Abstract values trump concrete desires

[Christopher]

I recently had the pleasure of reading an article about automatic (unconscious) positive evaluations towards goals and objects. The observations were as follows:

People can have automatic positive evaluations about abstract goals such as the "desire to be thin"

People can have automatic positive evaluations about concrete objects such as a cookie

If you want to predict the behavior of a person over a given timespan, in this case two weeks, the results showed:

A. automatic positive evaluations about "desire to be thin" goal predicted eating cookies (inversely correlated)

B. automatic positive evaluations about cookies did not predict cookie-eating behavior

The main conclusion was this:

--> generalized long-term behavior is guided more strongly by abstract goals than concrete desires. Implication for Objectivism: abstract values such as "awareness" and "honesty" may be more relevant to behavior than concrete value-expressions representative of awareness or honesty.

[BaalChatzaf]

I recently had the pleasure of reading an article about automatic (unconscious) positive evaluations towards goals and objects. The observations were as follows:

People can have automatic positive evaluations about abstract goals such as the "desire to be thin"

People can have automatic positive evaluations about concrete objects such as a cookie

If you want to predict the behavior of a person over a given timespan, in this case two weeks, the results showed:

A. automatic positive evaluations about "desire to be thin" goal predicted eating cookies (inversely correlated)

B. automatic positive evaluations about cookies did not predict cookie-eating behavior

The main conclusion was this:

--> generalized long-term behavior is guided more strongly by abstract goals than concrete desires. Implication for Objectivism: abstract values such as "awareness" and "honesty" may be more relevant to behavior than concrete value-expressions representative of awareness or honesty.

Concrete example: You are on RMS Titanic and it is going down by the bows. There is one more life-boat left and you are within five feet of it. One little jump and you are in the boat. I propose that the concrete objective of getting in the boat trumps the abstract principle of surviving and even flourishing in this benign universe.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

People can have automatic positive evaluations about abstract goals such as the "desire to be thin"

People can have automatic positive evaluations about concrete objects such as a cookie

Unless it is defined what an "automatic" positive evaluation is, and how it comes to such evaluations, the statements themselves remain floating abstractions.

If you want to predict the behavior of a person over a given timespan, in this case two weeks, the results showed:

A. automatic positive evaluations about "desire to be thin" goal predicted eating cookies (inversely correlated)

B. automatic positive evaluations about cookies did not predict cookie-eating behavior

If you would be so kind and illustrate with examples what is meant here. Didn't the article offer any?

Is all this about long-term goals versus impulses to satisfy a momentary desire?

Edited October 16, 2009 by Xray

[Christopher]

Concrete example: You are on RMS Titanic and it is going down by the bows. There is one more life-boat left and you are within five feet of it. One little jump and you are in the boat. I propose that the concrete objective of getting in the boat trumps the abstract principle of surviving and even flourishing in this benign universe.

There are conscious behaviors that we intentionally decide.

There are unconscious goals that we strive for rather automatically.

And there are impulse reactions to situations that trump most all mental functioning

Yours is clearly the last. Life is not a constant emergency, I think it's silly to bring up such an example.

[BaalChatzaf]

Concrete example: You are on RMS Titanic and it is going down by the bows. There is one more life-boat left and you are within five feet of it. One little jump and you are in the boat. I propose that the concrete objective of getting in the boat trumps the abstract principle of surviving and even flourishing in this benign universe.

There are conscious behaviors that we intentionally decide.

There are unconscious goals that we strive for rather automatically.

And there are impulse reactions to situations that trump most all mental functioning

Yours is clearly the last. Life is not a constant emergency, I think it's silly to bring up such an example.

Nay, nay. The counter example disproves your general assertion. That is basic logic 101.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Hey Chris, what do you mean by 'automatic positive evaluations'?

[Christopher]

By automatic positive evaluations, I mean having unconscious positive regard for something. Liking something we're not totally aware that we like (emotionally).

I was reading more about the difference between abstract and concrete relationship to behavior this afternoon (same author). Apparently:

1. abstract knowledge is more available in memory than concrete knowledge regarding experience.

--> when we are climbing a tree and someone asks what we are doing, we generally answer "having fun" rather than "holding on to a branch"

2. this leads to more accessible abstract evaluative knowledge about an event, which then makes the evaluation more influential

--> 'climbing a tree is fun' is more easily recalled then 'putting grabbing trunk, putting feet here, grabbing there... is fun'

3. which results in more familiarity with goal domains and strategies than particular concretes

And if we take Ba'al's example with this additional perspective, then we could reword the problem to think that the abstract concepts "safety" or "saving my children!" are the immediate guiding behaviors in the sinking boat example (rather than 'act of jumping into a boat' or 'act of grabbing child, holding child, running to safety')

[Xray]

By automatic positive evaluations, I mean having unconscious positive regard for something. Liking something we're not totally aware that we like (emotionally).

"Automatic" is something else than "unconscious".

I was reading more about the difference between abstract and concrete relationship to behavior this afternoon (same author). Apparently:

1. abstract knowledge is more available in memory than concrete knowledge regarding experience.

--> when we are climbing a tree and someone asks what we are doing, we generally answer "having fun" rather than "holding on to a branch"

2. this leads to more accessible abstract evaluative knowledge about an event, which then makes the evaluation more influential

--> 'climbing a tree is fun' is more easily recalled then 'putting grabbing trunk, putting feet here, grabbing there... is fun'

3. which results in more familiarity with goal domains and strategies than particular concretes

I get the impresssion that this author is a bit of a muddlehead.

And if we take Ba'al's example with this additional perspective, then we could reword the problem to think that the abstract concepts "safety" or "saving my children!" are the immediate guiding behaviors in the sinking boat example (rather than 'act of jumping into a boat' or 'act of grabbing child, holding child, running to safety')

Safety and saving the children is the desired goal; jumping into a boat, grabbing the children, running away are the means chosen to achieve the goal. It's that simple.

[jeffrey smith]

Concrete example: You are on RMS Titanic and it is going down by the bows. There is one more life-boat left and you are within five feet of it. One little jump and you are in the boat. I propose that the concrete objective of getting in the boat trumps the abstract principle of surviving and even flourishing in this benign universe.

There are conscious behaviors that we intentionally decide.

There are unconscious goals that we strive for rather automatically.

And there are impulse reactions to situations that trump most all mental functioning

Yours is clearly the last. Life is not a constant emergency, I think it's silly to bring up such an example.

Nay, nay. The counter example disproves your general assertion. That is basic logic 101.

Ba'al Chatzaf

How is it a counter example? Getting on the boat is a concrete example of implementing the abstract value of survival.

Jeff S.

[BaalChatzaf]

How is it a counter example? Getting on the boat is a concrete example of implementing the abstract value of survival.

Jeff S.

Under the circumstances I postulated, the only thing that person would be thinking of is getting on the lifeboat. Larger issues would not occupy his mind. In short, the concrete, limited issue has trumped the general large issue.

I have been in emergency situations and I can assure you, I never thought of anything abstract. Only afterward, did I consider the prior events in a larger context. In a pinch, we tend to think locally, not globally.

Larger, abstract issues involving principles are a luxury of the well-fed and un-pressed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

How is it a counter example? Getting on the boat is a concrete example of implementing the abstract value of survival.

Jeff S.

That is a post hoc conceptualization of the concrete choice. One can relate the particular to the general after the particular is accomplished. But first the particular deed must be done.

Did you ever see the motion picture -Apollo 13-? There is a scene where the engineers have a collection of odds and ends and the chief engineer says to his mates, we have to get this (pointing to a square piece) into that (pointing to a round piece) using nothing but this (pointing to all the odds and ends). The problem to be solved was very narrow and very focused. Any other considerations would have be a digression with potentially disastrous consequences.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[jeffrey smith]

How is it a counter example? Getting on the boat is a concrete example of implementing the abstract value of survival.

Jeff S.

Under the circumstances I postulated, the only thing that person would be thinking of is getting on the lifeboat. Larger issues would not occupy his mind. In short, the concrete, limited issue has trumped the general large issue.

I have been in emergency situations and I can assure you, I never thought of anything abstract. Only afterward, did I consider the prior events in a larger context. In a pinch, we tend to think locally, not globally.

Larger, abstract issues involving principles are a luxury of the well-fed and un-pressed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The already formulated principles would guide his decision making process. For instance (to keep to the Titanic) the men who adhered to the "women and children first" principle obviously considered "the larger issue".

You are right, but only in the limited sense that a concrete situation will always force us to take concrete actions, and thereby incarnate, so to speak, the abstract principles in the concrete actions.

[Brant Gaede]

Oh they built the ship Titanic

To sail the ocean blue

And they thought they had a ship

That the ocean never knew

But the Lord's all mighty hand

Knew that ship would never stand

It was sad when that great ship went down

Oh it was sad

Yes it was sad

It was sad when that great ship went down

To the bottom went the husbands and wifes

Little children lost their lives!

It was sad when that great ship went down

(sung by little boys at YMCA camp in the mid-late 1950s)

--Brant

what are they singing now?

Edited October 17, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Christopher]

How is it a counter example? Getting on the boat is a concrete example of implementing the abstract value of survival.

Jeff S.

Under the circumstances I postulated, the only thing that person would be thinking of is getting on the lifeboat. Larger issues would not occupy his mind. In short, the concrete, limited issue has trumped the general large issue.

I have been in emergency situations and I can assure you, I never thought of anything abstract. Only afterward, did I consider the prior events in a larger context. In a pinch, we tend to think locally, not globally.

Larger, abstract issues involving principles are a luxury of the well-fed and un-pressed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The already formulated principles would guide his decision making process. For instance (to keep to the Titanic) the men who adhered to the "women and children first" principle obviously considered "the larger issue".

You are right, but only in the limited sense that a concrete situation will always force us to take concrete actions, and thereby incarnate, so to speak, the abstract principles in the concrete actions.

Yes.. no matter how much we enjoy (or hate) jumping into boats during our spare time, I think that our evaluation of the concrete 'jumping into boats' is going to have very little effect on the action of jumping here. Rather, our abstract value 'get to safety' will translate very quickly into the action of jumping regardless of how fun (or boring) we normally feel jumping into boats is.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Christopher,

I am of the three brain-segment view of Rapaille:

1. Reptilian brain

2. Limbic system

3. Cortex

(I believe this is the view held by Koestler (The Ghost in the Machine and The Act of Creation), also, but I read him years ago and need to brush up to say for sure. I know this is a popular theory.)

But I have a qualification. These are not self-contained structures. Function-wise, they all intersect and overlap with each other like Venn diagrams (drawn circles that overlap in a middle segment). One can even dominate the others for a stretch, but each has its own set of values and cognitive behavior that unfold during normal living.

The reptilian brain is where the fight-flight system and the pleasure-pain system are mostly present. (Sex probably, also.) The limbic system (hippocampus, amygdala, etc., in other words, basically where the emotions are processed) can be triggered by the reptilian brain, but there are some more advanced values that get learned and recorded in it over time. And the cortex is where conceptual thought gets thrown into the mix, including the inner dialog that constantly runs in our awareness.

I see volition present in all three, with obvious limits scaled to the nature of each.

In sudden emergencies, the reptilian brain tends to hijack the others and the resulting action is automatic. Emotional hijacks can happen, also. Goleman (Emotional Intelligence) shows where there is a shortcut between the thalamus and the amygdala in sudden danger, so the emotion is triggered before the impulse from the eye reaches the visual cortex. You react before you even know you are reacting or why.

Action based on principles (cortex activity) needs a bit more calm, but it can hijack the others through meditation, repression, structured routines and some other goodies. I would even include sheer willpower here, but that is the most painful and least effective means of the cortex dominating the other two. That's also why it so often fails.

Another interesting point is that an emotion is not just a mental event (except maybe boredom, and even then there is yawning as sleep approaches). Emotions have a physical expression. I have been reading some fascinating things about how you can "program" some emotions on the deepest level (which I consider to be in the reptilian brain and the limbic system) by putting your body into the physical expression of the emotion. (Smiling, for instance.)

This is obviously a two-way street, though. Values can come from the mind, thus prompt emotions which prompt the body. (You're happy, so you smile.)

From the other end, the body can prompt emotions without a value involved (like forcing yourself to smile for no reason) and from there (if you do it over and over) get recorded in memory as a normal emotional trigger that can later come from the mind.

This last is a great way to take a purely cerebral conclusion and turn it into a value that prompts the proper emotion. All you need to do is associate the conclusion with the physical act that prompts the emotion, do it over and over and over, and voila! You have a programmed value with the accompanying emotion.

There is so much to learn so far. I only scratch the surface here.

Michael

[Christopher]

Michael,

I just spent a wonderful day at a Napa Valley winery. It was nice.

We share a lot of literature similarities. Of course you know I enjoy Rapaille's work, and Goleman is also fascinating. In fact, I've often wanted to spend more time discussing your thoughts about Rapaille.

You've written a lot of good stuff here, but there are a few points I'm not sure I see the same. You mention that the three systems overlap to a degree. It has been my observation that these three systems in fact act as parallel modules with little overlap. Studies on motivation have shown that cortex and limbic system values have zero correlation. So the data suggests that there is no overlap per se. However, what studies have also shown is that when an individual is consciously "self-determined," (ie. intrinsically motivated), overlap begins to occur perhaps because the cortex is aware of limbic signals and therefore begins structuring itself to integrate with those signals (although this is a volitional overlap versus biological).

Also, NB explained volition not as the ability to choose per se, but as the degree of awareness one brings to an event. We can, like a light bulb at different luminescence, light up with more or less awareness to an event. The only real choice we have though is the degree of awareness that we bring, whereas subsequent real-world choices are made rather deterministically from whatever level of awareness is present. If that is true, then do we define awareness/volition of a system (rep, limbic, cortex) as awareness of the products of the system or awareness to the inner processes of the system? If only the products of the system, then volition could occur at all levels: we can be aware of the products of any system. If volition is awareness to the inner processes of the different systems, then I would think volition can only occur in the cortex. The reason is that we are not aware of limbic or reptilian evaluation processes because these occur automatically and below the consciousness threshold (the first by definition, but probably reptilian can be considered automatic and subconscious as well). In fact, studies have shown that we humans merely guess at the sources of our emotional triggers, but we don't really know what those triggers are. If I am scared in a situation, I consciously look around me, then associate what I'm feeling to whatever object I think is most likely the cause of my emotion. However, this has been shown by experiment time and again that it is purely guesswork.

So if we take a smile, we volitionally (through cortex perhaps) choose to smile. Our emotional or reptilian brain doesn't see our cortex thinking, but it does see the product of the thinking (the smile), and then responds to that product. Likewise, our cortex never sees what the emotional brain is thinking, but it sees the products of that thinking (the emotions).

Long long writing. I'd love to hear what you think about this.

Chris

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Christopher,

In a Venn diagram, you have a part of each circle that does not overlap and a part that does.

This is what I meant. Of course each system functions in part as separate. In other words, there are parts of the "reptilian brain circle" that are only "reptilian brain,"but there is the other part that has communication and learning with the others.

You can see good examples of the overlap part when one dominates the other. In a sudden fight-flight mode full-brain hijack by the reptilian brain, for example, the automatic behaviors include knowledge that could not possibly be included in the reptilian brain, including speech.

Going from the cortex, the conscious part can slow down heartbeat, send blood to extremities, etc., through simple mental commands that can be self-trained as triggers. (You can even use eye movements, of all things, to aid in this.) All that stuff is in the reptilian brain and generally not accessible to the cortex.

I also don't see the overlapped parts as clear cut, either. More like neural pathways that run in all different directions according to all kinds of varying intensities.

Nor do I believe that when the reptilian brain is engaged, it has to be either the separate part or the overlapped part. I believe the reptilian brain can use both sections simultaneously. Ditto for the other two parts.

As to volition, this probably needs better definition. The reptilian brain does not choose whether to engage or not, neither does the limbic system. Only the cortex can choose to think or just drift along on autopilot. But once engaged, the reptilian brain can choose whether to run left or right and stuff like that. This is what I meant by scale.

