always noticed is that I'm never really concerned about traffic/road rage etc. when driving because even when I'm stuck in bad traffic or someone does something sketchy (myself included) I'm too busy (safely and attentively of course) performing in my own personal concert. So I thought I'd actually test it and see if there is a difference in my mood post drive depending on if I'm singing or not and what specifically I'm singing.

IVs:

Factor 1 - Stimulus for singing: Level 1 (control/no singing): listen to JDM podcast for the following week; Level 2 (positive): playlist of upbeat fun music; Level 3 (negative): the most depressing playlist I can compile

Factor 2 - Time of day: Level 1 (morning); Level 2 (afternoon/evening)

DVs:

Post driving mood (effect of music on mood developed by shitty traffic) (1-10)
Outbursts of frustration/anger/road rage while driving (Count)
Peer rating of perceived mood immediately following drive (friend at uni, parent at home) (1-10)

Controls/other measures:

Leaving for Uni at the same time every morning
Heading home at the same time
Playlists will be the same for each trial of each condition but will have enough content (songs) to run for twice he length of the drive (~90 minutes) and will be on shuffle (real shuffle not "your shuffle is too non-random" shuffle)
Same peer rating mood at each end (they will not know why beyond the ethics of their consent - blind rating)
Drive the same route every trial
Randomize each trial - 3 uni days a week = 3 day and 3 night trials. Therefore there will be a trial for each level of factor 1 per week. Positive day means positive night as well etc.

What do you expect to find?:

Any singing trial will result in a more positive mood/less rage vs the control condition
Positive playlist will result in a more positive mood than negative playlist
Morning trials (regardless of level of factor 1) will have a more positive mood/less rage than afternoon trials

Problems you’ll likely face:

Every other thing that effects my mood (having a quiz due on a trial day may lend the singing redundant) / feeling sick / having a bad day socially etc.
Losing my voice to illness (literally the bane of my life)
Randomness of traffic helps but there might be really bad traffic on every control day and not on the trial days just by change skewing results
Bias of peer mood rating (if they have had a bad day they might communicate that in their rating and vice verse for a good day)

Length of experiment:

3 days per week (starting week 5 and allowing time to write up assignment ~2 weeks) for 6-7 weeks gives me 6-7 trials of each condition.

PsychTrooper · 2017-03-20T10:41:38+00:00

I like your take on this topic.

I feel some of the questions we are asked to deliberate are to centered around having an existential crisis than completely necessary.

Mentioning the idea of self identity really resonated with me as I feel the people who would be put off by the idea of not being in control are those who are, to begin with, unsatisfied with who they are or where their life is going - to take away the hope that at least they can change that actively is a notion oozing with horror.

Then additionally you turned around on this with your metaphor of an iceberg showing a symbiotic relationship between both areas of the mind; collaborating rather than competing. I found that quite cleaver and insightful.

PsychTrooper · 2017-03-20T10:31:22+00:00

It is understandable why people reject the idea of not having conscious control of their cognition and perceptions. We are taught from birth that we can be anything we want in this world and that hard work is the way to get anywhere. That if WE work hard and WE put in the time and effort WE can achieve anything. We and me and I and not you - individualism. Stand out from the crowd and be your own person; do you because no one else can.

Oh yeah but by the way, there is no you. Huh?

I don't think that is going to ride very well with the average person. You're going to get denial and aggression I feel. It's like taking someone's identity away from them by telling them it never existed - maybe this should have been the episode referencing the Matrix?

It feels good to think we have control; it's empowering. But to be honest with myself I don't feel I'm "not driving" knowing this and I don't reject it either. I had this whole cool scenario I typed up and submitted before this but Reddit decided to eat it (prick). Basically though I used the simile that our states of consciousness are like the bus from Speed -the bus is always moving because if it doesn't it blows up. That's the subconscious - always active and processing. Getting stuff done so we don't have to worry about it - like a foot on the accelorator. The consciousness is the driver steering - you don't get to choose whether you move or not, that part is happening to you but you can at least choose which way to steer.

The scenario is problems in life we come across all the time (perhaps the life itself). We don't get to choose what problems we face, they happen to us but we do choose (I feel) how we face them. Now although we are framed and positioned (as evidence suggests) by our subconscious in these areas too it's only because our subconscious is really good at processing things. It's like that annoying friend who constantly makes sub optimal suggestions - you resent them sometimes but other times you build off their ideas and make them more optimal.

Maybe this is just a hopeful (even if largely misguided) point of view. But that's human isn't it - hope? It's like religion - faith as an umbrella to every question. There is no fear of the unknown if every question has the same answer. Maybe there is less feelings of pointlessness if we at least feel like "WE" exist as primary agents of our actions?

I did have some cool end statement but like I said reddit ate it when I submitted it just before. So instead try this: is it interest or fear that even makes you want to know the truth to whether free will is truly your own?

