Viewing entries in
Scientific Encounters
Our brains engage in two distinct cognitive modes: the attention-demanding “task-positive mode” and the go-with-the-flow task-negative mode, also known as the default mode. Observing thoughts is a cognitive task; the thoughts themselves arise while the brain is in default mode. Here’s the thing: these two modes reciprocally inhibit each other; that is, our brain can’t be in both modes at the same time. They alternate.
Most of us who have taken an introductory psychology course have learned about the “fundamental attribution error”, which is the tendency to attribute behavior to individual characteristics instead of situational factors. The assumption here is that situations exert much greater influence on behavior than personal attributes like desires, emotions, goals, personality, or temperament. The FAE has achieved the status as received wisdom – a solid scientific fact.
Cognitive decoupling happens when we distinguish what we suppose to be true from what might actually be the case.
We’re in a resting state when we’re not performing a task, when the brain is “at ease, sir”, doing its thing in the default mode. Hurlburt and colleagues just published a paper comparing “resting state” in two conditions: in an MRI scanner and the natural environment of the subjects. They found that resting states have five characteristics: inner seeing (visual images), inner speaking, sensory awareness, feelings (i.e., emotions), and unsymbolized thinking (wordless, imageless, but there doing something - like wondering or questioning or realizing – but without words).
“The word thinking is arguably the most problematic word in the exploration of pristine experience.” (Hurlburt and Heavey, 2015, p. 151).
University of Nevada Las Vegas psychologist Russell T. Hurlburt and his colleagues have been engaging in a series of studies involving beeping subjects randomly to have them jot down whatever they are experiencing at the moment of being beeped.
We are animals with brains. Awareness evolved because it helped our ancestors survive and reproduce. Brains produce awareness. Awareness tracks attention, most of the time. Awareness is a constantly updated experience of our dynamically changing state of attention. Attention enhances signals and reflects competition among signals in the brain.
I have questions. Is memory-on-demand proof of awareness? If so, does that mean that with awareness, comes great remembering? And what are we talking about here? Declarative memory, yeah – but what type: visual memory, auditory memory, verbal memory, emotional memory, spatial memory, memory of physical sensations? At least one bit of a memory trace out of the thousands of percepts being experienced every second? Are we also in a state of awareness while we are remembering?
The scientific mind thinks in terms of continua. Fuzzy boundaries rule. Context matters. The ideological mind likes to divide the world into exclusive categories. Purity matters. Yeah, yeah - that's just what I did, what with my "scientific mind" and ideological mind". However, these should be considered"ideal types", which rarely exist in their pure form.
...scientists are super-busy individuals. Many work 60 or more hours a week. It takes a lot of time, energy and focus to do research and write publishable papers. Given that null results are much more common than positive findings, is it really reasonable to ask scientists to more than double their workload, risking health, career and relationships, for a cause that serves the Greater Good but accrues little personal benefit to themselves?
The promise of science: “…truth emerges as a large number of flawed and limited minds battle it out.” (Jonathan Haidt - The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion)
Per wonderful Wikipedia, which is not everything and not always right or balanced, but anyway – thank you Wikipedia! – here’s a definition of ‘null result’: “In science, a null result is a result without the expected content: that is, the proposed result is absent. It is an experimental outcome which does not show an otherwise expected effect. This does not imply a result of zero or nothing, simply a result that does not support the hypothesis.”
Given a worldview that values loving kindness and calm nonreactivity, it makes sense that mindfulness practitioners would report less stress and show fewer biomarkers for stress. It makes sense that mindfulness would be associated with greater well-being and happiness. Given hundreds or thousands hours of practice directing and redirecting attention, it makes sense that neural efficiency and connectivity patterns would be altered.
What we need are studies that compare interventions that share all the common factors and aim to inspire the same degree of hope, expectation, and buy-in, not just for the subjects but for the therapists as well. Then maybe we’ll be closer to designing therapies that offer more than what is commonly available.
A lot of psychological interventions instill hope, provide a plausible narrative that makes sense of one’s misery and show a credible way out. The specific narrative and techniques matter less than whether the client buys into them.
...The authors speculate that the placebo effect may be an important factor in the decline in CBT's efficacy. They note that the “placebo effect is typically stronger for newer treatments; however, as time passes and experience with therapy is gained, the strong initial expectations wane. One may question whether this is the case with CBT....
Useful “savoring strategies” included focusing attention on the present moment, engaging in positive rumination, and telling others about positive experiences. The authors conclude: “Hence, our findings contribute to the increasing body of evidence emphasizing the importance of the flexibility of biological and psychological processes for well-being…. our research suggests that practicing as many savoring strategies as possible...
Scarcity is about a perceived mismatch between what is available (supply) and what is desired (demand). You pay more attention to things associated with scarcity, whether it’s scarcity of guesses, friends, time, or income. Scarcity creates a mindset affecting what we notice, how we decide and how we act.
One of my favorite parts is Litman's list of "methodological potholes" frequently encountered in science writing. These are based mostly on Huron (2000)* and include:
I’ll put this out first: I’m not a Climate Skeptic! Say it again: I’m not a Climate Skeptic! That said (twice), I am fine with people questioning the so-called “consensus”. This doesn’t mean that I think their opinions are always logical or backed up by high quality science. It just means there should be room for disagreement.
Initial impressions can be insightful, partly because they are not weighed down by extensive knowledge. And of course expert knowledge and understanding are also valuable!