Topic: Hyperactive Agency Detection | |
---|---|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Mon 03/22/10 05:01 PM
|
|
A wonderful blog I often find the time to enjoy, thought Id share this here considering how many conspiracy theories I see around here, please try to read it objectively and do not flame me, k thanks!
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1762#more-1762 Honestly even the comments are awesome on this wonderful blog by Dr Novella. |
|
|
|
We need more people like Dr. Novella.
|
|
|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Tue 03/23/10 08:28 PM
|
|
All types of pattern recognition systems suffer from two types of errors, there is the type 1 error, the false positive, and there is the type 2 error, the false negative.
HADD is a type 1 error, of seeing something that isn’t there. There is a trade-off between these two types of errors, you can have zero type 1 errors if you reject every instance, but then your type 2 error rate is maximized. You can have a zero type 2 error rate if you accept every instance but then the false positive rate is maximized. There is a deal of pattern recognition in all forms of communication. The bit count of the data stream is insufficient to convey the information content of language without enormous data compression and decompression at the other end. That decompression is pattern recognition. When the compression and decompression are done seamlessly and with little loss in data, there is good communication with no misunderstanding. When the data compression and decompression do not happen seamlessly, then there is data loss, and the message can be garbled or misunderstood. Usually the data compression and decompression happens seamlessly and is transparent to the users, they are not aware that it is happening. They become aware when it does not happen seamlessly, when the error rate goes up, there is miscommunication, and then there are default responses. I think one of the default responses to a high error rate in communication, and particularly in non-verbal communication is the triggering of xenophobia. It may not always be that simple, but that may be an important component. http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/2010/03/physiology-behind-xenophobia.html An interesting comment from Daedalus who also has an interesting blog. http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/2010/03/physiology-behind-xenophobia.html |
|
|
|
Psychoogists and neuroscientists in recent years have demonstrated that our brains are hardwired to distinguish things in our environment that are alive from those that are not alive. But “being alive” (from a psychological point of view) is not about biology, but agency – something that can act in the world, that has its own will and can cause things to happen. Sure, this is a property of living things, but that’s not how our brain sort things out. We can perceive agency in non-living things if they are acting as if they are agents.
This is reflected even in our visual system, which separates out visual information into different streams according to the type of information. One division is between information about actions and information about objects. The object stream is also divided into brain regions that deal with inanimate objects and other regions that deal with living things or animate objects. So on a fundamental level our brains treat agents different than objects – from the moment we see them. Bruce Hood, author of Supersense, goes over in his book the psychological studies that have documented and described the human tendency to think of objects differently than agents. We imbue agents with an essence – a unique living force, even while infants. Objects are just generic things, totally interchangeable. While agents have their own unique essence. Interestingly, children can come to view a favorite toy (a stuffed animal, for example) with the properties of an agent and will treat it like a living thing. This reinforces the notion that the distinction we make is not between living and non-living so much as agent vs object. This likely also explains why we can watch a cartoon and react emotionally to the characters as if they were real – they are not living, but we see them as agents. According to Barrett, HADD works in part by detecting any movement that is non-inertial – something which seems to be moving of its own volition. We then assume it is acting with agency and react accordingly. This likely provided an evolutionary advantage – it is better to assume the rustling in the bushes was not the wind but a hungry tiger. So we are descended from hominids who were more paranoid and had hyperactive agency detection, because they were less likely to be eaten by predators. |
|
|
|
I could swear I smell a rat. I definitely smell a rat.
![]() |
|
|
|
Maybe what you smell is indeed a rat. Or maybe your agency detection is being a bit hyperactive?
