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

Post a Comment

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more