mental gymnastics

The brain is an active problem solving device. It works by creating models of the world and running internal simulations. Non-technical folks often call these "what if" scenarios. But simulation is not limited to such explicit exercises. It is a continuous and ever present condition. If you doubt the reality of this statement, consider the everyday act of telling jokes. When listening to a joke, the audience immediately starts simulating the situation being depicted. To get the joke one not only has to follow along, but is imperative that one jumps ahead and simulates- "imagines"- potential outcomes. Because the punch line of the joke is achieved by suddenly switching direction leading to an unexpected and "funny" outcome. In some cases the same can be achieved by relying on double entendres or other language tricks that lead to incorrect models that collapse, thereby creating a funny situation.

Because the brain is constantly active while the subject is alive, it will go ahead and create problems to solve when none exist. If you carefully observe human behavior you will notice that much time is spent creating problems that can later be solved. This is not just limited to story telling, sudoku, and cross word puzzles. Humans actively create problems for themselves that they then try to solve. Politicians often achieve great status by first creating problems and then attempting to solve them. In some cases the problem may take the form of another human or super human entity.

The process is well illustrated in the Italian movie Desert of the Tartars. In it, a group of soldiers are despatched to a remote outpost at the edge of the desert. Faced with nothing to do, no enemies, no threats, and no possibility of threats, the soldiers quickly go on to create a formidable and evasive enemy.

To do so they rely on another innate ability. The ability to fill out incomplete information. This too is a characteristic of brains and a very useful one that confers great survival benefits. It too is exploited in entertainment, most often in suspense and horror movies. Here we see transient blurry images or hear vague sounds that are incomplete, meaning it is hard to identify the source. However, given the context we quickly interpret these images and see or hear dangerous animals, killers, aliens, or other monsters.

All of it is driven along by our tendency to link events together even if no such link exists in the outside world. It is called spurious associations and humans are experts at this. Much of the work in science is to debunk these misleading connections. It is to take a step back and double check our internal simulations with reality. Reality-checks are grossly underutilized and as a result of this tendency, we spend much of our time solving non-existing problems. But let's go back to the story.

We associate the sounds and the images and complete a picture of the threat. And once that process is finalized we endow the threat with human characteristics, i.e. we start perceiving it as a person or a human-like entity. The entity then has to be humored, appeased, destroyed, or otherwise controlled. To do so, we often perform actions that have little or no consequence. But we insist on rigidly adhering to these lest the world order be upset and dire repercussions ensue.

And so the soldiers, having created an invisible enemy based on vague sightings of dust flying around, and spurious night time sounds, now have a goal in life. They start preparing and training to face their enemy. They conduct raids to find and confront the enemy. And any spurious scrap or mark they see on these raids only serves to reinforce the idea of an enemy that is elusive, but ready to attack.

A somewhat similar tack is followed in Picnic at Hanging Rock and in the more recent movie, The Blair Witch Project.

Because humans are social animals, these types of misinterpretations quickly create a following. Especially when the person who is the source of the misunderstanding is a good story teller or an otherwise charismatic individual. Often the followers need even less evidence to become believers. Many are eager to find additional "proof" to shed their newcomer status and become insiders. They will quickly copy the rituals needed to control "the entity." Social acceptance and peer pressure play an important role here. Once a critical mass is reached, those individuals who question the beliefs will be excluded from group benefits and ostracized. They may be physically expelled from the community in some situations.

It will now become dangerous to challenge the basic premises. Anyone trying to go against the current will nudged into the right direction. If that should fail, sanctions will become increasingly harsh and violent. Humans will not shy away from killing those who threaten their world view. Or deny them access to vital supplies. Or attempt to eradicate them altogether. These tendencies will be greatly exaggerated when resources are limited or ecological disaster is near.

relativity and the mating dance

So you thought the size of your paycheck makes you happy? Wrong. Brain imagers now have definite proof of what we all knew to be true: what makes you happy is that you earn more than your peers. The study was published in Science magazine.

What is clearly shown is that the relative size of your pay compared to others is what matters. And that makes a great deal of sense. The money has little or no absolute value. There are only so many things you can buy that truly benefit you or that you can truly enjoy. No matter how rich you are, you can only sit in one chair at once.

But you can buy unlimited numbers of chairs to show off. You can engage in the never ending arms race to outdo your neighbors and friends with ever more and bigger gadgets. And in doing so you can imagine yourself ranking higher than them. And that should make you more desirable to the opposite sex, or at least so your brain is wired to respond.

There are various ranking systems that people employ. Being extraordinarily gifted in one area or another is usually a ticket to success. Although there are no guarantees, people with exceptional athletic and other skills have a high probability of getting there. But this method is limited to those lucky enough to have such skills. And the fall-off from the top is incredibly steep. 

Acquiring cool stuff is often seen as a method accessible to all. Although this method too requires special skills for great success, there are more winners here. The fall-off is not nearly as steep. And this is one method strongly encouraged in our society. We built what is in essence a big and complex Ponzi scheme although few recognize it as such. One reason may be that the ones who are left to hold the empty promises are usually living in another (poor) country. But that is another story.

While essentially adaptive, this ranking game has a huge unfortunate consequence. Millions are trapped into its addictive web, endlessly pressing levers for a brief moment of joy. And while they can't or won't ever stop, few of them seem really happy doing what they are doing. 

I am sure you have seen the pictures of long lines of people standing out in the cold waiting for the stores to open early on Black Friday. And the resulting pushing and shoving to get in the door. But what is inside that is really so attractive to them ? The chance to outdo the others and score a useless big bargain. And the unconscious gratification signal deep in their brains that results from thinking they moved up another notch. Pressing the lever one more time.

fine distinctions

Human sensory systems are amazingly powerful at detecting differences. Many studies have show our senses operate near the limit of what is physically possible.  The "just noticeable difference" for many parameters is incredibly small. Overall, the performance of our senses is superb and much better than would be expected from the inherently noisy components that make up our bodies.

For complex stimuli our performance is often so good that it is hard or near impossible to match with sophisticated instruments and computing devices. When so-called pattern recognition is involved, humans beat every system that is out there today. One could say biology is exquisitely sensitive.

Yet there is something humans are not very good at, and that is absolute measurements. Some will call these "objective" measurements. It is rather easy even for untrained individuals to tell you which of two objects is heavier, or which of two sounds is louder, or whether two foods taste the same, or two perfumes smell alike. But it is very hard even for well trained individuals to tell you how heavy something is, how bright the light is, how loud the sound is, or what the pitch is.

One reason for this discrepancy is adaptation. Much like everything else, our sensory systems adapt to stimuli. Even though we can detect a few molecules that foul up a room full of air, if we stay in a smelly room for a short time we don't notice the offending smell anymore. If the first sunlight is too bright in the morning, soon we move around comfortably in light that is a few orders of magnitude brighter. If background noise stays constant, we tune it out. And if we suddenly go somewhere quiet, the absence of noise may create a strange "loudness" sensation.

Thresholds also adjust with internal states. When we are hungry the smell of food will be stronger and we are more likely to see the food items in a complex scene. If we are dehydrated, salty items will taste better. Studies have shown that messenger molecules released in our blood stream affect not just the threshold of our senses but also the interpretation of the stimuli. If one takes morphine painful stimuli will no longer be painful. If no help is forthcoming pain may become intolerable.

Adaptation is but one part of the process. The other part is context dependent understanding. Humans interpret stimuli in the context they are in. They set expectations and match new experiences to these expectations. If you eat from a big plate you will eat more. If you drink from a big cup you will drink more. And you will judge how much you ate or drank by what is left over. And if others are around you will unconsciously compare your performance to theirs.

There is evidence for imprinting or at the very least for very strong associative memories. Things that remind you of your childhood will often taste or smell better. Drinking water tests have revealed that individuals like water with additives that remind them of their childhood, even if such additives taste horrible to others. And to some extent, even if those additives are harmful. If a certain food makes us ill, the smell of it will cause nausea, sometimes for months to come.

All this shows why humans are very poor at objective judgments. And that is why you should be very suspicious of the "great experts." Experts in food, wine, and fine sound systems. Experts in anything that has to do with luxury life-style items. Every time such great experts are subjected to blinded tests, they fail miserably. While they may be able to detect differences, they cannot tell which is which. And that is exactly what we expect. Because the great experts are human too.