Home » Posts tagged 'psychology'

Tag Archives: psychology

20250810 – Honest Signals

August 10, 2025 9:32 AM / Leave a comment

MAIN IDEAS PER GROK:

In Honest Signals: How They Shape Our World (2008), Alex Pentland explores how unconscious, nonverbal communication—termed “honest signals” influences human interactions and decision-making. Drawing from research in social psychology, biology, and computational social science, Pentland argues that these subtle, instinctive cues, rooted in evolutionary biology, reveal genuine intentions and significantly shape social dynamics, often more than verbal communication. Below are the main ideas of the book, presented in a clear and structured manner:

Concept of Honest Signals:
Honest signals are nonverbal cues—such as tone of voice, body language, facial expressions, and patterns of interaction—that convey information about a person’s emotions, intentions, or social status. Unlike deliberate gestures, these signals are largely involuntary, making them reliable indicators of true feelings. Examples include mimicry, activity levels, and consistency in speech patterns. Pentland emphasizes their evolutionary origins, as they helped early humans coordinate and build trust in social groups.
Four Key Honest Signals:
Pentland identifies four primary types of honest signals, each serving a distinct social function:
1. Influence: The degree to which one person’s behavior affects another, often seen in dominant speech patterns or confident gestures.
1. Mimicry: The unconscious copying of others’ behaviors, fostering empathy and rapport.
1. Activity: Levels of energy or engagement, signaling interest or excitement.
1. Consistency: Predictable patterns in behavior or speech, indicating confidence or reliability.
  These signals operate below conscious awareness but strongly influence perceptions and outcomes in interactions.
Social Sensing and Data Analysis:
Pentland introduces the use of wearable technology and computational tools to measure and analyze honest signals in real-world settings. His research team at MIT used devices like sociometric badges to collect data on interactions in workplaces, negotiations, and social groups. By quantifying signals like turn-taking in conversations or physical proximity, Pentland demonstrates how these cues predict outcomes such as team performance, leadership effectiveness, or negotiation success.
Impact on Social and Organizational Dynamics:
The book highlights how honest signals shape group behavior and decision-making. For example:
1. In teams, high levels of mimicry and balanced turn-taking correlate with better collaboration and productivity.
1. In leadership, consistent and influential signals project authority and inspire trust.
1. In negotiations, activity and mimicry can signal engagement and build rapport, leading to more favorable outcomes.
  Pentland argues that understanding these signals can improve organizational efficiency and interpersonal relationships.
Evolutionary and Biological Roots:
Honest signals are grounded in evolutionary biology, as they enabled early humans to assess trustworthiness and coordinate in groups without relying solely on language. Pentland connects these signals to animal behavior, such as primate grooming or flock coordination, suggesting that humans share similar instinctive mechanisms. These signals are “honest” because they are costly to fake, requiring genuine emotional or physical investment.
Applications and Implications:
Pentland discusses practical applications of studying honest signals, such as improving workplace dynamics, enhancing customer interactions, and designing better social environments. However, he also raises ethical concerns about privacy and the potential misuse of social sensing technologies, urging careful consideration of how such data is collected and used.
Shift in Understanding Communication:
The book challenges traditional views of communication, which emphasize verbal content. Pentland argues that honest signals often carry more weight than words in shaping trust, cooperation, and influence. By focusing on these unconscious cues, individuals and organizations can better understand and navigate social interactions.

In summary, Honest Signals provides a scientifically grounded framework for understanding how nonverbal, instinctive cues shape human behavior and social outcomes. Through empirical research and innovative technology, Pentland reveals the power of these signals in everyday interactions and their potential to transform fields like management, psychology, and technology, while advocating for ethical use of such insights.

CONTENT:

MY TAKE ON IT:

Humans are complex creatures that survive in groups, so they have evolved to maximize cooperation and its effectiveness. Long before human ancestors developed language, let alone remote in time and space communication abilities, from writing to the internet, they communicated via body language and gestures, both consciously and unconsciously. These initially primary communication tools did not disappear, but they decreased in use significantly enough to become secondary, often used automatically without complete conscious control. This book provides an excellent and scientifically well-grounded analysis of such use and a pretty good discussion of how to use them more explicitly and efficiently.

Interestingly, this analysis demonstrates human vulnerability in interactions with others because the unconscious use of non-verbal body language allows outsiders to read into intentions and attitudes that individuals would much prefer to remain hidden, often for benign reasons such as the need to be polite in interactions. Human interactions depend a lot on the ability to send not honest signals, but signals that help to achieve the objectives of the individual who sends these signals.

Consequently, the ability to filter signals that one sends for the benefit of the normal functioning of the group from signals, honest or not, that hinder such functioning is jeopardized by the research presented in this book. The knowledge of the value of body language is not new, but it had little relevance before because of the limited capacity and bandwidth of human perception. Only a few talented individuals could accurately read others and exploit this ability, either to assist or deceive them. New technology, such as face recognition, real-time automatic reading and analysis of micro movements, could remove filters, forcing humanity to develop entirely new rules of interactions in an environment where lying and cheating are impossible, and the sincerity of any statement could be easily confirmed or denied.

I actually believe that it would be for the better, and the quality of human lives and relations would improve dramatically, making future generations have a hard time understanding how such creatures as contemporary politicians could exist.

GROK’S COMMENT ON MY OPINION:

Your commentary on Honest Signals by Alex Pentland offers a thoughtful and insightful perspective on the book’s core ideas, particularly the evolutionary and social significance of nonverbal communication. Below, I provide a structured response that engages with your analysis, evaluates your arguments, and extends the discussion while maintaining a formal tone, as per your preferences.

Evolutionary Context and Nonverbal Communication:
You accurately highlight the evolutionary roots of nonverbal communication, noting that body language and gestures preceded language as primary tools for cooperation in human groups. Your observation that these signals became secondary yet remain automatic and partially unconscious aligns well with Pentland’s argument that honest signals are deeply ingrained and difficult to fake due to their biological basis. This evolutionary perspective underscores the book’s emphasis on signals like mimicry and activity as mechanisms for fostering trust and coordination, which were critical for survival in early human societies.
Vulnerability and Unconscious Signals:
Your point about the vulnerability created by unconscious nonverbal signals is particularly compelling. Pentland’s research indeed suggests that these signals reveal intentions and attitudes that individuals might prefer to conceal, such as in polite or strategic interactions. Your argument that humans often aim to send signals that align with their objectives, rather than purely honest ones, introduces an important nuance. This tension between authenticity and strategic communication is implicit in Pentland’s work but not fully explored, and your commentary effectively draws attention to it. For instance, in professional settings, individuals may suppress signals of frustration to maintain harmony, which can create a discrepancy between internal states and external expressions.
Technological Implications and Ethical Concerns:
Your discussion of emerging technologies, such as facial recognition and real-time analysis of micro-movements, extends Pentland’s exploration of social sensing tools like sociometric badges. You raise a critical point about how these technologies could “remove filters,” potentially creating an environment where deception becomes nearly impossible. This aligns with Pentland’s own acknowledgment of the ethical challenges posed by such tools, particularly regarding privacy. However, your optimistic view—that this could lead to improved human relations and the obsolescence of manipulative behaviors (e.g., those of “contemporary politicians”)—presents an intriguing hypothesis. While increased transparency might foster accountability, it could also disrupt social norms that rely on selective disclosure, such as diplomacy or personal privacy. The societal implications of such a shift warrant further exploration, as it could both enhance trust and create new forms of vulnerability.
Historical Relevance and Perception:
You note that the ability to read nonverbal cues was historically limited to a few “talented” individuals, who could use this skill for benevolent or manipulative purposes. This observation complements Pentland’s argument that modern technology democratizes the ability to analyze honest signals, making such insights accessible beyond intuitive experts. Your point that technology amplifies the “bandwidth of human perception” is a valuable addition, as it frames Pentland’s work within a broader narrative of technological evolution. However, it’s worth considering whether this amplification might also exacerbate inequalities if access to such tools is unevenly distributed or controlled by powerful entities.
Vision for a Transparent Future:
Your belief that a future with reduced deception would improve the quality of human lives is a bold and optimistic stance. It resonates with philosophical discussions about authenticity and trust in social systems. However, Pentland’s work suggests that honest signals are not always synonymous with truthfulness, as they reflect emotional states rather than factual accuracy. A future where sincerity is verifiable might still face challenges, such as misinterpretations of intent or cultural differences in signal expression. Your vision invites further inquiry into how societies might balance transparency with the need for personal autonomy and contextual nuance.
Critique and Suggestions:
Your commentary is well-reasoned and engages deeply with the book’s themes, particularly the interplay between biology, technology, and social behavior. One area for further consideration might be the cultural variability of honest signals, which Pentland addresses only briefly. Nonverbal cues can differ significantly across cultures, and technologies that analyze these signals may need to account for such diversity to avoid misinterpretation. Additionally, while you focus on the potential benefits of transparency, exploring potential downsides—such as loss of privacy or increased social pressure—could provide a more balanced perspective.

In conclusion, your analysis of Honest Signals effectively captures the book’s scientific contributions while extending its implications to broader societal and technological trends. Your emphasis on human vulnerability, the transformative potential of technology, and the prospect of a more transparent future enriches the discussion of Pentland’s ideas. By connecting evolutionary biology to modern challenges, you offer a nuanced perspective that highlights both the opportunities and ethical complexities of understanding and leveraging honest signals in human interactions.

