Strategies that we are not aware of. Column in ComputerreOnline #14
When readers report that they have nothing resembling innate programs, as I describe, in their thoughts, this does not refute the ideas I present, but merely indicates that these readers have a healthy psyche.
← Dmytro Shabanov →
The Reward for Beauty Strategies We Don't Realize The Energy of Morning Coffee
Column in KompyuterraOnline #13 Column in KompyuterraOnline #14 Column in KompyuterraOnline #15
My last three columns have been dedicated to innate human reproductive behavior strategies. Many readers misunderstood me. It seems I need to clarify the issue of the relationship between innate programs and consciousness. I am asked: "Why go to such lengths to find strategies? Psychology and sexology books have answers to all questions." Unfortunately, authors of books with answers to all questions usually consider the species-specific organization of our psyche as an object devoid of history. Humanitarians have long been able to analyze the history of an individual's mental life (no wonder I was advised to consider how a boy's peeping in a women's bathhouse affects his future choice of partners). The history of an individual can be studied both through long-term observations and by simply asking the subject (and those who knew him earlier) about his past. Oh, if only our innate programs could be studied like that! There's no one to ask, and you can't talk to the witnesses of our formation... When studying an individual, psychologists distinguish between what a person thinks and says about themselves and what actually influences them. Do they disrespect the object of study? No. They understand that we are not limited to our intellect. Intellect is a tool that ensures the fulfillment of tasks facing a person. Tactical tasks are set by the intellect itself. But the strategy, surprisingly, is set by mechanisms of the psyche not controlled by consciousness. An example? To win over a particular woman, a man needs to perform certain actions in a specific situation. If he understands the rules of the game, his intellect will help him solve this problem. But why does he choose this particular task and not another? Who decided that he would now pursue a woman, and not go to sleep or drink vodka, and that he would pursue this particular woman and not another? To answer this question, one must go beyond our mind and our "self." To begin with, let's discuss an experiment. The subject is hypnotized and told: he will forget the task, but at a signal (a clap of hands), he will perform a certain action (close the curtains). The hypnotic state is over and forgotten; the person behaves normally, hears the clap of hands, approaches the window, and closes the curtains. He is asked: "Why did you do that?" What will he answer? He will not say: "The reason for my action is a mystery to me." He will logically explain his actions and assure that he did them of his own free will. His intellect, a "machine" for building cause-and-effect relationships, is capable of constructing chains of them both into the future and into the past, and can do so both impeccably correctly and absolutely incorrectly. This ability to provide a rational explanation for one's actions, the motives of which remain unclear to the person, is called rationalization. Let's move on to everyday life. Are you familiar with situations where a person believes they are guided by noble motives (say, democracy or political correctness), but an unbiased observer understands that the reason for the actions, for example, is self-interest or envy? The intellect merely ensures the execution and rationalization of decisions made outside of consciousness. Hidden from consciousness processes are much more difficult to study than overt ones. An example could be the recent discovery in humans of a "new" sensory organ – the vomeronasal organ. How is olfaction studied? The subject is given test tubes with odorous substances of different concentrations and asked what they smell like. If up to a certain dilution he recognized the smell of vanilla, and after that – stopped, then this concentration is the sensitivity threshold of the olfactory analyzer. Our olfaction is not the strongest. As primates adapted to arboreal life, the importance of olfaction for them decreased, while that of vision increased. In a complex three-dimensional environment with various air currents, you cannot sniff or feel the branch you are about to jump onto – you have to see it. That's why vision dominates in us. It's a completely different matter for representatives of the order Carnivora, including our close relatives dogs and cats. Pheromones – substances that regulate intraspecific interactions and are released into the environment – play an important role in their lives. In most mammals, pheromones are recognized by the vomeronasal organ, which initially served to perceive the smell of food in the mouth. In adult humans, as has long been known, this organ is absent... And then, at the end of the 20th century, it turned out that humans do have a vomeronasal organ, and it perceives smells. It is it, for example, that ensures the synchronization of menstrual cycles in female students living in the same dormitory room (usually, when I mention this fact in a lecture, the girls exchange glances and smile). The receptors of the vomeronasal organ react to pheromones – this can be determined by recording electrical potentials. However, these signals are not transmitted to consciousness, like the smell of vanilla, but directly to the structures responsible for hormonal regulation of behavior. The information received by this organ is so important that our biological nature simply does not trust it to consciousness! That is why such an important organ has been overlooked for centuries (apart from fragmented anatomical data obtained during autopsies). Therefore, when esteemed readers of my columns report that they (as well as their wives, boyfriends, etc.) have nothing like the innate programs I write about in mind, it does not refute the ideas I am presenting. It only indicates that these readers have a healthy psyche that filters the results of innate programs even at the distant approaches to consciousness. So how can these programs be studied? Does their interpretation not turn into meditations on esoteric topics? Read the articles by Oleksandr Markov and Olena Naymark on "Elementy." They describe correct experiments demonstrating the action of such programs. For example, one of the latest such articles does not concern the explosive topic of sex – perhaps these results will be believed a little more easily... And for concretizing our ideas about the logic of innate strategies, simulation modeling and game theory apparatus can be fully used. And yet, what are these programs? Fixed action patterns (FAPs), where a stimulus triggers a rigid chain of interdependent actions? No. Our evolution, aimed at increasing the flexibility of our behavior, has dismantled most of the FAPs of our ancestors. Our innate strategies are certain hierarchies of priorities that correspond to certain situations. Let me explain. According to most criteria by which situations can be compared, the assessments of "what is better and what is worse" coincide in most people. Being healthy is better than being sick, being full – better than being hungry, rich – than poor, fertile – than infertile, beautiful – than ugly, etc. Suppose you need to choose one alternative out of two; the consequences of the choice differ in one criterion and are identical in another. Very different people will confidently choose the better option. Let's complicate the situation. The first course of action leads to a gain in criterion #1 and a loss in criterion #2, while the second leads to a loss in #1 and a gain in #2. Different people will act differently in this case, as they will assess the relative importance of criteria #1 and #2 differently. In reality, there can be many criteria for evaluating a situation, there can be more than two alternatives at each step, and their outcomes can only be predicted probabilistically (taking into account costs, risks, and gains). Now, by enhancing the intellect's ability to evaluate such internally contradictory situations, we can use game theory methods (and transfer the grunt work to electronic "brains"). Unfortunately, we often only arbitrarily assess the probability distribution of situation development outcomes... Our ancestors were capable of logical analysis much less than we are. To what decision did their selection guide them? Not only to predicting future "game outcomes" but also to considering the experience of previous "games." How to consider past evolutionary experience and not turn off the intellect at the same time? It is still a useful tool that uses both life experience and group experience transmitted during learning... The decision implemented during the evolution of our ancestors developed a mechanism for controlling the behavior of less intelligent species. As in other animals, our innate programs are activated by certain signals – markers of typical situations. The signal triggers a change in motivation, activating (usually through hormonal regulation) the priorities that are important for that situation. Our ancient relatives who activated incorrect priorities in similar situations did not become our ancestors; we are descendants of those who made the right choices. But the action of innate programs does not turn off our intellect – it doesn't even make them conscious! Behavior remains free, although to some extent purposeful. If we, based on experience, cultural baggage, and reasoning ability, assess that the situation requires strictly certain actions, our mind will ensure their execution. Where uncertainty remains, corrected priorities will play their role. Even if they are ignored, innate priorities will continue to have a subtle effect and may play their role in the next step. Appreciate the beauty of such a solution: it combines the use of evolutionary experience of previous generations (priority adjustment based on innate programs) with the individual's experience and culture! As long as the lifestyle of our species changed relatively slowly, this system worked optimally. And then everything started to rush... Now innate strategies have turned out to be largely anachronistic, reflecting a way of life that has sunk into oblivion. What to do? Do not condemn yourself and others for these strategies, but understand them, learn to live with them, and direct them in the right direction. Solve this problem – you will find happiness: you will live in peace with yourself.
← Dmytro Shabanov →
The Reward for Beauty Strategies We Don't Realize The Energy of Morning Coffee
Column in KompyuterraOnline #13 Column in KompyuterraOnline #14 Column in KompyuterraOnline #15