The Significance of Emotion
by MikeGeneA recent experiment from the University College London helps us appreciate the manner in which emotions can influence decisions. The authors of the study suggest "that rational behaviour may stem from an ability to override automatic emotional responses, rather than an absence of emotion per se." And according to this synopsis, "it has increasingly become recognized that humans often act irrationally, as a consequence of biasing influences. For example, people are strongly and consistently affected by the way in which a question is presented. An operation that has 40 per cent probability of success seems more appealing than one that has a 60 per cent chance of failure."
Below the fold is a brief description of the study and reasons why this study may be relevant to this site.
The basic approach of the study was described as follows:
In the study, published in the journal Science, UCL researchers used a gambling experiment to establish the cognitive basis for rational decision-making. The goal of the task was to accumulate as much money as possible, with the incentive of being paid in real money in proportion to the money won during the experiment. Participants were given a starting amount of money (£50) at the beginning of each trial. They were then asked to choose between either a sure option or a gamble option (where they would have a certain chance of winning the entire amount, but also of losing it all). Subjects were presented with these choices under two different frames (i.e. scenarios), in which the sure option was worded either as the amount to be kept from the starting amount ("keep £20"), or the amount to be deducted ("lose £30"). The two options, although worded differently, would result in exactly the same outcome, i.e. that the participant would be left with £20.
The results are described as follows:
The UCL study found that participants were more likely to gamble at the threat of losing £30 than the offer of keeping £20. On average, when presented with the "keep" option, participants chose to gamble 43 per cent of the time compared with 62 per cent for the "lose" option. Furthermore, there was a marked difference in behaviour between participants. Some people adopted a more rational approach and gambled more equally and consistently under both frames, while others showed a real aversion to risk in the "keep" frame while at the same time displaying high risk-seeking behaviour in the "lose" frame.
Finally, the researchers comment:
"Our study provides neurobiological evidence that an amygdala-based emotional system underpins this biasing of human decisions. Moreover, we found that people are rational, or irrational, to widely differing amounts. Interestingly, the amygdala was active across all participants, regardless of whether they behaved rationally or irrationally, suggesting that everyone experiences an emotional reaction when faced with such choices. However, we found that more rational individuals had greater activation in their orbitofrontal cortex (a region of prefrontal cortex) suggesting that rational individuals are able to better manage or perhaps override their emotional responses."
What's striking to me is that they obtained these differences with such minor provocation. Even though you could never get it pass a review board, what if you could instead have people come in with their life savings and somehow convinced them that they had to make these choices? How much of an ability to override automatic emotional responses would they have found?
Over the years, I have commented on the community of ID skeptics and the way it is saturated with emotion. They perceive ID proponents as being Liars out to corrupt thought. They have warned extensively about the Threat that ID supposedly represents. And seeing ID entirely through the political prism, they have Fought the Battle and Called for Action.
When I point these things out, it is not to somehow score debate or political points. In my case, it simply calls into question the ability of this community to process ID claims rationally. Of course, if an ID proponent makes a claim about evolution that can be rebutted with published studies, that may not be important. But what if we are simply pondering the concept of design and whether it does indeed intersect with biotic reality?
Take the simple question, "Is there any evidence for Intelligent Design?" Remember, people are strongly and consistently affected by the way in which a question is presented. But we can go beyond this and argue that people are strongly and consistently affected by the way in which a question is perceived. For example, for a huge number of skeptics, the question "Is there any evidence for Intelligent Design?" becomes, in their mind, ""Is there any evidence for God?" For others, it becomes "Is there any evidence that the Discovery Institute is correct?" For others, it becomes "Is there any evidence to support the construction of a Theocracy?" All of these questions not only raise the "stakes" considerably, but are also likely to elicit significant emotion. As such, I would argue that such perceptions shape the answers.
One of the questions I constantly ask myself is "Why do I stick with this stuff?" It's not like the evidence for ID is so compelling. I am also fully aware of how far out of the "intellectual" mainstream my views are. And I certainly could do without being the target of slurs and accusations that stem from other people's emotions and stereotypes. Well, one reason I stick with it is that I have little reason to think most people out there are processing the questions about design rationally. Their skepticism is duly noted, as are the arguments, but until the skepticism of Intelligent Design comes from minds without the emotions and sense of threatiness, I just can't attach too much significance to it. ID may be wrong, but at least I am not rejecting it for the wrong reasons.
August 4th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
Emotions and biases are fundamentally a part (not the whole) of what we choose to regard as true. Rationality and logic only allow us to unravel whether there is a self-contradiction in our belief system, it does not formally prove our belief system (be it scientific or philosophical) to be true.
Regarding the issue of emotions and logic, we have some inspiring examples of the ability to overcome irrational tendencies. One need only look at the lives of the most revered logicians in mathematics (Cantor, Godel, Newton, perhaps other). Their personal lives were permeated by irrational behavior, but they were able to overcome irrational tendencies at least in regard to the scientific and logical questions they explored….
For example, Cantor and Godel spent much of their live battling mental illness, Newton had a nervous breakdown that lasted a year prior to making some of his greatest achievements. Thus there is hope that irrationality can at least be comparmentalized so as to allow rational inquiry to move forward.
As for me, I probably would be in the 95% percentile as far as an emotional person, yet I have 3 degrees in highly mathematical disciplines. I live in the extreme of two worlds. My postings over the years probably reflect the dual modes of brain operation…..But I'd like to think that when called upon to make a rational deduction, that I am able to do so, and that I'm quite able to see when a critic has put forward a self-defeating hypothesis…
That said, I see irrationality abounding in the critics of ID. Circular reasoning, equivocations, strawman arguments, obfuscations, Chewbacca Defenses, and misrepresentations everywhere. Coupled with that are dubious behaviors like sock-puppeting, attempts to subvert careers, duplicitious and abusive behaviours, etc.
The great logicians of before were able to overcome human nature's irrational tendencies. That fact is more amazing when one realizes how much irrationality permeated their personal lives. They succeeded in preventing irrationality from spilling into the defense of their hypotheses. I presume they were able to do so because of their willingness to expend the energy to make rational arguments. I don't see the same from the critics of ID.
Salvador
PS
Technical note on rational "proof":
One can not formally prove what one believes is true, however one's ideas may be falsifiable either by logically demonstrating a contradiction or by showing an empirical experiment refuting one's suppositions.
Even within mathematics, the supposedly most rational discipline, the kernel from which it springs is rooted only in assumption, not formal proof:
I offer this only to say, in all human endeavors, even the search for mathematical truth, there is a kernel of assumptions which has no absolute basis in rationality. Rationality can only demonstrate whether the set of assumptions are self contradictory (like a square circle), it cannot actually prove them as true.
So, in some respects, one is still left with something of intuitionist arguments, with rationality filtering out those intuitions which can not be logically consistent.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 4, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
August 4th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Sal:
The applied sciences aren't any better, Sal. Tesla could go for months without sleep working on a project, then would utterly collapse and be bedridden (some speak of strange coma state) for weeks. Never married and a really bad businessman, he died poor and alone in a New York hotel at 86 in 1943. J. Edgar Hoover immediately classified all papers and property on the order of the War Department because even though they had turned down his "teleforce" weapon (particle beam), they didn't want the Yugoslavs (or Germany, or Russia) to get it.
