Skip to main content

If you think the self comes from memories and that cognitive biases affect memories, then what does that say about the objectivity of the self? Do...

The self might be the product of cognitive biases and subjective, erroneous memories. Nonetheless, we are more than emotional and subjective. We also have the capacity for a limited degree of rationality and objectivity.


Research by Daniel Kahneman and other psychologists has shown that much of our thinking is automatic and intuitive. We don't consciously deliberate, analyze, and calculate answers. Instead, unconscious processes do the work for us by noticing trends and making use of quick-and-dirty "rules of thumb." Feelings and associations simply pop into our minds.


This helps explain why people are prone to making errors based on cognitive biases. The intuitive system (which Kahnmen calls "System 1") makes us jump to conclusions. Sometimes it even makes us blind to evidence that would refute our perceptions and beliefs.


This also suggests that our personal memories -- what we believe has happened to us and what we believe about our past behavior -- are based on faulty, biased, and subjective information. 


Work by Elizabeth Loftus and her colleagues has confirmed that our episodic memories are sometimes highly unreliable. Moreover, in recent years, research has indicated that we "overwrite" our old, episodic memories every time we replay them. The original memory gets replaced by the story we retell, allowing for errors and embellishments to creep in. In compelling experiments, Loftus has even shown that we easily can "implant" false childhood memories in others, simply by telling them that the event occurred. Presumably, many of us acquire such false memories as we go through life by inadvertently internalizing stories we've heard or associating other people's experiences with our own.


If you consider the combined shortcomings of our episodic memories and System 1, it's hard to argue that the self is either very objective or highly rational.


We're also capable of turning our conscious spotlight on problems and trying to reason about them in very deliberate, rational ways. Kahneman calls this slower, more self-conscious set of processes "System 2," and these are the processes that some people use to craft logical arguments, question intuitions, test assumptions, and weigh evidence. People can learn about logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and the unreliable nature of our episodic memories. They can't eliminate the effects these have on the self, but they can remind themselves to check their feelings and consider other points of view. This permits us to correct for some of our subjectivity and think rationally at least some of the time.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.