psychology – Nick Grant

Tag: psychology

  • Autopilot

    This is a story about muscle memory…

    Wing

    Anybody who says that muscles have memory is an idiot. Let’s just get that out of the way, straight away. Muscles are controlled by the nervous system, but they are not part of the nervous system. It’s true that some of our reflexes can happen without direct control from our brain, but the reflexive action is due to motor neurons not muscles. Of course, it is the muscles which contract, pulling on the tendons, which ultimately creates the movement, but the muscles themselves do not have any ‘memory’… they are not part of the nervous system, as I already explained.

    This essay is about the strange sensation of ‘running on autopilot’, which is to say, the performing of a complex sequence of actions, without conscious thought process; without ‘thinking’ or ‘controlling’ what’s happening, in a conscious way which makes us think that what we are doing is due to premeditated, pre-planned and voluntary action.

    If I was, for example, playing a game of tennis, when my opponent served the ball to me, I’d like to think that I analyse the flight path of the ball, predict where it is going to land, calculate where I need to stand, decide to swing my racket at the appropriate moment, and guide my racket head precisely to intersect with the path of the ball, such that I strike it not too hard and not too soft, so that it clears the net and remains in the court.

    Nope.

    I mean, sure, a total beginner might try to do that, but everything happens way too fast. In fact, once you reach professional tennis – which I never will… I’m pretty bad tennis player – then the ball is travelling so fast that there is not enough time for the images coming from your eyes, to reach the part of the brain which would do the ‘conscious thinking’ and ‘decision making’ and then get the instructions to the motor cortex, to send the signals to your arm to move the racket, in order to return the serve. There. Is. Not. Enough. Time.

    So, what’s happening then?

    Well, the more tennis serves you return, the more ‘hard wired’ the reflexes become. A smaller number of cues provide a greater, and more importantly earlier, response than a person who’s never picked up a tennis racquet before. In fact, the ability of the human brain to respond to the subtle cues can become so fine-tuned, that a professional tennis player will lunge left or right at more or less the same time as the opponent’s racquet strikes the ball… which surely means it’s impossible for the receiving player to be reacting… doesn’t it? Yes.

    Yes… what you think very often is you exercising your free will – making choices and deciding to do stuff – is totally an illusion. If somebody throws a ball at your head, you’ll probably catch it before your ‘conscious decision-making’ brain has had a chance to catch up. You’ll find yourself holding the ball in the hand you caught it in, but you’ll still be wondering where it came from… and you definitely won’t remember making the decision to catch it, because there wasn’t enough time to follow the longer thought process: “I see a ball travelling towards me, I think it’s going to hit me, I should catch it, okay I’m going to move my hand so it’s in the right position to catch it, okay it’s in my hand now, I should close my fingers to catch the ball”… nope… doesn’t work like that.

    So, that’s the simple sports example out of the way. What about more complicated stuff?

    Do you drive a car? Do you drive ‘manual’ (also known as ‘stick shift’ in North America)? If you think about the process of driving a car, there’s a lot of multitasking. In the UK, where manual transmission is the norm, we are controlling the clutch, gearstick, accelerator, brake, steering wheel, indicators, horn, and sometimes lights at night and/or windscreen wipers in rain or snow. In addition, we are often fiddling with the temperature, de-misting controls and in-car entertainment. Finally, we are usually having a conversation with our passengers, while also looking at the vehicles around us in 360 degrees, using our mirrors, glancing at our children buckled up in the back seat, eating, drinking and maybe making phone-calls and/or operating the GPS. Do you think all of that happens with a lot of conscious thought? Nope. It’s mostly the opposite: you’re on autopilot.

    Do you ever get somewhere, where you regularly go, and you can’t remember a single thing about the journey? Autopilot. I don’t mean that you own an expensive self-driving car. I mean autopilot in the colloquial sense, meaning that your brain just magically did all the thousands of thoughts and actions for you, without you having to think: you had plenty of time to think about other stuff even though you were hurtling down the road many times faster than you’d have been if you were riding a horse or running.

    Where does autopilot end? What is the limit of autopilot?

    My personal opinion is that it’s virtually unlimited. Chess grandmasters can win games without having to think at all: they can play entirely in autopilot mode, and beat almost any opponent.

    We love to think of ourselves as thinking creatures – homo sapiens, the so-called ‘wise’ man – but the bulk of everything we do, day in, day out, is just a circus trick which we have learned by repetition. We do very little thinking at all. Even the most incredibly complicated looking activities, like playing chess, have been proven to be nothing more than pattern recognition and autopilot responses, which have been learned over the course of thousands and thousands of games; indistinguishable from a chimp that’s learned to press a button to get a piece of fruit as a reward.

     

    Tags:

  • Superiority Complex

    This is a story about delusions of grandeur…

    Thought bubble

    The problem with slinging pseudoscientific mud, is that sooner or later you’re going to come up against somebody who knows what they’re talking about; they’re able to rigorously follow the scientific method, and they can see right through the dumbed-down pathetic attempts to create popular ideas, which prey upon our preconceived notions, our biases, our vanity and our insecurities.

    If we look at applications for university places, there are vast numbers who want to study arts and humanities subjects. Then, the social ‘sciences’ are the next most popular. Bottom of the pile, in terms of popularity, are the difficult, dry, technical subjects: mathematics, engineering, chemistry, physics, computing. You cannot ‘blag’ that you know what you’re talking about in a technical subject: there are right answers and wrong answers, and no amount of blagging will convince anybody that you’re right, when you’re wrong, and you’re provably wrong.

    The social ‘sciences’ – anthropology, sociology, psychology etc – are not sciences. Science follows a strict prescriptive methodology, and anything which doesn’t adhere is not science. The social ‘sciences’ produce nothing but worthless crap, because it’s not science – the results of experiments cannot be reproduced. Any experiment which doesn’t have reproducible results, is a non-experiment; a waste of time; absolutely useless.

    In an attempt to appear like real medical science, psychiatry has attempted to apply statistical methods, to make the diagnosis of pathologies of the mind, into a supposedly objective exercise. In theory, the patient’s symptoms are all that are needed in order to make an accurate diagnosis, via the power of statistics – so, in theory, there’s no need for psychiatrists any more. We should, in theory, be able to diagnose ourselves and then simply obtain the required medication from a pharmacist: no doctors required.

    No. No. No. The psychiatrists say.

    You need us to interpret these hard statistics, and add our own opinions. Say the psychiatrists.

    So, what happened to this being a scientific process, driven by data and statistics?

    The truth is that everyone will use their knowledge and position of authority in order to pursue their power games. Psychiatrists will never use a scientific statistical method, because then they become redundant.

    Unfortunately, psychologists have latched onto psychiatry’s attempt to become more scientific, and lend some credibility to their profession. Psychologists are probably more obsessed with statistical methods for ‘diagnosis’ than psychiatrists are. Psychologists, who, let us remember, were not clever enough to become doctors, engineers, mathematicians etc, opted for a profession where there are no right or wrong answers; anything you say is equally dumb and meaningless. Of course, psychologists would want to pretend like there was any kind of rigour, any kind of methodology, data or statistics, behind their work.

    There isn’t.

    The problem with psychologists latching onto the work of psychiatry, is that they try to import theories and apply them. Psychologists – especially amateur wannabe psychologists of the armchair variety – love to throw around labels like “psychopath”, “sociopath”, “narcissist” etc. when in fact, those labels were only intended to ever apply to the tiniest fraction of humanity. How can it be meaningful to call every man you’ve ever met a “pathological narcissist”? How have rare medical conditions gone beyond that of an epidemic, to now become things which affect the vast majority of humanity?

    It hasn’t happened.

    Only a tiny fraction of the human race suffer from pathologies such as narcissism and sociopathy.

    You can’t just label people you don’t like with psychiatric pathologies.

    It’s dumb.

    Amateur psychologists are dumb.

    Psychiatric language is ubiquitous in our culture. We use terms like “crazy”, “mad”, “loony”, “loopy”, “wacky” and every other flavour of term for ‘insanity’ to mean everything on the spectrum, from upset and angry, to schizophrenic psychosis. We call ourselves “OCD” when we just mean neat, tidy and clean. We call ourselves “bipolar” when we just mean moody. Meanwhile, depression and anxiety are so common, and so many of us are medicated, that we hardly even bother to talk about the fact we’ve been diagnosed with those illnesses anymore – we make memes about killing ourselves; we make memes about how dysfunctional we are.

    To talk about a ‘superiority complex’ in the present day, is like giving out speeding tickets to the competitors at the Silverstone Formula One grand prix race. To talk about ‘narcissism’ is something that you really should do on your YouTube channel, or on your Instagram Story, or on your Facebook page, or one of your TikTok videos. Utterly nonsensical. Unhinged. Mad.

    Yes, there are people who are so affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect that they are unable to comprehend the limitations of their abilities: they will never be a mathematician, engineer, chemist, physicist, software engineer or suchlike; they’re not clever enough. Those over-confident people’s ignorance is not as good as my knowledge. We are, unfortunately, living in an age where vast numbers of people think that their ‘life experiences’ and ‘gut feel’ qualifies them to opine on subjects, which they are utterly, dismally ignorant about, exposing their appalling stupidity, much to the chagrin of anybody with half a brain.

    So, anyway, I’m sick of pop-psych ‘magazines’ (especially online) publishing articles about narcissists with superiority complexes. They don’t exist… you’re just pedalling word-salad, put into the mouths of your readers. Your readers will use that word-salad to attack people they don’t like.

     

    Tags: