A Lady Stole My Heart Today

At the gym.  Sitting right next to me in our spin session. A lovely lass - she pushed the right buttons and stole my heart.  

Well, my heart rate, to be specific. 

Just before the gruelling hour of spinning began, she tried to get the new electronic device attached to her bike to sync with her heart rate monitor, and instead it picked up mine - which we both noticed.  But then we were into standing sprints, and nothing could be done about it. 

So for that entire hour, she was an intimate observer of my performance .  It was intriguing: I felt compelled to try even harder - I was being monitored after all - but then I also realised the compulsion and tried to ignore it.   Mostly failing.

That was an interesting pressure, peer pressure - and the pressure to impress, or at least not to appear as a total slacker.  Moreover, that pressure was to a complete stranger.

It also got me thinking a little about privacy and self instrumentation.  This was a data privacy breech, albeit a little unusual.  I've had some of my DNA genotyped over at 23andMe - which often has me thinking about privacy.  As someone pointed out, someone knowing your DNA also gives that someone access to some of your children's DNA. It's a data privacy breech with hereditary consequences.  

However, it's not particularly predictive, and really, I think there's more benefit (to the human race) than disadvantage. Opening up my DNA (in the sense of something like the Creative Commons Zero license) would let others potentially benefit - and efforts to really open it up are underway at places like openSNP.

My genome, my heart rate, and eveyrthing in betwen.  How much of ourselves should we be prepared to give away like this, to complete strangers?  What actions would it make us perform, what are the advantages and disadvantages?  
I'm intrigued by the questions.  For now though, here's the captured heart rate:

Spin

Tagged genomics instrumentation privacy

Confirmation Bias and Free Will

I've been thinking about free will, which has in turn got me thinking about all the flaws we all have in our abilities to reason.  We all have them to a lesser or greater extent - and they're often surprisingly subtle.  The subtly disturbs me - it leaves the door wide open for bad reasoning, and smashes at the notion of free will.


An Example: Confirmation Bias


The errors in our reasoning that I'm talking about here are not mistakes we make while doing math in our head, but rather errors we make when supposedly reasoning towards a truth. 


These errors in our reasoning abilities are often called human biases. A favourite of mine is the (motivated) confirmation bias - it's ubiquitous, subtle, and scares the living hell out of me as a result. Here's a nice definition from Wikipedia:


Confirmation bias is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.  People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.


This is unconscious, which makes it all the more pernicious. It's "motivated" as people are motivated to defend a belief or hypothesis that they already hold, unwittingly selecting information to support it.


For example, if you believed in "alternative medicine" - your belief may be unconsciously bolstered whenever you read about the case of some poor child recovering from a dreadful disease after being dosed with a sugary homeopathic remedy.


Hypothesis-Determined Information Seeking and Interpretation


But what about the other facts: the number of people who died from the disease, the number of people who recovered without any medication whatsoever, and so on.  


These hint at some of the theories scientists (see below for reference) are developing as to why we have a confirmation bias. 


For example: 

  • "Restriction of attention to a favoured hypothesis" (it wasn't chance, or a different medicine that saved them - its as the homeopathic medicine)
  • "Preferential treatment of evidence supporting existing beliefs" (the people who recovered without the homeopathic medicine probably had some homeopathic trace elements in their food - and look, the ones that took it recovered.  Amazing.)
  • "Overweighting positive confirmatory instances" (ZOMG look, 50 cases of recovery!  It must be true. (Ignoring the 1000 cases that didn't, not even seeking them out.))
See the reference below for the science behind these, and experiments which appear to indicate that these are mechanisms behind confirmation bias.

