How your ego filters information

Every since I discovered Farnam Street (their blog slogan is a nudge too), I am hooked to it. Another interesting post, this time how the cognitive biases are used to feed the EGO:

"The most striking features of the ego are three cognitive biases, which correspond disturbingly to thought control and propaganda devices that are to be defining characteristics of a totalitarian political system. The three biases are: egocentricity (self perceived as more central to events than it is), "beneffectance" (self perceived as selectively responsible for desired, but not undesired, outcomes), and conservatism (resistance to cognitive change).

Egocentricity: Ego as Self-Focused Historian

The past is remembered as if it were a drama in which self was the leading player...
"individuals accepted more responsibility for a group product than other participants attributed to them"...

Beneflectance: Ego as Self-Aggrandizing Historian

One of the best established recent findings in social psychology is that people perceive themselves readily as the origin of good effects and reluctantly as the origin of ill effects....When a task is performed collectively by members of a group, individual-ability feedback may not be available. This provides free reign for people to believe that they have contributed more than their equal share toward a group success but less than an equal share toward a failure.

Cognitive Conservatism: Ego as Self-Justifying Historian

Conservatism is the disposition to preserve that which is already established. Cognitive conservatism is therefore the disposition to preserve existing knowledge structures, such as percepts, schemata (categories), and memories (see how our brains filter information). Confirmation bias in memory search. In a study parallel to their 1973 study, Mischel, Ebbesen, and Zeiss (1976) showed that subjects selectively re- called information that confirmed experimentally established positive or negative self-expectations. Snyder and Uranowitz (1978) found a similar memory selectivity in their subjects' retrieving information about a target person so as to confirm a recently established belief about that person's sexual orientation (heterosexual vs. homosexual)."

Left brain has a bigger ego than right brain!!

Although both sides are crucial for sanity, right brain is considered emotional and creative while left is more for analytical and logical process. Apt to this dichotomy, new research suggest left brain has more ego than right!!

"Psychologists have used an inventive combination of techniques to show that the left half of the brain has more self-esteem than the right half. The finding is consistent with earlier research showing that the left hemisphere is associated more with positive, approach-related emotions, whereas the right hemisphere is associated more with negative emotions.

Ryan McKay and colleagues used a version of the self-esteem 'implicit association test' (IAT). This compares how readily participants associate themselves or other people with positive words like 'capable' and negative words like 'boring'. Forty-six participants used keyboard keys to categorise words as self-related (e.g. 'me', 'myself'), other-related ('they', 'themselves'), positive or negative. To take one example, people with high self-esteem should be relatively quicker when the same response key is used to categorise self-words and positive words, than when the same key is used to categorise other-related and positive words.

A key twist to this study is that McKay's team used an auditory version of the IAT - the first time this has ever been done. Specifically, they used so-called 'dichotic presentation' such that when a word was presented via headphones to one ear, the same word was played backwards to the other ear. This has the effect of ensuring that the word is only processed by the hemisphere opposite the presenting ear, thus allowing the participants to perform the IAT test with just one hemisphere at a time.

As you'd expect, a participant's self-esteem as measured via one hemisphere tended to correlate with their self-esteem as measured via the other hemisphere. More intriguingly, however, a consistent finding was that participants clocked up higher self-esteem scores when hearing words via their right ear (processed by the left hemisphere) compared with via their left ear (processed by the right hemisphere)."

I guess, compromises will have a better leverage if we sat on the left side to an egoist and of-course brown nosing will be much more effective from the right side. Hmm these pleasures of neuroscience ... 

What I've been reading

Nurture Shock : New Thinking About Children by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman. I don't have kids, so why did I read this book? Because I was a kid once and everyone I know was a kid once and lot of who we are and who we become depends on how we were nurtured.

It's fantastic book, with neuroscience sprinkled all over the place. Each chapter has a Gladwellian take on the issues we assume we know and so adamantly think its self evidence. If we are open to new ideas and consciously know the limits of our "self evidence" then we should read this book. It's a must read for every parent.


   

Appetite for Destruction

This is heartbreaking (interview here). We don't have a clue on what our appetite for plastics are doing to the world's bio-diversity. It's only a matter of time before it hits us, humans too.

Oxytocin vs Autism

Tyler Cowen wrote a phenomenal misnomer-ed book called "Create Your Own Economy", describing the benefits of autistic thinking. This is a phenomenal study (thanks) on the effects of Oxytocin on autism but in the process abating the innate altruism of autistic patients (and in the process subsiding the autistic benefits chronicled in Cowen's book). It's sad when an innate trait like altruism is considered anti-social skill just because it does fit into the "norms" of society.