Einstein is legendary as the stereotypical "nutty professor" whose different colored socks are still part of a famous Feynman lecture attempting to explain entanglement. Then there's all those "mad scientists" my brother and I used to pay a dime to see in Buck Rogers serials, B-monster flicks and honest-to-Godzilla movies on Saturdays at the base cinema. I've never met a mathematician or physicist who wasn't a little off. Feynman himself was a pretty fair juggler and a talented clown (was that AFTER he got back from hiking across India, or before? …I can't recall). Had just the hair for it, though… §;o)
Scientists are known to harbor personal eccentricities just like us regular folk. Why, the evangelistic fervor of Dawkins and Dennett and Myers, et. al. in trying to sell their metaphysical worldview is almost as impressive as some canvas-tent circuit riders I've seen! Scientists can be 'irrational' fundamentalists too. I think they'd get more respect if they stopped trying to pretend they're not as human as the rest of us. But I suppose then they wouldn't get such a free pass on their odd behaviors and beliefs, eh?
I love this country. We're so contentiously… um, free to be. I like it that way.
Comment by Joy — August 4, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
August 4th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
MG said:
That's a rather emotional reason, isn't it? I mean, there are no empirical data to support that view either way.
I think you're rejecting evolution for exactly the wrong reasons. But that's just my view.
Comment by edarrell — August 4, 2006 @ 8:54 pm
August 4th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
Ed:
No, it's a conclusion based on experience - I have little reason to think most people out there are processing the questions about design rationally.
You're confused here. I mentioned one reason why I do no reject ID.
BTW, Ed, if you'd simply rather not answer the question about Karen Armstrong, just say so.
Comment by MikeGene — August 4, 2006 @ 11:25 pm
August 5th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
Hi Sal,
What Damasio, Ledoux and others would tell us about these individuals isn't that they were somehow able to divorce emotions from their work but rather that they had an intense emotional bias towards the truth. That deep emotional bias may, in fact, have been the reason for their mental illness. This reminds me of Plantinga's definition of warrant as proper function, where one's cognitive faculties are properly functioning in the environment for which they were intended and well aimed at truth. The research would include one's emotional biases as part of being well aimed at truth.
Comment by Steve Petermann — August 5, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
August 5th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Curiosity and trying new concepts is obviously fine and welcome. Your persistence is admirable. But then you are greatly reducing the argument put forth by your mentor, Michael Behe.
Behe wrote:
Ponder away, Mike Gene. Hunch away. Poof away, as Behe resorted to in explanation to a Christian physicist. Call it non-science, as you do. Considering i+d is great for a post-modern past-time!
It seems that you use the word 'sceptic' in a very skewed way. You apparently suppose that anyone who doesn't choose to see/conceptualize the words (those two *specific* words) intelligent + design when they look at biotic reality, then they are sceptical or a sceptic or *a critic* one of *the critics* of what you hold dear in i+d. But you are forgetting, or indeed ignoring, that i+d, what you mistakingly capitalize as Inteligent Design (when from an agnostic standpoint that seems impossible or just not quite in hand, foot or side wounds), is simply one way of looking at the evidence and that it is and must be tied to a theoretical model or apparatus.
Remember Einstein's repeated words: "only the theory decides what can be observed."
But the theory is full of holes. It is patchwork. It is un-holistic. As you say, there *is* no (coherent) theory of intelligent design!! Yes, there are theories/hypotheses, but they are not compiled into one.
Have you ever thought, Mike, that you may be, otoh, accepting it or agreeing with it for the wrong reasons? Would you allow that there *are* (i.e. do exist) people who have rejected ID for the *right* reasons?
(If you do admit of this possibility, then I should say that I've come in contact with many of these such people, who are far less emotionally attached to their rejection of ID than say Salvador Cordova is to his acceptance of ID.)
There are both philosophical and theological approaches that might be thought relevant to the great dedication you've made in the name of (an argument from 'intelligent') design.
Arago
Comment by g arago — August 5, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
August 6th, 2006 at 11:05 am
G arago:
So?
Considering Mike Gene is obviously great for your post-modern past-time. If you insist that I abandon my suspicions, has it ever occurred to you that you have not provided me one good reason for doing so?
Here it is clear that you have never truly grasped my position. I have long acknowledged that my ID perspective is simply one way of looking at the data. Does it annoy you that such a perspective exists?