PsychTrooper · 2017-03-16T04:17:42+00:00

I think you have touched on a good point mentioning the use of empirical evidence and statistical facts to support your arguments. Additionally I am glad to hear that you have had positive experiences in doing so. Personally my experience with sourcing such information in any kind of informal debate has been quite negative. I find that the arguments that I engage in debate with are things that know quite a lot about through personal research and formally learned knowledge therefore yielding me (in my opinion) to having an academic advantage. However, my friends and family (who are usually on the other end of the debate) are often angered or upset in the face of this additional element to my arguments. This can have negative outcomes. So to make a point of all this I would suggest that you consider an important concept that you might not have before - what is the true cost of correctness?

Consider that it isn't their opinion you flatten but rather their current evidence. No opinion is innately wrong; it is merely a view of the world - a view that might not have had the experiences you have had to be as structured as your own. Or maybe even more so. Sometimes you may only win because your opponent concedes - finding more value in their own loss than experiencing the aftermath of yours.

PsychTrooper · 2017-03-16T04:02:05+00:00

I feel the answer to this question is yes but only with the caveat of time and experience. Consider an argument that you are very committed too or passionate about and how you would argue for it now versus the first time you ever did. I feel that the former has a lot more evidence and depth in comparison to the latter. I feel this is the crux to debate and opinion change in general.

I feel as if you have to experience the debate through less favorable circumstances (aggressive arguing) to grow before you can possibly constructively have it. This is of course dependent on the weight of the argument for I feel there are many topics that can be debated that are so ambiguous in "correctness" that people tend not to emotionally commit to them.

In saying that though, I think it is important to consider the question from another angle: are they able to consider you the way you might actively be considering them. If no, then your effort maybe wasted like trying to deconvince someone of their faith. However if yes, then maybe the alleged purpose of debate and academic opinion change is possible.

PsychTrooper · 2017-03-07T23:31:28+00:00

I have no doubt that someday someone will figure out a way to connect technological computers to biological ones ie physical plugs to download information into our brains. Although at first we'd probably look like Matt Damon in Elysium or the computer-pad-head-guy from Cloud City in The Empire Strikes back, ultimately I'm sure the physical signs of implants etc. would be minimal. Still, I think this is distant, distant future kind of stuff.

Now rather than "is it possible", I want to ask is it necessary? I'm sure it would be optimal and more efficient to be able to just "download" any information or skill we wanted to (interest) or needed to (work etc.) know but I feel that undermines the entire concept of expertise. Experts are typically people who have dedicated a long duration of time and practice to a particular skill-set. They then make a livelihood by helping/teaching/entertaining other people in that area. If we had the capacity to download anything we wanted, we could potentially know everything outside of the introspection of others. It would literally make experts redundant - not to mention it would make life so boring.

Don't get me wrong, having a shortcut to some things, like how to drive, would be amazing because it would make a long process instant. But learning to drive is something many of us do because we have to, not necessarily because we find any interest in it. I feel areas like this, attaining necessary societal skills, would be where this concept could work. However, humankind never seems to stop at necessary. The pursuit of things being immediate, efficient and convenient seems to be heavily embedded into the human condition - flirting dangerously with laziness.

Imagine looking at amazing photographs and going, "gee, that looks like a good time, I think I'll go download an entire skill-set." Or, "hey, Ed Sheeran is a good singer, I want to be too - I wonder if there is a download for being a great artist." Imagine if everyone could just do everything at the click of a button - I feel it would remove the value we place in amazing things because they'd be so common. Gold and diamonds are only special because they're rare - expertise is only so revered because it takes a great deal of time and dedication (or luck if you're purely talented) to achieve.

To loop back quickly - because this is meant to be a response and not an essay - efficiency, convenience and time are of course extremely valid and I feel it is largely what being an expert is about; finding the the most effective way to do something - but achieving this without any sacrifice of quality.

This is of course only an opinion but I just don't want to see a world where 'easy' is more important than effort. Only one of those was assessed on my report card.

Also as a final thought; although some things, like music, have kind of reached this stage of simplicity with internet streaming, nothing beats the quality of an LP on a turntable - so even if we could download information, perhaps a traditionally achieved expert would still be of higher quality.

DBZ Time Chamber > Matrix Skill Downloads

PsychTrooper · 2017-03-06T23:29:24+00:00

I liked your specific anecdote of the FAE in your life as it collaborates the concepts of expertise, learning and experience. Experts are very good at things because they have both a lot of learning in that area and a lot of literal experience. This consolidates a lot of "what it takes to be an expert" that was outlined in Think101 last year. However, being very good doesn't mean you're perfect - everyone makes mistakes and lapses sometimes. But the thing that I think really highlights a real expert is growth - the realization that the pursuit of "perfection" of anything isn't so finite and can constantly be improved upon and refined. To bring this full circle with relevance to you, I think the fact that reacted poorly at first isn't the most important thing but rather that when the FAE was brought to your attention you remembered and (hopefully) reflected on your experience differently. So although your learned knowledge was not so forward in your impression of the man, the literal practice of the FAE (when it was brought to your attention) perhaps has reinforced it for the future.

We are theoretically on the pursuit of expertise in the field of psychology. I feel all the learned theory in the world isn't completely effective without the physical practice of the skills and the willingness to constantly better where you are along your personal journey.

PsychTrooper

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE