[extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode [was Failure of low-fat diet]

[Keith Henson]

At 11:14 AM 2/22/2006 -0800, Hal wrote:

snip--good stuff

>These MRI studies are a great new window into how people think.  I'm sure
>we will see much more research along these lines, as the machines are
>becoming widely available.  Taking that earlier study I mentioned and
>repeating it under an MRI machine would be an interesting test.
>
>Keith goes on:
> > Now to raise this to a meta level, why do people get stuck on preconceived
> > expectations?
>
>That's a much harder problem.  Just to take illustrate the difficulty,
>I think the first thing you need to decide in looking for an explanation
>is whether this behavior is a good idea or not.  The class of explanations
>you will explore will depend fundamentally on whether you see this as a
>reasonable heuristic for a rational observer with potentially stringent
>bounds on his available computational capacity; or whether you see it
>as irrational behavior in terms of getting at the truth, but justified
>in terms of other benefits, such as social advantages.
>
>I couldn't even answer this basic question, whether this behavior makes
>sense in terms of getting at the truth of things.  I can see arguments
>either way on that one.  So I won't even stick a toe in the water of
>possible explanations.

In the last year or two I have been subjected to a dawning horror that 
genes have not only built mechanisms into humans to allow them to think 
rationally, but mechanisms to shut off rational thinking when doing so is 
in the interest of the gene.

I have gone into some detail about that in both recent postings and that 
paper of mine that is still looking to be published.

On reconsideration though I should not have been surprised when you 
consider how common irrational behavior is.

I about half way suspect that non-rational behaviors may all have roots in 
the same evolved brain mechanism.  By way of analogy, humans have a 
capture-bonding mechanisms because of heavy selection.  (If you didn't bond 
when captured, you usually died--while those who did bond to captors often 
became ancestors, *our* ancestors.)

Once you understand humans have the capture-bonding mechanism lurking in 
their bag of psychological traits (and that it is isn't *that* hard to 
activate) all kinds of things can be understood.  For example, basic 
training, "a mildly traumatic experience intended to produce a bond," 
hazing, battered wife syndrome, and the "reward mechanisms" that lie behind 
kinky sex practices such as S&M and B&D and probably others.

I think I can account for non-rational thinking/behavior for humans in "war 
mode."  You must use invoke Hamilton's inclusive fitness to understand that 
at times the "interest" of a person's genes diverge from *his* 
interest.  I.e., genes should build mechanisms into brains where a person 
will sacrifice themselves if doing so will save more gene copies than are 
lost by the person making the sacrifice.

(More long winded version, genes to take insane risks to save groups of 
relatives will become more common over time than ones to save one's own 
skin in an environment where such choices as above happened "frequently".)

I think a darn good case can be made that humans who go into "war mode" are 
in a non-rational state.

Now, like capture-bonding, "war mode" may be easy to trigger at a 
"sub-clinical" level, particularly for politics (war by other means) and 
religions (seed xenophobic memes--useful to take a tribe into full blown 
war against the next tribe over when hard times are a-coming).

How this feeds into defense mechanisms for beliefs (such as in low fat 
diets) may take fMRI.

And I willingly state that the underlying psychological mechanisms could be 
unrelated.

Comments would be appreciated.

Keith Henson