Just like abiogenesis. Do you believe the Earth spawned Life, G arago?
I don't accept or agree with it. I take it as a serious possibility that is becoming ever more plausible. As for skeptics rejecting ID for the right reasons, it would depend on their perspective of ID. I have yet to hear a skeptical argument that compels me to reject ID. After all, to reject is to close your mind. Are we at that point in human inquiry where we can close our minds on this issue? You tell me.
What? Do you want me to do your homework for you? If other approaches are relevant, nothing prevents you from starting up your own blog and highlighting their relevance.
Comment by MikeGene — August 6, 2006 @ 11:05 am
August 6th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Thank you Joy and Steve for your anecdotes.
Serendipity is very important in one's quest. If one is emotionally committed to a particular paradigm, then if physical reality is in line with his intuitions, then it's a moot point that one may have had confirmation bias.
I've seen that played out in many ways. For example, it was serendipitous that Pasteur succeeded in his anti-spontaneous generation experiment, because, as science historiams noted, he conducted his experiments at suboptimal temperatures, and without a little luck he would have been temporarily shown wrong!
Another example, is Maxwell believed in the Aether, and he just happened to be lucky enough the rest of his equations unifying electro-magnetics and optics held despite relying on underlying wrong notion! Serendipity smiled on Maxwell. He proposed a correct theory based on a totally wrong supposition! But through serendipity his famous 4 equations have ushered in the world of modern technology, even though it was inspired by a flawed conception of physical reality.
On the other side of bad luck, but redeeming examples of self-honesty would be Albert Michelson and Dean Kenyon. Michelson in his quest to discover the Aether, found the opposite. It took Michelson 7 years to accept that his own experiments showed there was not Aether. He lamented the rest of his life that he proved the Aether was not there, and accepted the Nobel prize celebrating his non-discovery with despair.
Dean Kenyon, after 20 years realized his theory of bio-chemical pre-destination was unsustainable. It would be years later the formal mathematical proofs would begin to emerge in peer-reviewed literature which disconfirmed the theory he had proposed and rejected. It was a gruelling process for Kenyon, and I salute his personal courage to admit 20 years of his life was in pursuit of an idea that was wrong. But he became an IDer, and his work has been very important in the furtherance of ID.
Even Kurt Godel, attempting to prove Betrand Russell and Alfred Whiteheads thesis, discovered the opposite, and thus achieved everlasting fame. It was again, a personal triumph of truth over pre-conception.
But as I suggested, when all is said and done, at the end of the day, all we have are intuitionist arguements that have survived the culling process of rationality and Popperian falsification. We can only hope and have faith that our intuitions are correct and that serendipity will smile on our hypotheses.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 6, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
August 6th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Salvador: Technical note on rational "proof":
.
One can not formally prove what one believes is true, however one's ideas may be falsifiable either by logically demonstrating a contradiction or by showing an empirical experiment refuting one's suppositions.
.
Even within mathematics, the supposedly most rational discipline, the kernel from which it springs is rooted only in assumption, not formal proof:
.
I offer this only to say, in all human endeavors, even the search for mathematical truth, there is a kernel of assumptions which has no absolute basis in rationality. Rationality can only demonstrate whether the set of assumptions are self contradictory (like a square circle), it cannot actually prove them as true.
.
So, in some respects, one is still left with something of intuitionist arguments, with rationality filtering out those intuitions which can not be logically consistent. Well, Salvador, you know me: always one to "quibble." In this case (as in so many), my "quibble" is that the concept being expressed is correct, but that the expression of it is inaccurate and misleading. That is, the particular expression of the concept may easily lead others (for whom the concept may be a new idea) to misunderstand the concept. In particular, since people tend to misunderstand the meaning of "assumption," especially when coupled with "only," I can foresee some taking you as having made a relativistic claim.
.
"One can not formally prove what one believes is true "¦ Even within mathematics, the supposedly most rational discipline, the kernel from which it springs is rooted only in assumption, not formal proof "¦ I offer this only to say, in all human endeavors, even the search for mathematical truth, there is a kernel of assumptions which has no absolute basis in rationality. Rationality can only demonstrate whether the set of assumptions are self contradictory (like a square circle), it cannot actually prove them as true. "¦ So, in some respects, one is still left with something of intuitionist arguments "¦"
(gee, my selecting out of the statements I wish to clarify results in almost every sentence bring selected)
.
To clarify: all human knowledge (and all truth-claims) must be built upon at least one axiomatic statement — that is, a statement which is either self-evidently true or is treated (for the purpose of building up the knowledge-base) as being so. Obviously, it is better to build one's knowledge upon an actual self-evident truth than upon a mere axiom [for those who may wish to quibble with my quibble, I am well aware of the definition of "˜axiom,' but as we have just seen, there are "˜axioms' and then there are "˜axioms.']
In fact, what I have just said [i.e. that all knowledge must be built upon at least one axiom] is one of those very self-evident truths upon which all possible human knowledge must rest. So, from this we can see that the "at least one" phrase, while not false, is incomplete — all human knowledge is built upon, starts from, multiple axioms. For, in fact, if one denies that what I have just said is self-evidently true, then he has denied any possibility that humans may construct knowledge.
So, all human knowledge — (or, to be more precise) all rational construction of new knowledge — begins with some number of propositions which are either self-evidently true or, while not actually self-evidently true, are treated, for the purpose at hand, as being self-evidently true.
As Salvador notes, one does not formally prove these axioms — for one cannot; they are one's starting-point. Rather, one uses the axioms as the basis for generating and proving other propositions — all the subsequent propositions depend upon the initial axioms and the rules for generating new propositions.
Thus, and again as Salvador notes, one *can* disprove one's axioms (or one's rules) if they lead to self-contradiction. But, it must be noted, this "rule" against self-contradiction is another of those very self-evident truths upon which *all* rational knowledge depends — and, in fact, non-contradiction (also called identity) is the kernel of self-evident truth upon which arithmetic (which is the kernel from which all mathematics derives) is built.
As pointed out, "self-evident" truth is not — cannot be — proven. One admits that the proposition is actually self-evidently true, or one decides to treat it, for some specific purpose, as being self-evidently true, but one does not attempt to prove it as true. For, if this (claimed) self-evident truth is one's starting-point, one has no way to prove it true. Further, it one *can* prove it to be true, then it is not actually one's starting-point; it is not actually one of one's axioms; rather, it is a statement which follows from one's actual axiom(s), whatever those actually are.
Now, if one's axioms are not *actually* self-evidently true, but rather are statements one has chosen to *treat* as though they are self-evidently true, then one has no rational basis upon which to expect (much less insist) that others accept one's conclusions (the statements which derive from one's axioms) as being actual truth. Further, no matter that status of one's axioms, if one's rules for deriving new propositions cannot be rationally defended, then again one has no rational basis upon which to expect (much less insist) that others accept one's conclusions as being actual truth.
At the same time, if one says that one's axioms are indeed self-evidently true, but another denies that they are, then those two have very little basis upon which to engage in rational argument about the statements which follow from the axioms and rules — at best, the "denier" can seek to show that the axioms are not *actually* true, as they lead to self-contradiction. Furthermore, if either party denies the self-evident truth of the basis "rules" of rational reasoning (for instance, that self-contradiction indicates falsity), then those two have no basis whatsoever for rational argument; it simply can't be done.
Comment by Ilion — August 6, 2006 @ 10:47 pm
August 6th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
Man! Am I having a terrible time posting, or what?
Comment by Ilion — August 6, 2006 @ 10:56 pm
August 7th, 2006 at 12:01 am
It's [blockquote] and [/blockquote], Ilion. Substitute <> for the brackets.