Thoughts: Consistency and Religion and Free Will

  • What scares me about the confirmation bias is that we're all susceptible, it's unconscious, and it leads to us draw false conclusions (such as earnestly believing in something that's demonstrably false, such as homeopathy).  I wonder to what extent I am biased in this way.  
  • The scientific method is one way in which we try and ascertain truths without bias.  That doesn't mean scientists are not without confirmation bias. But at least science has mechanisms to avoid them.
  • This is very much related to consistency as well - as I wrote in Being Aware of Rationalising. I wonder if we have particular confirmation biases to maintain a consistent experience.
  • I wonder to what extent the confirmation bias leads to someone continuing to believe in a religion.  Restriction of attention is evident in many believers, blithely turning an eye to contradictions (or other religions), as are preferential treatment of evidence and so on.  I guess we can be lenient here on what counts as evidence. 
Finally, having a bias such as a confirmation bias severely undermines our notion of free will.  I'm not the conscious author of an opinion or reason here - it's even more of an illusion if my own brain is filtering information behind my back, so to speak.  Where's the free will in that?

References


This paper is awesome, and the source for my second section title: Confirmation Bias; A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises", Review of General Psychology (Educational Publishing Foundation) 2 (2): 175–220 (PDF)

Tagged confirmation bias free will human biases reasoning religion

The Illusoriness of My Free Will

I now seriously suspect that I don't have free will.  I can't say I've given it much thought in the past - I've always viewed it as somewhat philosophical, somewhat theoretical, and the works of Schopenhauer and Hobbes don't grip me as they should.

A lot of neuroscience, however, makes these questions more interesting, and more real.  For example, we know that we have somewhat modular brains, and that only some parts of our brain create that consciousness that we all believe makes us. We also know that we're subject to a multitude of biases, such as the awful confirmation bias. 

I typically associate Jon, me, with my conscious self and this other brain machinery that "does stuff".  (Even defining self is difficult).  But that brain machinery does stuff, interacts with my consciousness on occasion, and really, isn't under my control.

I know I'm not the conscious source of my thoughts and actions.   This is the bit that gets me.  If I was the conscious source of my thoughts and actions, then that would imply that I think of them before I think of them.  Well, I don't.  Neither do you.  They just emerge. 

In many ways, I'm an observer of my self.  Where's the free will in that?

I'm also not responsible for my brain structure.  It's the result of my history of interactions with the world - and I think this is a staggering thought.  It started out in a way I had no control over (I didn't control the genes that provided the basic structure of my brain, nor its growth characteristics).  I had no control over the exposure of my growing brain to environment, to diet. I do now, to an extent, but it's only a limited an extent - and of course, I'm already the result of all these causal chains. Over which I had no control.  

So my brain and its current operation is the result of rich history of causal interactions over which I had no control.  My beliefs are the product of prior causes over which I had no control. Where's the free will in that?

What's fascinating are some of the implications of dispensing with the notion of free will - how does that impact our notion of morality, retribution, politics, and in particular religion (many religions rely on free will not being an illusion).  It's mind blowing.

Well, I've just started down this road.  Perhaps I'll end up reading Schopenhauer after all?  But to start off, here's the talk (by Sam Harris) that got me all fired up, that covers all of these topics and more.  Enjoy:

Tagged free will identity self-deception

Being Aware of Rationalising

When I argue with someone, try and justify a belief or a moral, or try and convince myself to do something I know isn't really great (it's okay to eat that muffin - I went swimming this morning), I rationalise.  It's a terrible habit, probably innately human, yet it's useful to at least be aware of when I'm doing it (or others are doing it) - as it usually conceals, hides or otherwise smuggles away truth.

Rationalising isn't the same as being rational

I'm using the word rationalize in a very particular way here.  Here's the Oxford Dictionary definition:
1 attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate

It's an interesting dictionary definition which captures the connotation of "even if these are not true or appropriate".

Rational, on the other hand, is:
1 based on or in accordance with reason or logic

So being rational is doing like Spock does - taking the facts, the premises, and applying logic, moving us towards reasoned conclusions.  

Rationalising is almost the opposite - and that's what's fascinating.  You're starting with a behaviour (me eating a muffin) and attempting to justify it with some plausible reasons (yeah, I exercised this morning).   

