- Producer15/10/2016The Prime Directive - The Brain As An Information Reduction MachineYour brain has a limited capacity to process and store information, and to pay attention. Its prime directive, then, is to filter out information it doesn't "think" it needs.If you want to increase your understanding of why and how people behave,...
Comments16/10/2016 #18 Robert Bacal#15 @Lisa Gallagher We definitely had that conversation about the inability to filter out noise. Normally, people "habituate", (get used to noise, particularly constant noise), but it seems you are less able to do that (sometimes?) We're also wired to "orient" or pay attention to change in our environments, again a clear advantage and necessity evolutionarily speaking. I'm guessing it's an anxiety issue but I'm not a clinician.16/10/2016 #17 Robert Bacal#14 Thank you Ian. If my recollection is accurate isn't Miller's law relevant to short term memory, and that stm and working memory (m-space) was considered a seperate "space/process" I'm a wee bit rusty here. My background (one of them is cognitive science, and I'm admitedly out of date.
In terms of neuro-science, my sense is that it's really in its toddler state, and that the application of what is being learned about the brain is still a ways away from being applicable to things like learning and memory enhancement -- ie. real world behavior. OOP. just noticed your links in the other post. I'll check those.16/10/2016 #16 Ian Weinberg@Robert Bacal The subjects of EQ, IQ, AI , neuro-data processing etc are at the core of intense investigation and research. It is very difficult to draw simple conclusions from this enormous area of study. My personal interest and expertise extends from the neurosciences and neurosurgery, pioneering and incorporating the science and applications of Psycheoneuro-immunology (PNI) to the development and application of corporate wellness, performance and leadership programs. To boot, I have also managed comprehensive neuro-rehabilitation teams. I offer you the following 2 links. The first is our corporate application and the second is the reference text used in the training of neuro-coaches. This latter text is pretty heavy reading. Part 2 however can be read as a standalone text. See therefore http://www.neuronostic.com/PromoSurge.pdf and for some light bed-time reading http://www.pninet.com/articles/Memory.pdf16/10/2016 #15 Lisa GallagherI thought I read this before, and I still enjoyed reading it again @Robert Bacal. I remember telling you I'm unable to filter out noise, like that from an A/C unit in a hotel room if it's rattling. It will drive my brain nuts all night. I've always had a hard time filtering out background noise unless it noise I've truly grown used to. My IQ is just a tad above average but my EQ is high. Personally, I can attest that I don't always think rationally because my EQ can over ride the rational part of my brain. However, it depends on the circumstances- there are issues that arise that require your EQ to kick in which allows one to be more rational and see the larger picture, if that makes sense? I would make a good mediator or coach because I'm able to see, think and feel outside of the box.16/10/2016 #14 Ian WeinbergThe amount of information which can be handled at the pre-frontal cortex level (working memory) at any one time is limited in accordance with Miller's 7+2 Rule. Further limitations reflect the pro-survival processes of deletion, distortion and generalization. And yes, habituation too (at the sensory level). But the comprehensiveness of perception and the processing of extrinsic sensory and intrinsic stored information is a function of the degree of integration of the individual. Islands of unintegrated networks have limitations within reality contexts. The more integrated configurations engage in a more comprehensive way with the environment and can therefore handle much more data (the integrated networks are greater that the sum of the individual unintegrated networks). Therefore subjective belief reflects configurations of integration which determine limits of data that can be processed. References available if so desired.16/10/2016 #13 Robert Bacal#10 @David B. Grinberg That 10% thing is a myth. On the capacity question, the analogy would be a computer with 2 megabytes of ram. It limits how much information can be dealt with at one time. HOWEVER, it IS possible to get around some limitations by using programming tricks...for example, using the hard drive for additional, but slower storage or working space.
For example, short term memory limits can appear to be defeated because we can learn to better use the available space.
One of the interesting things about AI work is that traditionally, there have been two different thrusts. One is to get a computer to solve things humans can, and the other is to have the computer process information the same WAY humans do. One is result oriented and one process oriented.
The idea with the latter is that we can use computers to model and better understand how humans process information.
I'm not terribly satisfied with this answer, but I'm tired.15/10/2016 #11 Randy KehoMr. Spock, of Star Trek fame, not to be confused with Dr. Spock, the famous pediatrician, would find this discussion rather amusing. Being half Vulcan and half human must have been a real bitch at times. Would that be logically speaking? I'm not sure. I would be the wrong person to ask.
I'm still working on filtering. I started with the female voice. I've got a long way to go. Live long and prosper @Robert Bacal15/10/2016 #10 David B. GrinbergNice buzz @Robert Bacal. I'm wondering if you think new advances in AI, computing and decoding the human genome will help unlock more than the average 10% of brain capacity which most individuals use? Also, is it that the brain has "limited capacity" or simply that humans don't know how to access full capacity?15/10/2016 #7 Robert Bacal#5 @Aurorasa Sima OK. That works for me. Perhaps my use of the word rational was not the best choice. I certainly agree with you that rational means using all the information that is available to you. It's been a while since I wrote the article, to be honest, but thanks for pointing this out.15/10/2016 #6 Robert Bacal@Fatima Williams posted a link to a Slideshare presentation on this topic. Can't vouch for the content, since there's a LOT of slides in the presentation and I don't have time to look at it just now, but wanted to make it available if anyone is interested http://www.slideshare.net/aoweiyang/you-are-not-as-rational-as-you-think?from_m_app=android15/10/2016 #5 Aurorasa Sima#4 Yes, that´s very close. They are more capable of making conscious decisions. Not influenced by others, past experience, fear, emotions.That´s "rational" to me. Based on facts and an unbiased, intellectual thought process.
In my opinion, rational does not assume you have all available information, but that you make a decision based on those available to you. Even assumptions can be part of a rational decision-making process, as long as they are unbiased.
A silly little example I just wrote about: People with a high EQ are immune to marketing triggers like creating a false sense of urgency, scarcity, made up value propositions and such.15/10/2016 #4 Robert Bacal#2 @Aurorasa Sima You hooked me in with that first one on the list. Would I be understanding you correctly if I paraphrased a bit and said you believe that emotionally intelligent people can make rational decisions because they have a better awareness of themselves and so are more able to separate their own biases and such from the external facts? Is that close?
I suppose the other question that pops into my mind from your comment is what constitutes rationality? I'm not sure I'm up to the challenge of answering that question. You?15/10/2016 #2 Aurorasa SimaMy opinion.
1. I believe emotionally intelligent people can make rational decisions. Not having all available information does not make a decision-making process irrational.
I agree that people with a low IQ generally are not able to make rational decisions unless they face a situation that is totally new to them (no triggers)
2. Fully agree multitasking-wise. If two tasks require the same cognitive resources, your brain will split it. Stanford University could prove that this leads to problems telling relevant from irrelevant information and ergo worse learning/understanding/production.
3. Yes, the brain filters and automates and it´s very generous in deciding which situations are "similar"
4. I like this post
5. Replying twice to a comment does not make us "friends". It just makes it more interesting to comment (;15/10/2016 #1 Gerald HechtOh now you are going to pretend to understand this http://psiwebsubr.org/SUBR/studyguides/488/Fechner.pdf View moreOh now you are going to pretend to understand this http://psiwebsubr.org/SUBR/studyguides/488/Fechner.pdf You are positively hysterical Robert Close
- 07/06/2016Here some great brain games by National Geographic, enjoy them!Brain Gameschannel.nationalgeographic.com Host Jason Silva takes us on a mind-blowing exploration into the fascinating facets of our cranium with brainteasers, DIY experiments, and hard...