"Sirigu's team asked 13 adults with Asperger's Syndrome--a form of high-functioning autism--to play a computer game of toss. On the "field" were four boxes, indicating three players and the participant. To throw the ball to another player, the participant touched a given box. The computerized players were sometimes friendly, meaning they threw the ball to other players, and sometimes bullies, meaning that they kept the ball to themselves. The volunteers received either a placebo or a nasal spray of oxytocin on one day and then swapped formulations a week later. That way, the researchers could observe how the same individual performed with and without the hormone boost.
The oxytocin made a difference. Without the hormone boost, volunteers tended to play equally with the good guy and the bully, indicating their difficulty in grasping important social concepts like fairness and empathy. With the hormone, they tended to avoid playing with the bully.

In a second experiment, the researchers asked the volunteers to look at a series of faces on a computer monitor. Like many with autism, the subjects tended to fixate on the chin and mouth and rapidly shifted their gaze, indicating agitation. But when given oxytocin, they began looking at the person's eyes, a sign of social ease, the team reports online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Anagnostou agrees that autism patients who take oxytocin and then play the game appear to be learning how to interact with people. "There is, in fact, some form of social learning that is happening," she says. But because this study only looked at the effect of oxytocin after a single dose, she adds, it's not clear if hormone boosters will continue working for the long term.
In terms of therapeutic applications, Sirigu says that studies have shown that addressing autism early can sometimes help curb the condition. So administering a hormone like oxytocin during childhood may be a powerful weapon in fighting autism, she says.
Anagnostou and her colleagues are currently administering oxytocin to Asperger's patients every day for 6 weeks. But even if her study yields similar results, she says, it will still take years for researchers and doctors to figure out potential side effects and proper dosage levels for the hormone."

This seems like a paradox of Oxytocin, it can enhance trust when there is lack of it while it obliterates trust when there is excess of it. The goody-goody hormone has lots more to it than the goody-goodyness.

Anti Behavioral Economics Kickoff

The beauty of democracy and freedom et al has always been the ability for anyone voice their own opinion against pretty much anything (sane) and in the process proclaiming their intellect or becoming a pseudo intellectual. I was glad to find concerns and voices against behavioral economics even though its still in its nascency. But once I started watching the debate, it became clear they not only understood the concept of behavioral economics but they seemed more than content with the current situation and they offer nothing new. They want to thrive in the dopamine driven perceptual debates with no middle ground leave alone finding a solution.



Nudge is not an ideology, its an idea. People who are pickled in ideology are unable to grasp this concept. I wrote earlier - "it's probably the only field which gets a free ticket to call us, the people "idiots" while making us feel like Einstein's."On surface it seems like people are pissed because it toys with their ego's but I don't think that's the issue here. The issue is Cass Sunstein is Obama's white house regulatory czar and for cognitive fluency people correspond that to an ideology. In other words, sadly people have started equating behavioral economics as a liberal agenda. If these people cannot handle behavioral economics, I cannot even begin to envisage their reactions when neuroscience envelops our lives (neuroscientists pledge here). They need to come out the vintage bubble, start educating themselves in neuroscience and open to new ideas. Thats only way to keep the neuroscientists from swaying away from the pledge.

"Pledge by Neuroscientists to Refuse to Participate in the Application of Neuroscience to Violations of Basic Human Rights or International Law.
We are Neuroscientists who desire that our work be used to enhance human life rather than to diminish it. We are concerned with the possible use of Neuroscience for purposes that violate fundamental human rights and international law. We seek to create a culture within the field of Neuroscience in which contributions to such uses are unacceptable.
Thus, we oppose the application of Neuroscience to torture and other forms of coercive interrogation or manipulation that violate human rights and personhood. Such applications could include drugs that cause excessive pain, anxiety, or trust, and manipulations such as brain stimulation or inactivation.
Thus, we also oppose the application of Neuroscience to aggressive war. Aggressive war is illegal under international law, where it is defined as a war that is not in self defense. A government which engages in aggressive wars should not be provided with tools to engage more effectively in such wars. Neuroscience can and does provide such tools. Examples include drugs which enhance the effectiveness of soldiers on one side, drugs which damage the effectiveness of soldiers on the other side, and robots that move, perceive, and kill.
As Neuroscientists we therefore pledge:
a) To make ourselves aware of the potential applications of our own work and that of others to applications that violate basic human rights or international law such as torture and aggressive war.
b) To refuse to knowingly participate in the application of Neuroscience to violations of basic human rights or international law."

Becoming a Gandhian in recession

Recession provides ample time to self-reflect. Great column hoping we use this time for our and social betterment and skip using it to fuel our anger. Let's embrace Gandhian philosophy and try to weed out these seven social sins we all commit unconsciously.

• Commerce without morality
• Politics without principle
• Wealth without work
• Pleasure without conscience
• Education without character
• Science without humanity
• Worship without sacrifice

"When did we allow commerce to be defined primarily by debt-driven consumer spending, creating profits channeled only toward those already at the top of the heap? These are the questions evangelical author Jim Wallis asks in his new book, Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street and Your Street. Unlike the rest of us, Wallis is not asking when the recession will end. He wants to know instead how it will end. Or how it will change us, if at all."

