When Our Brains Short-Circuit | Hacker News Reader

When Our Brains Short-Circuit

nytimes.com

17 pointsgeezer14 comments

"If you come across a garter snake, nearly all of your brain will light up with activity as you process the “threat.” Yet if somebody tells you that carbon emissions will eventually destroy Earth as we know it, only the small part of the brain that focuses on the future — a portion of the prefrontal cortex — will glimmer"

Correct me if I am wrong here, but it's a darn good thing too. How horrible would it be if you got a flight or fight response every time a possible diffuse future threat was mention in passing by someone? I hardly think this example can be characterized as a flaw.

> I hardly think this example can be characterized as a flaw.

If there's a such a thing as a tipping point, then yes, it's a flaw because your brain won't signal real danger until it's too late to do anything about it.

Like a frog in water slowly brought to a boil.

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp

Just because the frog in the pot turns out to be not literally true, it certainly demonstrates a point in a nice, succinct manner. Im sure everyone knows by know the frog will jump out in real life.

Do you teach your children to ignore "its not easy being green" since no frogs can actually play guitar or sing? Or do you let them take the metaphorical meaning anyway?

It's a flaw if we are short-sighted most of the time and not using our power of reason, foresight to prevent threats in the not-so-immediate future. Also, we react to future threats differently depending on the type of threat. We react more strongly to the threat of WMDs in Iraq than we do to climate change. The article is suggesting that there is a hard-wired reason for this and we are not being completely rational when evaluating both of those threats.

Part of TrevorJ's point is that there's a very good case to be made that when people declare our level of concern about global warming is irrational, that they are in fact being irrational about that claim. Future fears are discounted, and they should be, because the alternative is paralysis. It's easy to spout off about how we "should" be as concerned about global warming as a snake ten feet away when you don't realize just how thoroughly infeasible that approach would be.

Redesigning the human body is an old hobby, but a complete understanding of how evolution works and the complexity of the human body (including the brain) should make one hesitate. I've seen numerous things that could be "better" (for example, "let's just get rid of the appendix"), but I've never seen such a redesign that I could actually guarantee was a certainly-better thing. The tradeoffs are ignored.

There's no guarantee that "just" allowing the prefrontal cortex to induce a larger fear response will have anything like the desired effect. You might just end up with a population with widespread, crippling phobias, or, given that the prefrontal cortex is hardly invincible, widespread coordinated responses to non-threats. I think this went by on HN a few days ago and can serve as an example of an excessively-powerful prefrontal cortex overriding survival instincts to terrible, terrible effect: http://lewrockwell.com/orig9/deming2.html (or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongqawuse ) (Just take the initial story bit.)

It's just not trivial to re-engineer the brain, and those who are making political points while doing so should be flat-out ignored.

"using our power of reason, foresight.."

I never said we shouldn't use our powers of reason and foresight. Reason and foresight are NOT the same thing as a fear response. They are, in fact, very different and precisely the response we SHOULD have. The entire reason for reflex action in the body is to respond to immediate threat. The fear reflex is entirely inappropriate when dealing with longer term problems that require thought and foresight.

We are in agreement. I reread the last part of your initial comment and I see that I somehow misread it. My apologies!

I also wonder to what extent our general responses to possible diffuse future threats, are today watered down as a result of the media continually bombarding us with such, and thus de-sensitizing us?

If any readers are interested in this sort of thing, then I highly (very, very highly) recommend the following links:

http://www.overcomingbias.com

http://www.lesswrong.com

Bypass registration and view the article directly here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/opinion/02kristof.html?_r=...

Sounds like OP gives a free pass to those who only use the reptilian third of their brain because of "evolution".

You go to war with the brain you have, not the brain you wish you had. The best you can do is be aware of these emotionally-charged valences so that you are able to discount them when appropriate.

Besides, even if you could completely turn off these processes, I am not sure that you would want to. By calling it the reptilian brain you make it sound like it is only appropriate for reptiles. The fact is, the same system that tells us instinctually that snakes are threats is probably involved in much of what is called "people skills". Normal social interactions would be at a huge disadvantage without them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com