What has also been found, however, is that we are a lot less conscious than we think we are. Specifically, our decisions are based far more on immediate environmental factors and unconscious cues, and far less on rational thinking, than we would like to believe. For example, after a year’s study, a group of students were asked to fill in a form about their lecturers’ performance, giving marks for clarity etc, and giving reasons for their marks as well. Another group of students were shown 30-second video clips of the same lecturers, with the sound turned off, and asked to assess the lecturers in the same way. Both groups gave almost the same marks to the lecturers.
What this shows is that though it can appear that we are reasoning through our decisions, we may in fact just be responding automatically to cues in our environment. There were a number of related studies I read about, all giving similar outcomes, and leading to the result that we are far more robotic, and less rational, than we would like to think we are.
That, however, is not my take. There seems to be an assumption that rational = advanced and instinctual = primitive and robotic. So though we probably are a lot less conscious than we would like to think, the answer is not simply to try to become more rational: the answer is also to become more aware of our intuitive responses and to take them seriously. Our intuition will then become stronger and sharper, and we become more aware of why we are doing what we are doing. That is the route out of the roboticness that these scientists seem to have correctly diagnosed.
4 comments:
As a finite fish of the most anal kind, I certainly do know the rationale behind my choices. What I find most other signs saying is that they can't explain why they feel a certain way.
I think it's more important to understand one's feelings regardless of where the thoughts transpire since its the core set of needs that ultimately must be addressed in order to be happy in life.
Thoughts come and go like leaves on air. Feelings seem to saturate and permeate our existence while the needs themselves are the pure motivating force that inspires us to think in the first place.
On a side note, we all commented about Aquarius and Uranus the other day and after some careful reading, I've decided that Aquarians are fixed on being abstract. In fact, the planet itself has no solid surface to stand on.
You have a genius for summarising and synthesising scientific findings.
Thanks. I just grab them out of New Scientist.
I have wondered about rational vs. instinctual a lot. I was raised by folks who put a huge emphasis on honing instincts.
Saying that, no one in my immediate family is a 'planner' but it helped constantly being told "You're a good judge of character" along side "be fair."
I agree that we are likely to be responding to cues from our environment. Something that interests me is how one can seem to predict things/events, but upon closer inspection it seems that the same person is just accumulating subtle indicators from people/places/things at such a rapid rate, it merely seems to be pyschic.
What do you think?
Post a Comment