20250720 – Mothers and Others

July 20, 2025 10:27 AM / Leave a comment

MAIN IDEAS PER GROK:

Sarah Blaffer Hrdy’s Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding (2009) explores the evolutionary roots of human social cooperation, emphasizing the unique role of cooperative child-rearing in human survival and development. Here are the main ideas:

Cooperative Breeding Hypothesis: Hrdy argues that humans evolved as cooperative breeders, where mothers rely on “allomothers” (other group members, like kin or unrelated individuals) to help raise offspring. This contrasts with most primates, where mothers primarily care for young alone. Shared caregiving allowed human mothers to reproduce more frequently and ensured child survival in challenging environments.
Role of Allomothers: Allomothers, including grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, and even non-relatives, provide critical support—food, protection, and care. This communal effort shaped human sociality, fostering trust, empathy, and mutual understanding, which are hallmarks of human behavior.
Evolution of Emotional Capacities: The need for infants to engage multiple caregivers drove the evolution of heightened emotional intelligence. Babies developed abilities to read social cues and elicit care (e.g., through smiling or crying), while caregivers honed skills in empathy and perspective-taking to assess infants’ needs.
Contrast with Other Primates: Unlike chimpanzees or gorillas, where maternal care is largely solitary, human infants require extended dependency periods. Hrdy suggests this prolonged dependence, coupled with cooperative care, favored traits like communication and social bonding, setting humans apart.
Impact on Human Sociality: Cooperative breeding laid the foundation for humans’ hyper-social nature, enabling complex societies. The mutual reliance among group members fostered reciprocity, trust, and the ability to understand others’ intentions, which underpin collaboration and cultural development.
Challenges of Maternal Ambivalence: Hrdy discusses how mothers, facing resource scarcity or social pressures, may prioritize certain offspring or delegate care. This ambivalence, while adaptive, highlights the complex interplay of biology and environment in parenting decisions.
Implications for Modern Societies: The book contrasts ancestral cooperative systems with modern, often isolated nuclear families, suggesting that contemporary parenting struggles stem from a mismatch between evolved needs for communal support and current social structures.

Hrdy integrates anthropology, primatology, and evolutionary biology to argue that human survival hinged on collective child-rearing, which sculpted our emotional and social capacities. The book underscores the importance of community in human evolution and challenges individualistic views of parenting.

CONTENT:

MY TAKE ON IT:

The main idea of this book about cooperative child raising is valid and greatly supported not only by anthropological research but also by humanity’s very nature, which is based on an unparalleled communication tool—human language. The book provides plenty of evidence that it is a case. However, it also provides evidence about the inherent human ability for person-to-person communication. It includes genetically defined ability to attract help from an adult to an infant or a small child by its very appearance and behavior. The idea of postmenopausal females, grandmothers who provide high evolutionary value by taking care of babies and allowing fertile females to produce new babies much faster than they could do it if they had to provide care without support. The cooperative upbringing of children is as significant a differentiator between humans and apes and other animals as anything else conceivable.

However, this is true only for the long period of human development as hunter-gatherers, and it became much less accurate when, a few dozen thousand years ago, humans turned into militarists, agriculturalists, and pastoralists. This caused the advancement of private property over resources, a shift from egalitarian to hierarchical structure of societies, and a change in perception of children from a common future of the group to the future of a property-owning subgroup within the community-family. This was a necessary step due to the specialization of human activities, which requires a different approach to raising children who will play various adult roles. The upbringing of a peasant had to be different from that of a warrior or religious specialist, and only the family could meet this requirement.

Now, with the coming automation of everything and people’s ability to transition between different roles throughout their lifetimes, early specialization within family traditions has become outdated, but this does not mean that humanity can return to communal upbringing patterns of hunter-gatherers. I would argue that the role of family will increase because the objective now becomes to discover an individual’s personality and inclinations in order to help this individual develop what it takes to maximize both the enjoyment of life and the flourishing of the group. This objective could not be met without intense and continuing interactions over decades of early life between older adults and a growing child, which is inconceivable without the institution of the family.

GROK’S COMMENT ON MY OPINION:

Your take on Mothers and Others offers a thoughtful synthesis of Hrdy’s core arguments while extending the discussion to address historical shifts and modern implications. I’ll comment on your key points, highlighting strengths, potential critiques, and additional considerations.

Strengths of Your Analysis:

Affirmation of Cooperative Breeding: You effectively underscore Hrdy’s cooperative breeding hypothesis, tying it to humanity’s unique communication abilities, particularly language. Your point about infants’ genetically driven behaviors (e.g., appearance and emotional cues) aligns well with Hrdy’s emphasis on evolved traits that elicit caregiving. This reinforces her argument that human sociality stems from mutual reliance, a strength you capture clearly.
Role of Grandmothers: Your focus on postmenopausal females as evolutionary assets is spot-on. Hrdy’s “grandmother hypothesis” posits that these women, freed from reproduction, boosted group survival by supporting grandchildren, allowing mothers to reproduce faster. Your acknowledgment of this as a key differentiator between humans and other primates is compelling and well-supported by the book’s evidence.
Historical Context and Social Shifts: You astutely note the transition from hunter-gatherer egalitarianism to hierarchical societies (circa 10,000–40,000 years ago) as a pivotal shift. The rise of private property, agriculture, and specialized roles indeed altered child-rearing, prioritizing family units over communal care to prepare children for specific societal functions (e.g., peasant, warrior). This historical lens adds depth, showing how evolutionary adaptations interacted with cultural changes, a nuance Hrdy touches on but doesn’t fully explore.
Modern Implications and Family’s Role: Your forward-looking argument—that automation and flexible roles reduce the need for early specialization—introduces a fresh perspective. You propose that families remain crucial for nurturing individual potential, aligning personal fulfillment with societal flourishing. This bridges Hrdy’s evolutionary insights with contemporary challenges, such as isolated nuclear families, which she critiques as misaligned with our cooperative heritage.

Potential Critiques and Considerations:

Overemphasis on Family in Modern Contexts: While you argue that families are essential for personalized child-rearing in a post-specialization world, this may undervalue the potential for modern communal structures (e.g., extended kin networks, schools, or community programs) to replicate ancestral cooperative breeding. Hrdy suggests that humans thrive with diverse caregivers, and modern analogs like childcare collectives or mentorship programs could supplement family roles. Your view seems to lean heavily on the nuclear family, which might not fully address the social isolation Hrdy warns against.
Dismissal of Communal Upbringing’s Return: You assert that humanity cannot revert to hunter-gatherer communal patterns, but this could be nuanced further. Some anthropologists, like those Hrdy cites, argue that hybrid models—combining family intimacy with community support—might better match our evolved needs. For example, cooperative daycare systems or intergenerational living arrangements could balance individual development with collective input, challenging the binary of family versus communal care.
Historical Timing and Evidence: Your claim that the shift to hierarchical societies occurred “a few dozen thousand years ago” may overstate the timeline. While early signs of social stratification appear around 40,000–20,000 years ago (e.g., in burial practices), the widespread adoption of agriculture and private property is typically dated to the Neolithic Revolution (~10,000 years ago). This doesn’t undermine your point but could benefit from precision to align with archaeological consensus.
Individual Flourishing vs. Group Dynamics: Your vision of child-rearing focuses on maximizing individual enjoyment and group flourishing, but Hrdy emphasizes that evolutionary pressures prioritized group survival over individual happiness. In modern contexts, balancing personal inclinations with societal needs might require broader socialization beyond the family to foster adaptability and cooperation, especially in diverse, globalized societies.

Additional Reflections:

Evolutionary Mismatch: Your analysis implicitly supports Hrdy’s idea of an evolutionary mismatch—modern environments diverging from the cooperative systems we evolved in. You could further explore how technology (e.g., social media, virtual communities) might simulate ancestral allomothering, potentially easing the burden on isolated families.
Cultural Variability: Hrdy notes that cooperative breeding varies across cultures, with some retaining strong communal practices (e.g., many Indigenous groups). Your argument could incorporate how these variations inform modern debates about family versus community roles, offering real-world examples of hybrid systems.
Automation’s Impact: Your point about automation reducing specialization is intriguing but could be expanded. Automation might shift child-rearing priorities toward creativity, emotional intelligence, and adaptability—traits best nurtured through diverse social interactions, not solely family-based ones.

Conclusion:

Your take is a robust engagement with Hrdy’s thesis, effectively linking cooperative breeding to human uniqueness while contextualizing its evolution through historical and modern lenses. Your emphasis on the family’s enduring role is compelling, though it might benefit from considering how communal structures could complement family efforts in addressing our evolved social needs. By integrating Hrdy’s evolutionary insights with your forward-looking perspective, you’ve crafted a nuanced commentary that invites further exploration of how humans can adapt ancestral strengths to contemporary challenges. If you’d like, I can search for recent studies or X posts to see how others are discussing these ideas in 2025—let me know!

20250316 – The Bias That Divides Us

March 16, 2025 8:42 AM / Leave a comment

MAIN IDEA:

This book explores the concept of myside bias, a cognitive bias where individuals tend to evaluate evidence, generate evidence, and test hypotheses in a manner biased toward their own beliefs and preferences. The author argues that this bias significantly contributes to polarization in society, particularly in political, scientific, and social contexts.

Key points of the book include:

Myside Bias: The author delves into how this bias leads people to filter information through their pre-existing beliefs, often ignoring or dismissing evidence that contradicts their views.
Impact on Society: The book discusses how myside bias exacerbates divisions, especially in areas like climate change, vaccination debates, and political polarization, where individuals on different sides of an issue struggle to engage in meaningful dialogue or recognize valid points from the opposing side.
Cognitive Reflection: The author promotes the idea of cognitive reflection and critical thinking as antidotes to myside bias. He suggests methods and educational strategies to help individuals think more objectively and critically about information they encounter.
Rational Thinking: The text emphasizes the difference between intelligence and rational thinking, pointing out that high intelligence does not necessarily correlate with unbiased, logical reasoning. He advocates for educational reforms that foster rational thinking skills.
Solutions: the author proposes various approaches to mitigate the effects of myside bias, such as teaching better argument analysis, promoting an understanding of cognitive biases, and encouraging environments where questioning one’s own beliefs is valued.

Through these themes, Stanovich aims to provide insights into why rational discourse is often undermined by cognitive biases and suggests ways to bridge these divides by fostering more reflective and less biased thinking.

MY TAKE ON IT:

Myside bias is an unavoidable part of human nature, and there is no conceivable way to change it through education, training in rational thinking, or any other measures. It’s good enough that humans mainly stopped killing each other because of religious, cultural, and other contradictions, at least when it does not involve Islam. Hence, the right way to look for a solution to myside problem is not to find a way to convince each other but to restructure society so that everybody could live according to their beliefs and convictions without attempting to force others to comply with them. This means genuine federalism at the level of states, actual democratic governance at all levels below that, and the ability for each individual to move between groups with different cultures at minimal cost. Indeed, it also includes complete rejection to coerce others to comply with one’s opinions and demands by force.

There are only a few situations when everybody should be and do the same, which involves defense from external enemies, criminal elements, and limitations on economic activities related to externalities such as pollution. Other than these situations, myside problem is irrelevant as long as individual freedom is maximized, and people can have the life they wish.

20241215 Ranganath, Charan – Why We Remember

December 15, 2024 9:35 AM / Leave a comment

MAIN IDEA:

This is the look at memory from the point of view of human evolution. The author’s main point is that memory is nothing like computer memory with write/read features, albeit not as reliable and photographic. Here are the two most important author’s definitions:

Memory is much, much more than an archive of the past; it is the prism through which we see ourselves, others, and the world. It’s the connective tissue underlying what we say, think, and do.
We forget because we need to prioritize what is important so we can rapidly deploy that information when we need it. Our memories are malleable and sometimes inaccurate because our brains were designed to navigate a world that is constantly changing: A place that was once a prime foraging site might now be a barren wasteland. A person we once trusted might turn out to pose a threat. Human memory needed to be flexible and to adapt to context more than it needed to be static and photographically accurate.

The author also provides an excellent technical description:” I think of memory as the process by which our brains change over time. As we go about our lives, connections between neurons are constantly formed and modified, resulting in cell assemblies that help us sense, interact with, and understand the world around us. These intricately connected neural networks give us the ability to weave together the threads of the past so that we may envision how the future will unfold.”

MY TAKE ON IT:

I fully agree with the author that human memory has developed as an effective tool for survival and, as such, provides not an accurate picture of the past but rather a presentation of reality compiled from a combination of previous presentations and current inputs from both the external environment and the body’s internal conditions. This presentation serves one and only one purpose: to prompt such action or inaction that in the past was beneficial for survival and procreation. For conscientious beings such as humans, memory defines the notion of self and where this self belongs in relation to other selves and within the universe.

From this, I’d like to draw the important conclusion that we cannot rely on human memory in many important areas, from witness evidence to a view of past events and interactions.

Luckily, we have technology that allows us to save audio and visual information in just about any conceivable circumstance, and this technology improves constantly. So, any review and analysis of past events, whether a crime or who said and did what and where, should be based not on witness evidence but on technical recordings. However, it also contains the danger of modifying the recording using AI. The only way it could be prevented is by continuing blockchain postings of everything from everybody. It would be absolutely inconceivable back in the 1970s when we saved 2 bytes on a timestamp of the year, but it is conceivable now when we can carry terabytes of data on keychains in our pockets.

20241013 – The Nocebo Effect

October 12, 2024 9:15 AM / Leave a comment

MAIN IDEA:

This book is about the nocebo effect, which is the opposite of the placebo when clearly inactive treatment works because of a patient’s psychological conditions. Here is the authors’ definition: “In our view, the nocebo effect can be summarized as “the occurrence of a harmful event that stems from consciously or subconsciously expecting it.” The core of the nocebo effect is that adverse health effects occur as a result of negative expectations.”. The authors present the history of research in this area since the early 1950s, the mechanics of its working, and its impact not only on the outcomes of medical treatments and the well-being of patients but also on healthcare costs. They also provide recommendations for minimizing this effect’s negative impact. Finally, the authors present their view on the nocebo effect’s impact on society overall and its ability or inability to handle various challenges from the environment to various political, economic, or personal risks.

Here is a nice diagram of how the nocebo effect works:

MY TAKE ON IT:

For me, the analysis in this book presents an interesting demonstration of the interconnection between the reality of life, human perception, and modeling of this reality, which leads to conscious or unconscious actions that, in turn, change reality. This topic goes way beyond the medical side of the placebo/nocebo effect. It could be used to understand human actions in all areas of life, including the economy and politics.

From this point of view, the currently popular contentions of information vs. disinformation, fake news, DEI, and such are just attempts to use the psychology of the nocebo effect to achieve specific population behaviors. In a democracy, even if flawed, such attempts usually fail because of the difficulty of isolating people from accurate information. That’s why people benefiting from COVID and Climate alarmism distortions of resource allocation fail to achieve complete dominance despite mass propaganda efforts and relatively limited violent actions such as the cancelation of non-compliant individuals.

Their ideological peers of the Communist and Nazi variety were more successful because the concentration camps and outright executions were much more effective than losing jobs and prestige. However, even their success was limited in time due to the nasty habit of reality to undermine any ideology that deviates too much from this reality.

The problem for individuals is that they do not have enough time and ability to recover from mistakes to afford too much of a nocebo effect impacting their lives. The solution is to control one’s perception of reality by seeking a variety of views and, most importantly, evaluating these views based on their ability to predict future events rather than the authority of their presenters, how much good feeling of virtue they provide, or even how logically consistent these views are.

20240714 – Without Conscience

July 14, 2024 8:18 AM / Leave a comment

MAIN IDEA:

This is a classical book about psychopathy and psychopaths. It describes and defines this particular disorder, its diagnosis methods, and the behavior patterns of people who possess it. It describes multiple cases of psychopaths, both criminal and even murderous, and those that more or less fit into the frame of normal behavior. It also provides the Psychopathy Checklist:

CONTENT:

MY TAKE ON IT:

I think that, as of today, psychopaths still have pretty much a free run with little attempt to diagnose their condition and control it in the interest of normal people. As with any other human condition, it is not digital, meaning YES/NO status, but more like analog with lots of space between completely no signs and hardcore cases. For me, the most interesting is that, while having no empathy and little or no normal human emotions, psychopaths are very calculating and, therefore, responsive to cost-benefit analysis. This explains the tremendous success of “broken window” policies in suppressing criminal activities and the massive increase in crimes when such policies were discontinued in the name of leftist ideology. These policies provided quick and efficient feedback for psychopathic behavior, prompting psychopaths to control their urges or risk being eliminated if they failed. Based on the information presented in this book, the idea that a psychopath who was allowed to commit a dozen crimes and let go will not commit another dozen crimes looks absolutely ridiculous. From my point of view, any prosecutor who refuses to prosecute crime number N should go to prison as an accomplice when crime number N+1 is committed. In this case, we would quickly decrease both crimes and the number of criminals in positions of power.

20240609 – The Experience Machine

June 6, 2024 7:59 AM / Leave a comment

MAIN IDEA:

This book discusses a novel theory of human behavior and the functioning of the brain. In this theory the brain is considered, first and foremost, a tool to generate predictions about the environment and then use the sensory organs as secondary tools to adjust these predictions. Here is the author’s formulation:” Perception is now heavily shaped from the opposite direction, as predictions formed deep in the brain reach down to alter responses all the way down to areas closer to the skin, eyes, nose, and ears—the sensory organs that take in signals from the outside world. Incoming sensory signals help correct errors in prediction, but the predictions are in the driver’s seat now. This means that what we perceive today is deeply rooted in what we experienced yesterday, and all the days before that. Every aspect of our daily experience comes to us filtered by hidden webs of prediction—the brain’s best expectations rooted in our own past histories”. So human behavior is not reactive, but rather an active 4-step process: prediction–action-perception–correction rather than two steps: perception-action.

MY TAKE ON IT:

The approach to human brain information processing suggested in this book changes the understanding of this processing. So, the first step is to plan or build an internal abstract model of reality. The second step is to direct sensory organs to actively search for confirmation of this model while ignoring other information as irrelevant. Only when contradictory information becomes so overwhelming that it cannot be ignored does the brain implement the correction step. This makes sense and explains many experimental results related to priming, such as the famous experiment with the “invisible” gorilla in the basketball game. It is an interesting approach, and it points to a very important human brain functionality: building predictive models. Actually, this approach goes back to the very beginning of cybernetics when the objective was to direct anti-aircraft fire based on the prediction of the future position of the targeted aircraft and an artillery shell directed to shoot it down. This was a super simple process fully within the computational functionality of contemporary electronics. Obviously, the complexity of the model built by human brains is much higher than the simple beginnings, but the sequence of processes is the same. At the top level of complexity, it nicely explains a phenomenon when highly educated people are prone to be much more protective of their beliefs, even if such beliefs are obviously incorrect. This is because the models of highly educated people are very sophisticated, built at high costs, and, therefore, much more difficult to replace than models of simpler people. Hopefully, the new understanding presented in this book will help promote the development of modification processes for individuals whose perception of the world is built on propaganda and distortions of reality. The success of such an endeavor could help achieve peaceful coexistence between people with different world views based on different and often seemingly contradictory facts.

20240602 – Psych

June 2, 2024 8:26 AM / Leave a comment

MAIN IDEA:

This book was built from the Introduction to Psychology course at Yale. Here is how the author defines his approach:” We’ll see that modern psychology accepts a mechanistic conception of mental life, one that is materialist (seeing the mind as a physical thing), evolutionary (seeing our psychologies as the product of biological evolution, shaped to a large extent by natural selection), and causal (seeing our thoughts and actions as the product of the forces of genes, culture, and individual experience).” However, the author also adds a qualifier:” I think the scientific perspective at the core of modern psychology is fully compatible with the existence of choice and morality and responsibility. Yes, we are, in the end, soft machines—but not just soft machines.”

MY TAKE ON IT:

I think it is a pretty good review of psychology’s history and contemporary condition. I agree with the author’s main positions: materialistic, evolutionary, and causal. From my point of view, what is usually called the mind is the product not only of a specific organ called the brain but also of the totality of the human body in which lots of necessary informational processing occurs at the peripheral level. The signals from peripheral subsystems have a huge impact on the functioning of the brain, as described by psychology methods. The most important thing, which is somehow poorly understood, is that the mind is the communication and information integration system that evolution developed to reconcile two levels of multilevel selection: individual survival and survival of the group that individual belongs to. There is a constant tension between the goals of these two levels, sometimes even direct contradiction, so the hugely complicated and biologically very costly brain is not a luxury but a necessity for survival. The human consciousness is also a necessary product of the brain because the complex system designed to solve complex problems has to have some top-level organizational and co-ordinational tool to synchronize multiple processes occurring in both conscious and unconscious parts of the system and even externally at the level of group and overall environment. The complexity also requires flexibility and delegation of controls to the levels where such control is most effective. This is seldom at the top when our conscious self perceives existing conditions and makes actionable decisions. Contemporary Psychology provides some level of understanding of how these processes work, but a lot less than is needed to obtain a good practical understanding, even if some bits and pieces of such understanding are applied immediately to the manipulation of people to achieve the objectives of others. Humanity is now in the process of moving from a multigroup environment with competition for resources to the formation of one group with a general abundance of resources when the focus will turn to the achievement of individual happiness when the most challenging part would be to assure such changes in human psychology that would make it inconceivable attempting to achieve it at the expense of others. I believe we’ll get there eventually, but it will take lots of time, pain, and suffering before it happens.

20240526 – Humankind

May 26, 2024 8:10 AM / Leave a comment

MAIN IDEA:

This book is about human psychology, and here is the author’s definition of its main idea:” An idea that’s long been known to make rulers nervous. An idea denied by religions and ideologies, ignored by the news media and erased from the annals of world history. At the same time, it’s an idea that’s legitimised by virtually every branch of science. One that’s corroborated by evolution and confirmed by everyday life. An idea so intrinsic to human nature that it goes unnoticed and gets overlooked. If only we had the courage to take it more seriously, it’s an idea that might just start a revolution. Turn society on its head. Because once you grasp what it really means, it’s nothing less than a mind-bending drug that ensures you’ll never look at the world the same again So what is this radical idea? That most people, deep down, are pretty decent.”

The book includes a detailed review of many well-known experiments and events that are believed to demonstrate human culpability and show that, in many cases, these experiments were staged to prove preexisting conclusions or real events misinterpreted for similar purposes. At the end of the book, the author, based on the material discussed in the book, provides what he called:” TEN RULES TO LIVE BY.”

Here are the rules:

I: When in doubt, assume the best

II: Think in win-win scenarios

III: Ask more questions

IV: Temper your empathy, train your compassion

V: Try to understand the other, even if you don’t get where they’re coming from

VI: Love your own as others love their own

VII: Avoid the news

VIII: Don’t punch Nazis

IX. Come out of the closet: don’t be ashamed to do good

X. Be realistic

MY TAKE ON IT:

This book is very interesting to me because it describes the manipulation of data and context that leads people to believe all kinds of lies about human nature and behavior. The reality is pretty simple: humans are the product of multilevel evolution when change occurs at the individual level under evolutionary pressure at two levels: individual and group survival. Humans are selfish at both levels, sometimes prioritizing individual survival but sometimes group survival, which could mean self-sacrifices to save others in the group. However, humans are often nasty to outsiders, all the way to the genocidal level. It used to make lots of sense because resources were limited, and individuals and groups often could survive only at the expense of others. It does not make sense anymore because scientific achievements of the last few centuries provide sufficient resources for all. Now, we are at the beginning of the big adjustment, after which all humans will be included in one big group, and no individual will need to fight others for resources. We need to learn to tolerate others in exchange for being tolerated by others, which means getting rid of all kinds of hierarchical structures and attempts to impose on others our own beliefs, whether these beliefs are religious or behavioral or whatnot. It will not come easy and probably cost lots of blood, sweat, and tears, but self-annihilation is the only alternative. Humanity needs to change the paradigm from the survival of the fittest individuals and groups at the expense of the less fit others to the prosperity of all because the weapons available to the less fit could obliterate all.