This is really a nutshell presentation. Like I said, there is so much more to learn (and even explain and/or speculate on). I strongly suspect my general outline is true. I need to read a whole lot more to see if stuff fits or refutes parts of it.

I do have one certainty. I am convinced that 100% separate does not exist, nor does 100% overlap.

Michael

[Selene]

Christopher,

In a Venn diagram, you have a part of each circle that does not overlap and a part that does.

Michael

http://www.readwritethink.org/materials/venn/

[BaalChatzaf]

I do have one certainty. I am convinced that 100% separate does not exist, nor does 100% overlap.

Michael

Pay attention now: Let A be the set of integers divisible by 2. Let be B be the set of integers who binary representation has a 0 in the lowest order digit.

A and B coincide, overlap exactly, one hundred percent.

Let A be the set of people who are MSK. Let B be the set of people now sitting before your terminal even as you read this.

A and B coincide and overlap one hundred percent exactly.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

I do have one certainty. I am convinced that 100% separate does not exist, nor does 100% overlap.

Michael

Michael -

Can you explain the context in which you are stating this? Clearly, it's not valid as a general statement. What's the qualification? There are clearly sets with nothing in common, for instance. And disjoint sets.

Bill P

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sorry folks.

I presumed that everybody would understand that statement as a continuation of my previous discussion.

Here is a revised statement to make it clear:

"I do have one certainty. I am convinced that, with respect to the three brain segments I have been discussing, 100% separate does not exist, nor does 100% overlap."

Meaning something like the following:

The whole reptilian brain (the 100%) exists disconnected from the others. (False)

The whole reptilian brain (the 100%) exists overlapping with the others. (False)

Ditto for the other two segments. I hope that is clearer.

Michael

[Christopher]

You can see good examples of the overlap part when one dominates the other. In a sudden fight-flight mode full-brain hijack by the reptilian brain, for example, the automatic behaviors include knowledge that could not possibly be included in the reptilian brain, including speech.

Going from the cortex, the conscious part can slow down heartbeat, send blood to extremities, etc., through simple mental commands that can be self-trained as triggers. (You can even use eye movements, of all things, to aid in this.) All that stuff is in the reptilian brain and generally not accessible to the cortex.

...I do have one certainty. I am convinced that 100% separate does not exist, nor does 100% overlap.

Michael

Michael, you give some excellent examples. That doesn't necessarily mean that they support your point, but I think that there is room for interpretation to go either way.

The main challenge here is determining whether there is indeed overlap or whether the output of one modular system is simply acting as an immediate input for another system.

Given example: conscious part can slow down heartbeat. Unfortunately we do not understand necessarily how consciousness does this. Let us assume consciousness is located in the cortex (the area of the "central executive"). Let us assume the cortex decides to slow down heartbeat. What does it do? Perhaps the first thing it does is slow down breathing. The product of conscious/cortex choice is slowing breathing. The slowing breathing acts as an input to the reptilian brain, which then acts to slow heartbeat.... In this interpretation, there is zero overlap. Rather, there is the product of one modular system acting as an input to another system (without the internal mechanisms of those systems intermeshed).

I believe the same explanation can be applied to your other examples.

Christopher

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Christopher,

Hell, that's easy to test.

Try slowing your breathing to the point the meditation people get without doing the meditation stuff and see if you can get your heartbeat to where they do.

I will bet good money it doesn't happen.

I'm not sure if there have been these tests, but I would be surprised if there have not.

Incidentally, a lot of my thinking comes from my own experience in overcoming alcohol and drug addictions.

Michael

[psychoanaleesis]

Ah-hya! you people! Values are Abstracts. We only assign values, it does not metaphysically exist in concrete objects i.e. rock is a rock until you assign it a certain meaning e.g. keepsakes.

If you only state things as they are you are in the realm of naturalism and this is infinitely dull and thus, remembering each action/thought will be a pain. However, think of a concretes in the terms: As they can be, and ought to be. And there it will be easier to process because of reason which integrates massive amounts of data.

Edited February 22, 2010 by David Lee