2 x the difference between humans and chimpanzees

Neil deGrasse Tyson points out that the human genome overlaps 99% with the genome of chimpanzees. We're only 1% different, but consider how much we can do that chimps cannot do. Consider de Grasse Tyson's suggestion: Cognitive Scientist Andy Clark has also recognized the biological similarity between chimpanzees and humans, and asked how we accomplish so much more with such a meager difference. He suggests that our trick is that we have become proficient at off-loading and making use of information out into the environment. He argues that "self" extends beyond skin and skull.

[W]e create and maintain a variety of special external structures (symbolic and social-institutional). These external structures function so as to complement our individual cognitive profiles and to diffuse human reason across wider and wider social and physical networks whose collective computations exhibit their own special dynamics and properties.

Continue Reading2 x the difference between humans and chimpanzees

On thinking carelessly about happiness

I recently watched Daniel Kahneman's TED lecture a second time (here's my first comment), because it relates to some of the material in Kahneman's excellent new book, Thinking, Fast and Slow. Kahneman dissects the term "happiness," explaining that it is so fraught with ambiguities that we should probably dispense with this word. Complicating things, we confuse experience (being happy in your life) and memory (being happy about or with your life). Making things even worse, we suffer from the "focusing illusion." Namely, we can't think about any circumstance that affects well being without distorting its importance. Kahneman describes the "focusing illusion" as a "real cognitive trap" that we have no hope of getting right. The remembering self depends on stories that we construct, and what is especially salient about our stories are the changes, significant moments and endings. Whereas the "experiencing self" lives a life of a series of moments, most of these moments are lost forever--they are not remembered. Each "psychological present moment" is about 3 seconds long, meaning that there are 600 million of them in a lifetime (600,000 in each month). Most of them don't leave a trace in our memory. We forget almost all of them no matter how much we try to remember them and no matter how much we think that they should all "count." Because the "remembering self" has no access to most of the moments of our lives, it substantially relies on the stories we construct about our lives. It turns out that these are two extremely different selves that bear heavily on how "happy" we are.

Continue ReadingOn thinking carelessly about happiness

Haven’t you ever read . . . ?

I am often asked whether I've read a particular book, and I usually haven't because there are a gazillion new books published every year. Here's what I say: "No, I haven't read THAT book. Thank you for your suggestion." Here's what I think: Please quit acting as though I haven't been doing any serious reading just because I haven't read the book that YOU just told me to read. For the past 20 years, I have been on a quest to grasp a somewhat detailed understanding of human animals. This has been a rather intense pursuit, jump-started (for about 5 years beginning in 2006) by my auditing of more than 30 hours of graduate level cognitive science courses at nearby Washington University in St. Louis. During the past 20 years, I have read almost entirely non-fiction, and I've been rather careful to limit my topics mostly to the topics represented by the books below. Recently, I decided to inventory what I have been reading. I'm not entirely sure why I did this. Perhaps it is because the end of the year is approaching, which tends to be a time for reflection regarding who we are and where we are headed. What better way for a writer to determine his direction based upon the books he has especially admired for the past two decades? Thus I took an inventory of the non-fiction books I have read that have significantly influenced me. I tend to make many notes on the books I own (I haven't started into electronic books yet), and I retain them in my "library," which is actually a storage room that contain lots of other household items. Yesterday, I ventured into my library with the intent of documenting the books that have especially impressed and challenged me. I ended up selecting less than 20% of the books I own for this honor. What follows below is a list of such books, all of which I have read over the past 20 years. It is not a perfect list. I am sure that there are many dozens of other books that I have overlooked. I probably own 500 books that I have only browsed so far, or not even begun, yet look promising. I'm more and more convinced that I will never read most of my unread books unless I win the lottery and retire. I try to not keep a steady course, though my quest seems hopeless. I'm reminded of this hopelessness every time I stumble on a pile of 30 unread and partially read books by the side of my bed. In my list below, I have only included those books that I have actually read. I would highly recommend any of them. I have not included in many other books I have read that I would consider merely been useful or "good." As I made my list, it occurred to me that I have been greatly influenced by more than books. I have read far more pages of online or in paper magazine articles than book pages. More recently, I've been impressed by many video and in-person presentations/lectures. I have also corresponded with many people over the years on these topics, including many of the authors of the books in my list. I've poured immense time into my reading and writing. It surprised me how much material I have reviewed in 20 years, considering that I also have a day job as a consumer lawyer and also try to spend time with my family. It occurs to me that I am extremely lucky to be living in a time and place where I can benefit from so many incredible ideas developed be others. Each of these authors spends his or her entire life working hard, and then I simply scoop up the their life's work by investing a mere day or two or reading. I have mentioned many of these books and authors in the five years that I've been writing at this website; I find that writing comments about these book helps me to absorb the material better. It also occurs to me that I would not be at all who I am had I not seriously read the books in my list. I make reference to many of these ideas many times each day. To the extent that I have been able to come up with interesting ideas, it is quite likely that "my" ideas came, directly or indirectly, from these books, and that I am thus standing on the shoulders of giants (there I go again with the borrowing). Without further ado, here many of my favorite non-fiction books, broken into a few general categories: [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingHaven’t you ever read . . . ?

What Most Sets of Commandments Get Wrong

I recently read Penn Jillette's 10 Commandments for atheists, written as a response to a challenge by Glenn Beck. Most of Penn's rules made good sense. But one went off the rails, I opine. He included one found in most mistranslations of the Christian Ten: "Don't Lie." Penn explicitly adds the caveat: "(You know, unless you're doing magic tricks and it's part of your job. Does that make it OK for politicians, too?)" But the premise is basically flawed. The original line in Exodus 20:16 (KJV) is Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. This is a very specific form of lie. Even too specific. Not only is it an injunction against perjury, but only against perjury against your landholding neighbor, as opposed to people from other places, or to property such as women and slaves. Of course we all must lie on occasion. How else can we answer, "Isn't she the most beautiful baby ever?" or "Honey, do I look puffy?" Would it be false testimony to confirm a harmless bias one on one? Yet I suggest that the proper commandment should be, "Don't bear false witness." Period. Don't testify to things of which you are not absolutely sure; that you have not personally experienced. Not in a public forum. Don't repeat "what everybody knows" unless you preface it with an appropriate waffle, such as "I heard that someone else heard that..." But this might make it difficult to testify to the all-embracing love of a demonstrably genocidal God. A Google image search of "Testify" gives mostly Christian imagery.

Continue ReadingWhat Most Sets of Commandments Get Wrong

Superior autobiographical memory

A friend of mine who I have known since high school has often quoted actual dates on which events occurred a long time ago. Much of the time, I haven't had a way to disprove him, but on several occasions I was able to confirm that he had stunning recall. After watching the following video from a 60 Minutes show, I emailed Mike, urging him to take a look. The people featured in this 60 Minutes two-part video easily remember non-emotional ordinary events from throughout their lives down to the actual dates on which those events occurred.  If you're like me, you'll be somewhat suspicious of the idea that people can remember long-ago events of their lives so well. If so, watch the video--it will leave you shaking your head unless you have this ability yourself. This extreme memory is a stunning phenomena.  Check out the researcher's statement at about the 10-minute mark of the video that these folks are correct 99% of the time that they offer these detailed responses.    Until watching this show, however, I had assumed that the ability to forget would be essential to good mental health.  Based on the appearance of the superior memory subjects, that doesn't appear to be true (though most of the subjects are not involved in long-term romantic relationships).   These subjects have amazing recall without having any struggle with "cluttered" minds. I definitely don't have "superior autobiographical memory."  I don't need all of superior autobiographical capability, but I wish I had somewhat better recollection. James McGaugh, Ph.D.- University of California at Irvine, has studied these ultra-memory folks and will be discussing his findings at a Psychology Colloquium on Monday, December 5, 4:00 PM, Wilson 214 at Washington University.   McGaugh's team has found (video, Part II at the 2 minute mark) that people with superior autobiographical memory had larger (almost twice as large as expected) temporal lobes and caudate nuclei (the latter of which has been associated with OCD).   See Video II at the 3-minute mark for more on the OCD angle. Here's more on this fascinating topic.

Continue ReadingSuperior autobiographical memory