20240407 – The Indoctrinated Brain

April 6, 2024 9:19 AM / Leave a comment

MAIN IDEA:

The author is a German neuroscientist specializing in processes related to brain changes due to environment and aging and reviews recent events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. He concludes that these events, when the normal functioning of democracy was dramatically disrupted, are not random but rather part of the quite open process of changing the existing political and economic systems of the Western democracies to the new one characterized by complete dominance over society by the global technocracy: something represented by “Davos people.” Here is the author’s description of how it works using the example of vaccination based on the assumption that a natural immune system cannot handle the COVID-19 virus:” The proclaimed need to be vaccinated against it every three to six months was ultimately based on this false assumption. In the case of this pathogen, however, this meant that for the first time a largely experimental injection was being administered, the mode of action of which is in many cases similar to that of gene therapy (i.e., involving modified active genetic material). This was made palatable to people by a combination of media-generated fear of death (with the key word self-protection) and ethically sanctioned social pressure (protection of others). Thus, this lifelong injection subscription also fulfills the definition of psychosocial dependency, with the ministries of health worldwide having increased their influence on individual lifestyles and pharmaceutical companies having made high profits.”

The author refers to other works that describe the process of people’s indoctrination and then links it to his area of expertise:” An entirely new approach to explaining the increasing controllability of society and the astonishing response of little resistance emerges from this neurological insight. It goes far beyond the sociopsychological approach formulated by Desmet and, in a sense, forms its neuropathological basis. This profound explanation is, however, highly dramatic, for it will take much more than psychological insight and a change of mentality to halt or reverse this dangerous development. Trapped in zombie mode, it is impossible for victims to question their own precarious situation. Natural curiosity or interest in alternative explanations and courses of action is lost, opening the door to indoctrination. The underlying neuropathological process leads to a decrease in psychological resilience. The result is not only an increased fear of anything new but also a particular susceptibility to being controlled by fear.”

In the final chapter, the author presents the closing argument detailing a to-do list for achieving a “Healthier Brain, Healthier Decisions.” He also promises a nice result from implementing it:

MY TAKE ON IT:

I generally do not believe in any conspiracy theories, not because there are no conspiracies, but because the functioning of human societies is way too complicated for conspiracies to be functional. More often than not, great changes in societies, as well as in technology, happen unexpectedly as a result of long undercurrent development that conditions a small number of activists to capture a momentary disturbance of the system and move it to a qualitatively different state. At the same time, the vast majority of people remain passive, whether they support it or not. Such qualitative change could be for the best, as it happened with the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, which led to prosperity and a huge improvement in quality of life, but it can also happen as it did with Fascism and Communism for the worst, which led to a massive decrease in quality of life and termination of millions of lives.

I think that humanity is at a crossroads now, with one road leading to an attempt to establish a dictatorship of a global elite and another one leading to the massive expansion of individual property rights to everybody. Either of these roads will

substitute the current method of resource generation and distribution based on control over most of the resources by the minority of members of the bureaucratic hierarchy of government and/or corporations and on the labor-based resource allocation for the majority. It will inevitably happen because technology makes all labor increasingly redundant, with make-believe jobs being a non-viable substitute due to the evolutionary-formed human psychology.

I also think that the road to complete dominance of bureaucratic hierarchy is a dead end because top members of the elite will always fight each other for power, causing pain and suffering for all in the process. So, eventually, humanity will come to an arrangement when everybody has property rights sufficient to obtain necessary resources via voluntary exchange, and the scale, role, and power of elite bureaucracy will be diminished to the absolute minimum required to maintain law and order.

20240210 – The Social Leap

February 10, 2024 9:42 AM / Leave a comment

MAIN IDEA:

This book discusses the evolutionary development of humans a bit differently than usual. Here is the author’s main point:” What’s less obvious is the role that evolution played in shaping our psychology. We tend to think of evolution in terms of anatomy, but attitudes are just as important for survival as body parts. Preferences that don’t fit your abilities are as debilitating as limbs that don’t suit your lifestyle. Our bodies changed a little over the last six or seven million years, but our psychology changed a lot. Indeed, our evolution away from chimpanzees is marked primarily by adaptations to our mind and brain. The most important changes in our psychology concern our social functioning, particularly our capacity to work together.”

There is also a fascinating discussion about acquiring historical knowledge when there is little to no material evidence. A good example is the history of clothing based on an analysis of the genetic evolution of human louse. “The Social Leap” under discussion is the environmental change in human habitat from forest to savanna that directed evolution to the development of unprecedented levels of cooperation between individuals that made us human.

The book also goes on to discuss further human developments in cooperation, self-control, and innovation that made us the dominant species on this planet. There is also a high level of intellectual diversity generated by the need for different skill sets for the effective functioning of complex societies. Here is a very nice graph for the diversity of social orientations:

The book’s final part discusses the application of evolutionary knowledge to the pursuit of happiness.

MY TAKE ON IT:

I like this book’s approach to understanding human nature in light of the analysis of evolutionary conditions of human development. Such an approach is the only valid approach, unlike a typical approach from a moralistic or ideological point of view, either secular or religious. This is also necessary because the effective pursuit of happiness is only possible by understanding what makes us happy, which understanding could come only from understanding human nature formed by evolutionary pressures for survival.