Left Brain Vs Right Brain

The brain is far from understood, if it were simple enough for us to understand then we would be too dumb to understand it.  However, we do know a lot about it.  Only quite recently the plasticity of the brain has become accepted - it used to be thought that the brain structures were fixed and that they filled up with knowledge and experience, much like a computer.  I remember as a boy being taught that the number of neurons in the brain grew until adulthood and then they just started dying off with no new ones replacing them.  The truth is more complicated - our brains form new connections all the time and can become rewired dramatically through necessity if one area becomes damaged, but generally there are structures in the brain that perform [more-or-less] specific functions.

People sometimes talk about being left or right brained, i.e. more dominant in the left / right hemisphere.

The left hemisphere contains the structures strongly associated with: grammar and vocabulary; logically structured thinking; analysing and controlling feelings; reality.

The right hemisphere contains the structures strongly associated with: intonation of speech; an unstructured approach to tasks (they call it 'multitasking' which has been shown to be less efficient in tests); emotional responses; fantasy.

To summarise, the left brain is rational, and the right brain is a hippy.

No prizes which side I'd be associated with, although actually I'd say I am much better than average at seeing the big picture - the less immediate consequences of actions - which is a right-brain trait.

The 2 hemispheres communicate by little roads called commissures, and one superhighway called the corpus callosum.

For severe epilepsy this superhighway of communication is sometimes severed, leading to some fascinating discoveries.  The two halves of the brain can be thought of as having separate consciousnesses!  Imagine being trapped inside someone else's head, much like in the film 'Being John Malkovic', able to see everything but only able to have a slight influence on his behaviour.  That may be happening inside you right now!  With some subjects who have had their corpus callosum severed, a written command can be flashed up visible only to the eye without the subject being consciously aware of it.  For example, if the word "LEAVE" is flashed up, the subject may get up and start to leave the room - when asked why they are leaving they reply something like "I'm thirsty, I want to go get a soda".  The right brain has invented a story for the the conscious mind that is coherent with the action demanded by the subconscious.

Some of these patients also experience 'alien hand syndrome' in which one arm is under the control of the 2nd hidden consciousness.  Freaky.

I wonder if the religious doctors see these patients as having 2 souls?

Most people invent stories for their lives that fit with their actions.  Most people believe they have rational reasons for their actions, but actually it is just lies told to them by the ultimate manipulating puppet master - their own subconscious.

Villains

Can animals be villains?  I've heard of heroic dogs and horses (and military medals of bravery have even been awarded to pigeons!) but I've never heard of a villainous animal.  

Villainy is a hard concept to tie down, so perhaps it's best to first think of evil - are there evil animals?  Of course, some people needlessly view the ways of an entire species or family, usually a reptile, as evil - but to tar a whole group of animals as evil must surely be to dilute the meaning of the word so much as to be meaningless.

   

Intelligent animals can certainly lie.  There are troops of monkeys that forage on the jungle floor, and if one spots something juicy in someone else's patch they occasionally give a warning call that sends everyone into the trees - leaving them free to go get it.

More obvious lies have been told by chimps and gorillas that have been taught sign language - and seem as prone to fibbing as most humans, though the lies are typically less devious.  In one famous example there was a gorilla called Koko who had a pet kitten.  Koko had a fit of temper in the night and ripped a heavy steel sink off the wall; when asked what happened, Koko pointed to the kitten and signed "cat did it".

Is it such a long way from the simple lies of gorillas to the deceptive games of human villains?  We are all animals and the forces of nature and nurture are powerful ones indeed - so how accountable is anyone?  I like to ask people who believe in the devil if he could repent and be good again.  It perplexes them as they have to either give up on the idea he has free-will and therefore that he is evil (these seem intertwined), or give up on their belief he is fated to be the head evil dude forever.

Villains add to the rich tapestry of life and help create bonds in society - nothing brings people together more than a common enemy - that's why the highest sense of nationalism is in times of war.

So in conclusion, I've waffled and digressed a bit, and I had no clue where I was going when I started writing this, but it is past 3am so forgive me - I hope you just have some food for thought :)

Heros

Perhaps you are familiar with 2 quite famous experiments in psychology: the Stanford Prison Experiment, and the Millgram experiment.  If not, the summary is that when people are cast in a role, they change their behaviour to be more congruent with the behaviours expected of that role.  A film was made based on the Stanford Prison Experiment that is well worth watching (imdb=7.9), called "Das Experiment" (German - make sure you download the English subtitled version!).

This effect is part of what is known as Attribution Theory in psychology.  An everyday example of the application of this was discussed briefly in my post on persuasion - calling someone "mate" or "buddy" will help elicit trusting and loyal behaviour.

The effect also must be borne in mind when explaining how whole groups of people performed acts considered 'evil' such as all the Nazi guards herding the Jews to their deaths.  Humans seem to readily accept that there are psychological reasons excusing bad behaviour, but conveniently forget the other side of the mirror, that the same forces are at play in the other direction as well.

Soldiers, police, and firefighters are all called 'Heroes' if they go into a dangerous situation and get killed.  It is much more often when they are killed, possibly because you can't speak ill of the dead - so no-one is allowed to bring any evidence forward opposing the moniker.

After the 9/11 attacks the firemen (and women) who responded were called heroes.  I think most of the population, if they had worked in the fireservice for long enough to hold it close to their personal identity, would have done the same thing - in which case are most of the population heroes who just haven't had the circumstances to demonstrate it?

I think it's great people like that are publicly called heroes - they put themselves in harms way for my benefit, and if we didn't impose the expectation of them being heroes perhaps they wouldn't.  It is in society's interests to call them heroes (and mean it!) - and that is why that meme has evolved.

Sure, some may join up as a vocation, but I think most are probably sheep just acting out a role thrust upon them.

Looks

I read an article based on a paper recently that concluded you could tell if someone were criminal from how they look.  I was astounded at the bad science behind it - there was no attempt to mitigate for, or even mention, the possibility that it was hairstyle or someone generally looking like they have had a hard life that provided the (somewhat weak) correlation with criminality.  Personally I don't think this study can conclude anything - in which case why did they bother?

As an aside - there is evidence that better looks are correlated with higher IQ.  I know it is with me anyway ;)

The weakest correlation was with rapists - suggesting (to me) that men from all walks of life can be capable of rape, whereas someone who is in a gang, or trailer park, etc, is much more likely to commit and be caught for murder than some white collar dude.

Anyway, here are some of the pics used in the research.  I'll post the answers and link the paper in a few days' time to give you a chance to see how you do!

Who are the criminals? 

Sphex Wasp

Sphex wasps, when they reproduce, paralyse prey and lay their eggs in/on it.  When the eggs hatch the baby wasps have a fresh food source to give them a good start in life.

The mummy wasp digs a hole in the ground (they are commonly known as digger wasps) then goes off and brings back a paralysed grub.  It sets it beside the entrance to the hole and goes into the nest.  It is possible that another wasp has commandeered the hole.  After a quick look around it comes back out and grabs the grub, drags it into the hole, lays its eggs, and leaves (covering the hole entrance).

This seems like reasonable and intelligently foreplanned behaviour.

If, when the wasp goes into the hole, you move the paralysed grub by an inch or two, it comes out, re-locates the grub, moves it back to beside the hole entrance, and then goes back inside the hole.  It looks around then comes out again.  If you have again moved the grub, and continue to do so, the wasp will be caught in an infinite loop of hardwired behaviour.

Are you?

Persuasion

I was tempted to call this post "manipulation"; but these are things that many people do instinctively, or perhaps simply due to subconsciously copying someone. I seem to be more consciously aware of behaviours and I choose the appropriate behaviour for the situation – this means I will use the best behaviour I know to achieve what I want. In which case, is it really fair to say I am manipulative?

I distinctly remember when I was about 14 I read that people with more animated faces were trusted and liked more. This ties in with the theory I've touched on in emotions1 and emotions2 that a show of emotion is trusted for evolved reasons because it is hard to fake – and an animated face is more emotionally expressive. Any time I have come across other actual scientific studies that I can incorporate into my behaviour I have tried to do so – I will choose the appropriate facial animation, vocal inflections, and general body language to appear open. Body language is a big topic and requires practice to be able to [apparently] naturally pace with the person you are talking to in order to create a rapport. There are some general things even beginners should look to do such as leg crossing direction, showing the palms of hands when making a point, and awareness of personal space.

The way we use language is also incredibly powerful, as evidenced most obviously by hypnosis and the sort of persuasion skill shown by Derren Brown.

You don't have to hypnotise someone to get them to do something, and here are some of the ways to change people's behaviour that have been proven to work and I think are most common or easy to incorporate into your everyday life:

1. Double binds – create the illusion of giving someone a choice whereas both options you have given elicit the desired behaviour. For example, a mother may say to her child, "would you like to tidy your room before or after your dinner?"
2. Barnem statements are seemingly specific (personal) but actually apply to nearly everyone, e.g. "you have a creative streak that you aren't always able to indulge in". You can use the same types of statements to create a fast rapport with someone you've just met.
3. As discussed on another blog recently, calling someone by their desired status elicits behaviour to reinforce it. E.g. referring to someone as 'friend/buddy' will enforce their perception of you as a friend. Calling your boss 'boss/chief' will give them a bit of an ego boost and help them to feel like you are a compliant employee even if the evidence suggests otherwise.
4. Providing a reason for a request will vastly increase the compliance rate even if the reason is complete rubbish. For example, when trying to push in at a queue for a photocopier with "Excuse me, could I jump the line?" you will be let in approx 24% of the time. Changing it to "Excuse me, could I jump the line because I need to make copies?" increases this to 93%.  Always add "...because xxx" to every request you make.
5. Don't just request someone do something, get them to declare they will do it.  A restaurant that had a 30% no-show rate for bookings reduced this to 10% by changing from "...let us know if you can't make the booking" to "...you will let us know if you can't make the booking, won't you?" and getting the response "yes".

There are also a few more subtle techniques that aren't purely bodylanguage or verbal. 

One I've been practicing recently was referred to as compensatory ethics by TNP, and is essentially the idea that people have a moral view of themselves that they like to remain balanced. If they do something they aren't particularly proud of then they become much more likely to do a good deed soon after. Looking out for a good time to ask a favour, or creating it by subtly reminding someone of their less than perfect behaviour, will vastly increase your compliance rate.

Asking for a small action that creates the right way of someone viewing themselves will make them then more likely to agree to a much larger request – because they have already thought of themselves as that sort of person. E.g. If you want someone to organise a holiday, then get them to organise a small night out. Soon after suggest to them to organise the holiday – they think of themselves as an organisor and will be much more receptive.

There are many many more little techniques to change people's behaviour/response, but this post is already too long and I don't wanna give away all my secrets! :)

Always be aware of the language and techniques used by other people, religions, and advertisers.  There is always more to learn, and books on body language and neuro-linguistic programming are good places to start.

The Person You Want To Be

If you could be anyone, who would it be?  If you could realise your potential, and be the best you possible, what do you envisage that looking like?

As I have a lot of self control, I've been able to live my life (the vast majority of time anyway) behaving how I would behave if I were a good person.  There is some satisfaction gained doing that due to it feeding my narcissist side: I can tell myself that I have more self control than other people, and because I choose to behave well when it is not natural for me to do so, I can not only feel noble, but also feel I actually have free-will instead of giving into instincts all the time and am therefore more worthy of life than others.

This has gone on for so long that it has become ingrained in me; it is a social conditioning of behaviour, and it is disconcertingly close to the religious brainwashing that I find so distasteful in other people.  I now find myself in a life that just reeks of dissonance because I will never want to act that way, only want to want to.

Of course I've always had an outlet or two.  I've always kept the physical manifestations of my private thoughts just that - private.  The internet (this blog, and other blogs/forums) has allowed me to be honest with people in a way I never have been before, and that in itself has led to further personal insights and the acceptance that some things about me will never change.  I have also realised that I need to shift the balance in my life more towards what the real me wants, rather than what the person I thought I wanted to be would want.

It isn't that the pull of the dark side is too great, it is simple acceptance that it is and always will be a part of me.

Risk

Primates other than humans have been studied when there is voluntary alcohol consumption, and the proportions of non-human primates that:

1. develop alcoholism

2. get drunk occasionally but are generally sensible

3. always drink in moderation

4. choose to be teetotal

have been found to be approximately the same proportions that are observed in humans.

Much of our predisposition towards level of personal control, and risk taking, seems to be genetic.  Upbringing may play a part, but it would seem to be a function of brain structure.  In life there is usually a trade-off between risk and potential reward; it makes sense for some members of a population to be more adventurous, and for some to be more risk-averse.

I'd like to share with you two things relating to risk that I find interesting:

1.  Drivers tend to drive to a level of risk that [at least partially] compensates for any safety measure.  For example, if you wear a seatbelt you drive slightly more recklessly and therefore you are more likely to kill someone else (protection afforded to you still far outweighs the extra risk to others - it is mainly pedestrians and cyclists that bear the brunt of the extra risk).

This thinking is obvious if taken to extremes – imagine if there were no seatbelts and a big spike in the middle of the steering wheel... there would be a lot of very careful drivers out there!

2.  The parasitic protozoa toxoplasma gondii's primary life cycle involves passing through a rat/mouse and a cat. Experiments have shown conclusively that this infection causes a rat to become less risk averse.  It becomes much more likely to forage out in the open rather than skulking in the shadows, and therefore more likely to be caught by a cat and continue TG's life cycle.  It may come as little surprise to some readers that toxoplasma gondii sets up residence in the amygdala.  Although rats and cats are the primary life cycle hosts for TG, human infection in USA is estimated at 22.5% (much higher for cat owners!) and worldwide it is estimated at 25 - 75 % (those are some big error bars, eh?).  Infection normally poses no obvious effects, very few people are struck with acute toxoplasmosis, but studies have shown effects on human risk taking and personality.  People infected are more likely to be involved in traffic accidents, and less likely to accept group moral standards. 