Hachiko: A Dog's Story

I never knew Hollywood made a movie based on Hachiko starring Richard Gere. While watching it , no need to ask, my mirror neurons and flood of oxytocin amalgamated to bring about an odd sense of melancholy. 

After Max came into my life I developed this attitude of rationing my time to everyone, Max being the exception. I have never spent so much time with anyone else like I do with him. Yes, all this to compensate that anthropomorphic time disparity. I have no intention of missing any part of the parity window that has changed my life. Although I shower Max with all the time I can squeeze in a day, somethings in life are beyond control, like say me kicking the bucket. I never feared that, in-fact the curiosity of what's beyond further suppressed any residual fears. Of-course now that Max killed that warrior in me and the very thought of leaving him alone gives me nightmares.

For over 3 years he has been with me, day and night and spoilt and the magical world around him will not be magical without me. May be things might be even better for him without me or he might even forgot me. But once I start hypothesizing, I can rationalize everything under the sun and since last year I have been flirting with categorical imperative, I have been keeping my hypothesizing sessions at bay. Bottom line, since he became my raison d'etre, thanks to him intuitively I have been taking care of myself except this major cognitive dissonance.

“If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.” - Will Rogers

More on Cognitive Dissonance

Fantastic study on well... what drives me nuts:

"People who hold strong opinions on complex social issues are likely to examine relevant empirical evidence in a biased manner. They are apt to accept "con- firming" evidence at face value while subjecting "disconfirming" evidence to critical evaluation, and as a result to draw undue support for their initial positions from mixed or random empirical findings. Thus, the result of exposing contending factions in a social dispute to an identical body of relevant empirical evidence may be not a narrowing of disagreement but rather an in- crease in polarization. To test these assumptions and predictions, subjects supporting and opposing capital punishment were exposed to two purported studies, one seemingly confirming and one seemingly disconfirming their existing beliefs about the deterrent efficacy of the death penalty. As predicted, both proponents and opponents of capital punishment rated those results and procedures that confirmed their own beliefs to be the more convincing and probative ones, and they reported corresponding shifts in their beliefs as the various results and procedures were presented. The net effect of such evaluations and opinion shifts was the postulated increase in attitude polarization."

What I've been reading

Animal Spirits : How Human Psychology Drives The Economy And Why It Matters For Global Capitalism by George A. Akerlof and Robert J. Shiller. I am not sure how many more books we need on the lines of Black Swan for people to understand what's at stake. We are not rational beings, period. The food we eat, smoking, credit cards, mortgage, friends, colleagues, parents, neighbors and the man in the mirror - none of  them are rational. It's just quixotic to expect the "invisible hand" to be operated by transcendental rational creatures. Everyday neuroscience is exposing our irrationality and behavioral economics is a pioneer to decimate the "beautiful" mathematical models albeit with limited success so far.

The first part of the book exposes what the economists ease out of their models, the irrational animals spirits (not in context of looking down on animals) driven by five main factors - Confidence, Fairness, Corruption, Money Illusion and Stories. Although this book is primarily a Keynesian vs Friedman economics argument, it has lot more to offer in terms of human psychology which cannot be quantified by any models.

Here's Paul Samuelson's remark's on Milton Friedman  -  "Friedman is like the little boy who knew how to spell banana but did not know when to stop."
That's probably the issue with anyone who reads Hayek, Friedman et al they get polarized and stop reading or listening to everything else. They need to grow up. I can relate to this because I have been there and done that. But at the same time I have lived in pre-economic boom India for 16 years and I know what it looks like without capitalism.You cannot start to understand how government can corrupt the whole society without living in it and liberals need to learn (if possible live) that too. We need to find a middle ground without polarization.
Second part of the book gives some basic (non statistical for ease of understanding) answers to eight questions which some of us long to know the answers. 


1. Why do economies fall into depression?
2. Why do central bankers have power over the economy? 
3. Why are there people who cannot find jobs?
4. Why is there a trade off between inflation and unemployment in long run?
5. Why is savings for future so arbitrary?
6. Why are financial prices and corporate investments so volatile?
7. Why do real estate markets go through cycles. 
8. Why is there special poverty among minorities?


Reading answers to some of these questions, I felt naked being exposed of my past irrationalities. This is book is not an economic panacea but an urgent call that needs to heeded before the next irrational exuberance (everyone uses that Alan Greenspan's phrase, why can't I?). Sometimes it makes me wonder, how will I be reacting to the next bubble? Will it be obvious for me to see it? Or I am going to be just perpetually paranoid? How much of my irrationality can I control or is under my conscious control? I am looking forward to get some answers in future.

Here's an interview with one of the authors, Robert J. Shiller: