Is it I? Reflecting of Wegner’s The Illusion of Conscious Will (Old Reflection: Written in 2006)
Are we the authors of our actions or do we merely perceive ourselves to be? Am I writing this paper? Am I to write this paper or have I been conditioned to attend this school, and to do my homework and to write this paper by forces both internal and external for which I cannot adequately account? What about the organization of this paper? Do I organize it well because of something inherent in me, or do I perform poorly because of some past event? Is my action simply a predictable response caused by another agent’s actions or expectations?
Regardless of its difficulty, it is a socially beneficial for the brain to recognize and remember causal relationships, especially regarding the agent in which the brain resides.
On one hand, the brain is remarkably accurate at recognizing and remembering causal relationship between agents. I know that Fred assigned this assignment. I know that I am working on it right now because I want to have it in by 10:00 am so that I might get a decent grade on this assignment and in this class.
On the other hand it is disturbingly inaccurate. Wegner related several cases which suggest that that people are prone to incorrectly assigning and remembering causation. Hans the horse, Facilitated Communication, and spirit possession are just a few examples he gives of people unintentionally seeing what they expected to see. One of my own examples comes from watching NHL hockey as a teenager. I wanted the Red Wings to score and usually they did. Logically, I knew that Steve Yzerman had more to with score at the end of the game than I did, but I still felt like I did my part.
What does this rationality, and lack thereof, reveal concerning the human brain? Wegner’s computer metaphor describes how the brain is working. A detective metaphor is more appropriate for describing ‘what’ it is doing.
The brain is a detective working to understand its environment and how best to succeed in that environment. How does one stay warm? What is the easiest way to find food? How does one attract the opposite sex? What is the best way to build shelter? How do I make it threw the day? Is Sarah hiding something from me? Should I merge into the left lane?
All detective work is interpretation. The brain fits pieces of information together over time, including cause and affect, which it translates into a worldview. Within that worldview it works to explain causal relationships in order to mediate its biological success. Since no brain is objective causal explanations are often open to interpretation. Am I bitter because my mom abused me or because I am possessed?
What rises from this detective work is the illusion of conscious will. The brain notices a correlation between higher reasoning, feelings and actions, and determines that its agent acts because its agent has determined, either based on feelings or thoughts to do so. While thought and act often occur simultaneously, it is confusion to infer that thought causes action. If fact, rationalization is often, if not always an afterthought. Even when it is not, direct causation is not inferred because humans often act in ways contrary to their admitted rationality. It is not a conscious will that determines actions, but rather a record of interpreted actions over time that creates an illusion of the conscious will.
The illusion of conscious will reveals important truths about how the human brain works, and those truths have social implications. Rationality is not the mediator of human action. However, that does not mean that rationality does not inform human action. It does, not as a trump card, but as one competing source among many. One of Wegner’s experiments demonstrates this well enough. Participants who were informed about misconceptions in FC were less likely to attribute their answers to the foil’s thoughts. Knowledge influenced their willingness to look past the illusion. So, rationality does not create will, but it can influence behavior. Interpreting events is just as much a behavior as reaching for a cup. The largest benefit from the knowledge of the illusion is healthy doubt.
It is natural for humans to assume that their perspective is correct. If they are looking at a situation from a defensive point of view, they are likely to believe that their actions were reactions to an aggressor’s actions without taking into consideration that even the aggressor is reacting to the defender. This has broad implications for personal relationship, as well as national and international politics.
Humans with this knowledge should have an increased ability to doubt their initial interpretation of events within their personal relationships. If I am withdrawing from my wife, I might perceive that it is because she is nagging me, when actually she is nagging me because I am withdrawing from her. Understanding that this is a possibility makes it more likely that my actions will change. It does not mean that they will, because action is not caused by rationality. If nothing else, I can admit that I am withdrawing and apologize, which will be much better for my marriage than denial.
Concerning national politics, much is revealed about the inter-racial dialogue. In recent years questions have been raised as to whether minorities are reacting to the racism of whites, or whether whites remain racist because of the reaction of minorities. As it turns out, probably both assumptions are correct. This explains why Martin Luther King jr. was so successful as a political reformer. His initiatives demanded change through controlled behaviors that were not defensive reactions against the white majority. Many whites were able to let their defenses down, and thereby stop oppressing. In America today, political leaders who desire inter-racial harmony would be more successful if they encouraged their followers to avoid playing a defensive role, and instead worked for peaceful social improvement regardless of the response. Each racial and ethnic group would see this better if part of their worldview was informed by healthy doubt.
The same could be said of international politics. Powerful nations often move quickly to squelch perceived threats to their security. Sometimes the actions they take are correct. Other times they do not. This cannot be helped. Nevertheless healthy doubt might curb some mistakes in logic, or at least quicken the road to peace afterwards.
Perhaps the most obvious implication concerns how people deal with themselves and others in the event of a moral error. Do people get second chances? Are they treated as though they meant to take the action? Was their action caused by poor judgment that is unlikely to occur again? Understanding why people fail to live up to moral norms may increase societies ability to help them conform, without necessarily treating them like second-class citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment