19 February 2015

Notes - Chicago / subconscious / significance / error noted

         After noon. You received a call from Craig and Alta and you are staying at a small hotel in Oak Park and from there will take the train into downtown Chicago – three nights and two days – then leave on a Thursday in May. You four are excited for this next adventure in friendship and travel. You swept upstairs and did your forty minutes of exercises just like yesterday. In a few moments you are off to lunch at Smashburgers. Below is an article you differed with and sent a note to the author accordingly. Add and post. – Amorella

         1237 hours. I bolded the below statement that is false, at least as far as I am concerned.

** **
BBC Future
18 February 2015

Your subconscious is smarter than you might think

Tom Stafford

We feel that we are in control when our brains figure out puzzles or read words, says Tom Stafford, but a new experiment shows just how much work is going on underneath the surface of our conscious minds.

It is a common misconception that we know our own minds. As I move around the world, walking and talking, I experience myself thinking thoughts. "What shall I have for lunch?", I ask myself. Or I think, "I wonder why she did that?" and try and figure it out. It is natural to assume that this experience of myself is a complete report of my mind. It is natural, but wrong.

There's an under-mind, all psychologists agree – an unconscious, which does a lot of the heavy lifting in the process of thinking. If I ask myself what is the capital of France the answer just comes to mind – Paris! If I decide to wiggle my fingers, they move back and forth in a complex pattern that I didn't consciously prepare, but which was delivered for my use by the unconscious.

The big debate in psychology is exactly what is done by the unconscious, and what requires conscious thought. Or to use the title of a notable paper on the topic, 'Is the unconscious smart or dumb?' One popular view is that the unconscious can prepare simple stimulus-response actions, deliver basic facts, recognise objects and carry out practised movements. Complex cognition involving planning, logical reasoning and combining ideas, on the other hand, requires conscious thought.

A recent experiment by a team from Israel scores points against this position. Ran Hassin and colleagues used a neat visual trick called Continuous Flash Suppression to put information into participants’ minds without them becoming consciously aware of it. It might sound painful, but in reality it’s actually quite simple. The technique takes advantage of the fact that we have two eyes and our brain usually attempts to fuse the two resulting images into a single coherent view of the world. Continuous Flash Suppression uses light-bending glasses to show people different images in each eye. One eye gets a rapid succession of brightly coloured squares, which are so distracting that when genuine information is presented to the other eye, the person is not immediately consciously aware of it. In fact, it can take several seconds for something that is in theory perfectly visible to reach awareness (unless you close one eye to cut out the flashing squares, then you can see the 'suppressed' image immediately).

Hassin’s key experiment involved presenting arithmetic questions unconsciously. The questions would be things like "9 - 3 - 4 = " and they would be followed by the presentation, fully visible, of a target number that the participants were asked to read aloud as quickly as possible. The target number could either be the right answer to the arithmetic question (so, in this case, "2") or a wrong answer (for instance, "1"). The amazing result is that participants were significantly quicker to read the target number if it was the right answer rather than a wrong one. This shows that the equation had been processed and solved by their minds – even though they had no conscious awareness of it – meaning they were primed to read the right answer quicker than the wrong one.

The result suggests that the unconscious mind has more sophisticated capacities than many have thought. Unlike other tests of non-conscious processing, this wasn’t an automatic response to a stimulus – it required a precise answer following the rules of arithmetic, which you might have assumed would only come with deliberation. The report calls the technique used "a game changer in the study of the unconscious", arguing that "unconscious processes can perform every fundamental, basic-level function that conscious processes can perform".

These are strong claims, and the authors acknowledge that there is
unconscious minds. Like icebergs, most of the operation of our minds remains out of sight. Experiments like this give a glimpse below the surface.

If you have an everyday psychological phenomenon you'd like to see written about in these columns please get in touch @tomstafford or ideas@idiolect.org.uk.

Share this story on Facebook, Google+ or Twitter

From - http://www.bbcDOTcom/future/story/20150217-how-smart-is-your-subconscious

** **


         Mid-afternoon. After lunch you drove to Mike’s Carwash for a cleaning this sunny afternoon then to Lowe’s to pick up bird food as you were running out in this cold weather. – Amorella

         1552 hours. Such little things you mention, Amorella, but I can see how that after death their meaning might have more significance, that is, as an added dimension to what life is, not what life means.

         Evening. Carol is on the phone with one of her sisters. Carol created an ‘open omelet’ for supper – lots of goodies with eggs – very good. You watched the news and “Person of Interest” and will get back to “Mysteries of Laura”. Your cough has returned and Carol is asking you to go to the doctor’s tomorrow morning. She is not much better either – whatever you have lingers on and on. Later, dude. Post. - Amorella

         2050 hours. Earlier this afternoon I sent a quick note to Mr. Stafford apologizing for my error. In my anger I stopped reading with the bolded comment in the article above and assumed he was going to say the opposite of what he did. Very embarrassing on this end. I should have read it through – all those years of teaching English and I made a very stupid mistake I would have been all over my students for.


         Later, post. - Amorella

No comments:

Post a Comment