Comment by Joy — August 7, 2006 @ 12:01 am
August 7th, 2006 at 12:06 am
Oh, and despite the advertising, it's [a href="whatever"]Whatever[/a] with the same bracket changes. I learned this the hard way. I don't try anything fancy, so its regular html.
Comment by Joy — August 7, 2006 @ 12:06 am
August 7th, 2006 at 12:07 am
Yikes! The metagods don't like me!
Comment by Joy — August 7, 2006 @ 12:07 am
August 7th, 2006 at 12:12 am
"It's [blockquote] and [/blockquote]"
Yes, I know. I misspelled it (as "blockqoute") … and this PC locked up before I could correct it.
Comment by Ilion — August 7, 2006 @ 12:12 am
August 7th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
"Would you allow that there *are* (i.e. do exist) people who have rejected ID for the *right* reasons?"
I (an agnostic on the question of a "supernatural" reality, and on the issue of design, and do not consider either to necessarily imply the other) consider the question of design to be quite obviously open, and am surprised that anyone would have their "mind made up" on this.
Modern Evolutionary Theory (MET), what I generally think of as Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, simply has not come close to providing a comprehensive and sufficiently detailed account of how life arose and it's consequent development, particularly down at the microbiological level. More and more I believe microbiologists are grappling with something that defies their entire mindset, and is more appropriate in the arena of process control, information theory, and computing (which is where I make my living.)
So far, I think the evidence is rather clear that lifeforms evolved to some degree or another over long periods of time on this planet. (I think the YECs have their heads in the sand.) This is what the historical evidence suggests. Empirical evidence is compatible, but does not establish RM+NS as a *sufficient* mechanism. So far, RM+NS appear to work on preexisting structures, but there is no evidence for novel new structure. Renovation (by co-opting, etc) can NEVER be innovation.
The mechanism of novel development is quite up in the air. And I suspect that it will be people with a firm grasp in systems design that will one day unravel some kind of super operating system operating within cells and DNA. Those with a friendliness to ID would be just the ones to discover such a process, if it exists. Would the darwinists ever do that? Probably not. They don't generally think like process control / information sciences people. They may be searching under the wrong lamppost.
FWIW, I see quite a bit more heat than light from the ID skeptics and the ID friendly, or ID proponents, and I consider myself to be open to the question. (I'm not counting the YEC Bible thumpers (no offense) who start with the Bible and try to make the evidence fit a literal 6-day, 24-hour creation. I don't consider them to be IDers in the sense of which I speak.)
BTW, one can be ID-friendly without being an ID proponent. They are not the same thing.
Free your mind.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 7, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
August 7th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
kornbelt888:
And I for one expect that science itself will come to the necessary conclusions given enough time to evolve in that direction. They won't call it "ID" of course, but that won't matter. But as you say, they're now looking under the wrong lamppost. While engaging in a rather overblown desperation to guard turf that has been unalterably turning into quicksand for 60 years. They're neck deep at this point, and not bright enough to grab hold of the branch that's been offered.
It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it… §;o)
Comment by Joy — August 7, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
August 9th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Thanks kornbelt, for your comments. I didn't mean to suggest that people who have rejected i+d for the right reasons have 'closed' their minds. Rather, that what i+d is currently, as a theory, hypothesis or pseudo-science is insufficient for what its advocates pretend it to be (e.g. Dembski's 'design revolution'). It seems you agree.
It would be helpful to know who at TT's considers themselves ID proponents or just ID-friendly.
Joy, when you say 'science will evolve,' do you mean randomly, without intention or direction, probabilistically, or that there are many unanticipated consequences of scientists' actions? Such language, saying that 'science evolves,' is strange to my ears, and even to the ears of T. Kuhn. It slips into meta-narrative evolutionary universalism quite quickly, if one isn't careful.
Comment by g arago — August 9, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
August 10th, 2006 at 3:18 am
What question about Karen Armstrong was asked of me, where?
Comment by edarrell — August 10, 2006 @ 3:18 am