So perhaps the local crazy cat-lady has good reason...

Continuity of Self

What constitutes you.  Every day some of your cells die and others are created to replace them, some memories are lost (perhaps only temporarily) and new memories are formed, and over time our neuroplasticity shapes the very physiology of our brains.  Where is the you that you identify as a constant through all this change?

When I wake up I often have a few seconds of coherent intelligent thought before I remember what my life is like, where, and who I am.  During these few seconds I sometimes wonder about whether I am young or old, rich or poor, and I can revel in the simple state of being where I am unaware of pretty much everything.  A state where all my thoughts are occurring for the first time, devoid of context.  

A similar situation is invoked as  a plot device in Dark City, which is a shit film (much worse than its IMDB rating suggests)  but it does leave a lasting impression.  Each night, the memories and lives of all the inhabitants are swapped around and they all live the next day with a new husband/wife, a new job, new hobbies etc. and they are unaware of their previous/original lives.

The classic example of a thought experiment about continuity of self involves a star-trek transporter.  This device maps out all the atoms in your body and then simultaneously destroys the original and creates a duplicate elsewhere.  Is the transported you you?  What if the original weren't destroyed - which one would be you, or would both be?

The most common real life application of this concept is in drugs, especially ones that change personality.  If I took a pill that gave me empathy and turned me into a sensitive metrosexual man then I would not be me.  Whoever that person was may fit in better with society, and they may be happier than I am, but they would not be me.

I think we are more accepting of gradual changes in our self - if we go to therapy or just decide to work on an aspect of ourselves then we are changing our thought patterns; that can lead, slowly, to physical changes in the brain.  If it happens overnight then we are much more wary of it, but where is the logical difference?

You may find this interesting.

New hobby

I need a new hobby.  Assuming no-one joins my proposed religion, I'll need an outlet for my... more... rule breaking side.  Even though by anyone else's standards my life is exciting, and filled with things to do, I often feel that it is the same shit different day.
I think my new hobby will be stealing stuff from churches.  They are rich and full of woo and the good folk that go to the church will see My act as being part of god's plan - perhaps god will make me do it to test their faith or for some otherwise obscure ineffable purpose.  It really makes me laugh that anything I do to their church will turn out to be an ontological triumph for their faith.  It cracks me up that the religious tell you that you must know god and in the next breath tell you he moves in mysterious unknowable ways.  If everything in the world that can possibly happen can be explained as falling within his will, then you do not know him and have no business worshiping him.

I will certainly be on the lookout for opportunity to sabotage any bells they ring to cut my sleep short on a Sunday morning.  Inconsiderate fuckers.  Maybe I should blow my atheist vuvuzela every 3am outside the bishop's bedroom window. 

Scientosophy - A New Religion

What was there before the big bang? God? Then what came before God? This is a major problem for the world's religions and one only my proposed religion - Scientosophy - has the answers to. 

The abiding state of truth in the universe is one of consistency. It is not possible for two statements to contradict each other and for them both to be true. Every explanation for the origin of the universe is either contradictory or incomplete (i.e. you can always ask "and what caused that?"). If an explanation is happened upon that is patently complete and consistent, then surely that must be the truth - Scientosophy.

The basic premise is that in the future, human knowledge and technical know-how evolves to the point where we are able to formulate a way to create a big-bang, a universe. We would be able to position the start point of this universe anywhere within our own space and time. As it was created inside our universe, all the same dimensions and laws of physics would hold in it as do in ours. The key understanding now is that this new big bang gets positioned at the same point as our big bang! It isn't a second universe, it IS our universe. This creates a closed loop in time, thus avoiding any causality problems. We have become our own creators.

A good religion also needs a purpose, and by golly does this one have a purpose. To ensure humans reach the stage of intelligence to pull this feat off we need to encourage selective breeding - smart people should have more kids,and stupid people should have fewer. As the uberintelligent head of the religion I would, of course, have mating privileges with any of the Scientosophy women I choose, and any of them can choose to have AI from my seed. 

The reason it is important to reach the universe creation point as soon as possible, and not just hang around happy that it will happen some time, is due to the question of free will and determinism. Before we create our universe we are stuck in a time loop and so can't be sure of our free will. The sooner we can precipitate the loop point, the sooner we free the whole of humanity (and any aliens out there) from the slavery of determinism and allow us to be truly conscious - individual pioneers in the brave new world.

Of course, some of the Scientosophy rituals involve hallucinogenic drugs; I wouldn't want anyone thinking too clearly about how likely these religious tenets are, even if they are eminently more plausible than those of any religion I can think of!