Example: Morality, and art appreciation

There are a number if researchers investigating morality - how we reason about morality, come by our morals, how morality differs amongst cultures, what universal moral laws exist and so on.  It's fascinating stuff - and many now believe that we make moral judgements without recourse to reason.  In other words, we judge whether some act is good or bad or permissible or forbidden based on some intuition, not conscious reasoning.  

So it appears we make moral judgements without rational reason.  But if you were asked about the judgment afterwards ("explain sir, why is it wrong to stab someone in self defence"), and given the time to think about a moral judgement, you would rationalise.  It's difficult to be entirely rational here - we don't have a formal, consistent set of moral foundations.

I believe I read something similar about art appreciation.  Intuitively we may like a piece of art.  If asked afterwards why we like the piece, we rationalise - providing plausible reasons (oh, the colour is just lovely darling).

Rationalising and self-deception

Being rational starts with facts/premises and works to a conclusion, while rationalising sort of starts with the conclusion, and tries to find supporting premises.  

In my experience, those supporting premises just have to be "good enough" for me to support some behaviour. I'm pulling the wool over my own eyes - which makes me think rationalising is a key part of self-deception.

A pet theory of mine is that when we create these supporting premises as part of rationalising, we do it in a way that maintains consistency with our view of the world.  More on that in the future…

I'm sure I'll never stop rationalising, but I wonder if it's a useful exercise to recognise it a little more often than not - especially because those "plausible reasons" are not necessarily truth.
Tagged consistency morality rational rationalising self-deception

Defining the Self

You are a conscious mind - you're a self - aware of your own mind, and probably aware of other minds as well.  

Underlying that construction of consciousness is a fascinating entanglement of biology and culture, which I'm slowly becoming aware of.  For years I've gone around blithely thinking that I am me.  It looks like it's a little more complicated than that:

  • The fascinating books, Phantoms in the Brain (if you haven't read it, do) and The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat, really illustrate how much of our selves is a construction of our brain, and how even recognising your mother (or rather, associating another physical human with the mental representation you have of your mother) is a construct of the brain, and one that can be disrupted.  Even in the absence of serious medical conditions - self is constructed, and dependent, on brain formation - and many medical conditions illustrate how very defining parts of what we call our selves are constructs in a reasonably modular brain system.
  • Steven Pinker, in The Blank Slate, presents some awesome meta study results of twins, separated twins, siblings and adopted siblings, demonstrating how much of a person's personality (his "openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion-introversion, antagonism-agreeableness, and neuroticism") is heritable.  A not-insubstantial part of your personality is right there in your genes.  Parents like to think they play a substantial part in the defining of a child's self.  Their role, in a normal upbringing, is not that defining.
  • You've probably heard of parasites that change brain behaviour: the lancet fluke that induces ants to climb up stalks of grass so as to more easily get eaten by a cow, end up in faeces, bore through a snail and back into an ant.  Or toxoplasmosis, which makes infected mice and rats less afraid of cat urine, and more likely to end up as a meal, and back in a cat. It turns out that toxoplasmosis can also affect the behaviour of humans.  Drugs obviously do the same thing - but the notion of that reckless adrenaline-junky simply having some parasitic infection, feels a little more fascinating.
  • Mirror neurons are mind boggling, and are currently being examined as a basis of empathy, and a theory of mind.  Which leads one to think of psychopaths, which may be seen as a mental disorder in which empathy is absent, which makes one think about neuroscience and justice - for if someone is mentally afflicted in such a way, are they "responsible" for their behaviour?  Which leads to a great lot of thought about ethics and morality, and how many different cultures share many moral foundations instinctively (moral psychology is awesome).  Mirror neurons, as part of our brain make-up, appear to go a long way to defining us and our empathy to others.

We appear to be entanglements of brain, genetics, our culture, and many more factors.

Today, as I think about other people or myself, I'm also thinking about some of these fascinating topics that contribute to our understanding of what makes our selves, our minds, and what makes us conscious of our lives and those minds around us.

An Aside

Free will is another interesting issue related to all of these topics.  Here's a taster.

Tagged ethics mind mirror neurons neuroscience self