|
|
|
|
![]() ![]() Paranoia is not a biological advantage. It causes irrational reactions to non-threatening situations wasting energy and placing undue stress and produces inappropriate and faulty strategic and tactical thought and maneuvers. Screwed up strategic and tactical actions placed early biologically susceptible hominids in harms way. Thus, the caveman hearing a rock fall from the back of the cave rushed outside into the jaws of the man-eating predator. Growling and lip smacking noises ensued. The end. ![]() |
|
|
|
Paranoia is not a biological advantage. Usually when people say something like this (in a convo like this), what they really mean is "I don't believe that paranoia could evolve by mutation + natural selection, because its obviously contrary to survival, and natural selection only gives us that which is pro-survival." I don't know if that is what you are saying, but this idea is a very naive approach to understanding evolution. The relationships between natural selection, genetics, behavior, and survival is a messy business with a great deal of circumstance dependency on whether something is a 'survival advantage'. Paranoia, like all qualities that all creatures have, is both a survival advantage and a disadvantage. We cannot usefully generalize that a quality is one or the other, as the circumstances in which the species evolves is in constant flux. You give an example of a rock falling in a cave. This alone doesn't mean that paranoia wouldn't be selected for - its just one example of where the paranoid individual is at a disadvantage. Given the lack of time prey has to determine whether a potential predator is a real predator, I think its obvious that a degree of paranoia would also confer survival advantage in many circumstances. It causes irrational reactions to non-threatening situations wasting energy and placing undue stress Absolutely true! I'm still not sure if you are questioning the plausibility of it evolving through natural selection - but this truth goes along with the truth that it sometimes saves lives. and produces inappropriate and faulty strategic and tactical thought and maneuvers. Screwed up strategic and tactical actions placed early biologically susceptible hominids in harms way. Ah, but (1) we have many, many behavior influences left over from more distant ancestors who relied more heavily on reflexes and non-rational approaches to avoiding death, and (2) even we (and our more recent ancestors) with our capacity for strategy and tactics often do not have time for it. Please forgive me if I've jumped to conclusions about the thought process behind your words. My hyperactive motivation detection is at work. |
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Sat 04/03/10 09:49 AM
|
|
![]() It is not paranoia if something really IS trying to get me! ![]() However, I do not think that paranoia is advantageous... (in general) |
|
|
|
It is not paranoia if something really IS trying to get me! Given the context I thought we were using 'paranoia' to mean 'an inclination to suspect a threat on insufficient evidence'. With this idea in place, it still is paranoia even when the threat happens to be real. If we were to define paranoia only in terms of whether the threat is real, I'd interpret your early comments a: "the specific event of perceiving non-real threats as real threats does not confer a survival advantage". Of course thats true, and of course thats completely irrelevant given our lack of capacity for omniscience. A more interesting a relevant question is "how rational are we in our evaluation of evidence of possible threats". However, I do not think that paranoia is advantageous... (in general) Um.... in a very general sense, I actually tend to agree for modern humans, and maybe for those ancestors of ours who would be better served by applying whatever capacity they have for reason....but this in no way invalidates the idea that paranoia might arise through a darwinian take on evolution. |
|
|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Tue 04/06/10 04:47 PM
|
|
One mans paranoia is another mans SOP.
My point is that the term paranoia is not quantifiable, at least in any way I can understand. So if you think you dog is trying to kill you by the slow release of methane, I would be tempted to call you paranoid. HOWEVER I would also be tempted to call every single anti-Government wack job that thinks the gubmint is out to get him as paranoid also, even tho examples can be provided where the government in question has done just such a thing, so whats the diff? So how does one determine what is actually paranoia, and what is just normal concern? Its the same question as asking why my life experience leads me to any given subjective conclusion I reach: its currently not something we can define objectively and thus remains arbitrary. I think my ancestors where concerned just the right amount about random predators jumping out of bushes to get me to where I am myself, heck I even have some empirical evidence for that one! :) BTW did that shadow just move? I think I may need to ward off random ninja assassins, gib me a min hun . . . |
|
|
|
the term paranoia is not quantifiable, at least in any way I can understand.
.... So how does one determine what is actually paranoia, and what is just normal concern? The way I was using the term in this convo, those are two regions of the same spectrum - the spectrum of inclination to respond to a possible threat. Clearly, there is often an evolutionary advantage to not waiting until a threat is proven real before responding. |
|
|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Wed 04/07/10 09:17 PM
|
|
the term paranoia is not quantifiable, at least in any way I can understand.
.... So how does one determine what is actually paranoia, and what is just normal concern? The way I was using the term in this convo, those are two regions of the same spectrum - the spectrum of inclination to respond to a possible threat. Clearly, there is often an evolutionary advantage to not waiting until a threat is proven real before responding. So how does one determine what is actually paranoia, and what is just normal concern? I think most people, even among professionals, would agree that functioning among a social group is the dipstick. If your ability to function among a social group is impaired its considered a neurosis or delusion, or more generally a mental "disorder", if its improved its called insight or awareness.
Its a basic function of our imagination to attempt to analyze our environment and come up with possible threats, perhaps even the reason for its evolutionary origins. |
|
|
|
This is a fascinating area of discussion, with very tricky parameters.
Referencing paranoia, coming to a JUDGMENT about it (good or bad, promotes survival of the species, or interferes?) is made near impossible by the vast variation in each persons definition of where SKEPTICISM ends, and PARANOIA begins. Some of the arguments I've read here appear to border on specious by accident: the difference in the exact definition of Paranoia results in one person defining it as useful for survival, while another considers it to be detrimental. I read both the mentioned blogs. The first is better written, and though only a cursory description of the subject, is nevertheless useful. The second is more problematic. The "uncanny valley" idea in particular, as described in the blog itself, and in the Wicki definitions and other peripheral discussions, seems to me to be fundamentally erroneous. I agree that the RESPONSE being observed does occurs, but I think the conclusion as to why is wrong. The theory appears to attribute the Uncanny valley reaction to the expectation of the observer, that the "almost too real" object is UNHEALTHY. This makes no sense to me. Many ill people and ill animals are NOT rejected by their own species. I would submit that the U.V. response is more logically ascribed to the perception that the observer feels they are being "conned." This makes much more sense, because nature IS filled with "conn" examples, which are often very dangerous to the species. Predators who have natural markings which make them APPEAR to be "friends" abound. |
|
|