by Zeev Nitsan
This is an example of taking advantage of biased perception for the sake of promoting road safety.
Ego-Sympathizer Bias is Built into Our Perception
We tend toward ego-padding interpretation of phenomena. Built-in bias of self-sympathizer interpretation is typical of our brain interpretation. The brain often tends to choose the most complimenting angle of our profile when we look, supposedly unbiased, at the mirror of reality.
Casinos cast their lots on the fact that people tend to overestimate their self-control and believe that their chances are above average. In this sense, the casinos deliberately defy the commandment “Do not put an obstacle in front of the blind,” although, in this case, blindness derives from “free choice.”
While we are driving our car, during a routine ride in the metropolis of reality, we all use our built-in shock absorbers. Ego-padding defensive shields mediate between our perception and the potholes of reality. These defensive shields are intended to soften the sharp curves on the reality road and prevent “overshaking” of our perception. We sacrifice the sense of reality road as-is for the sake of easier driving. Psychological convenience is preferred to a more accurate sense of reality potholes.
Ideological Coercion on Reality Manifestations
The chronicle of astronomy is full of fascinating examples of enforcing a brain’s worldview, originated in idealism and perception of reality as perfect and flawless, on the factual reality of the world of phenomena. In this spirit, the preference was given to thinking creatures that were validated only in the “lab” inside the skull and were not confronted with reality manifestations and with impartial examination of facts. It was true with respect to the ultimate “truth” that prevailed for two thousand years: that of Aristotle’s geocentric model, which puts planet Earth at the navel of the universe. Nicolaus Copernicus disagreed with this theory on behalf of the facts and developed the heliocentric model (which puts the sun in the center) and was forced to keep silent during his lifetime.
Another example is Plato’s idea that the planets were moving in perfect circles—until the voices of the facts spoke from the throat of Johannes Kepler and refuted the dogma. Kepler “ellipsed” the circle by proving that the course of the planets is elliptical rather than round.
Optical illusions often rely on enforcing the organizing framework of perception on the raw information perceived by the eye. In other words, the right to have the last word or, in this case, the right to have the last sight is kept for the brain. Optical illusions serve as an additional example to the assumption that perceiving the pure objective status of reality is a utopian vision that cannot be attained by our brain.
The optical illusion called the “Rubin Vase” presents the conflict of whether it is a vase or two profiles—a single visual input that has two possible interpretations. Each of the interpretations is typical of a different action pattern in the brain, as is reflected in functional MRI imaging. The visual input does not change, but its brain interpretation changes and sheds different light on the information. The functional parallel of the interpretive difference is, as aforementioned, a different pattern of cerebral function when different brain areas function in different functional intensity.
Both interpretations are appropriate, but only one of them is possible for the brain at any given moment.
At any given moment, our brain “chooses a world” and validates a certain worldview out of the various options.
Senior insights also control our expectations from the sensory input. During a famous experiment that was carried out in France, tasteless and odorless red liquid was poured into a glass of white wine that was served to professional wine tasters. The tasters described the wine’s quality in various terms related to red wine, although the red liquid did not change any of the white wine’s characteristics except for its color. It seems that we evaluate taste also through sight, and even project our expectations on the sensory information, so our perception might be biased and less reliable.
The Framing Effect
Thinking bias, which is related to the framing effect, derives from the fact that the introduction of information, which means the “frame” in which it is framed, has a great effect on how we refer to the information.
An elegant experiment, conducted by researchers Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman,[10] assessed the framing effect among medical interns in hospitals in the United States. The interns were presented with real data regarding mortality, within five years from the day of the diagnosis of cancer, with relation to the treatment given to the patients: operation versus radiation therapy. Both groups were presented with identical data that were phrased differently. One of the presentations referred to the mortality rate, while the other referred to the survival rate. One of the groups was told that the survival rate of the operation is 60 percent, while the other group was told that the mortality rate as a result of the operation was 40 percent. The manner in which the data were presented led to a distinct bias in brain processing and, as a result, also affected treatment recommendations.
A similar phenomenon was also found on the other side of the fence among patients. It was found that the tendency of patients to agree to undergo an operation is two times higher when the survival chances are referred to in terms of an 80-percent success rate as opposed to describing the same data in terms of a 20-percent mortality rate.
A possible explanation for this cross-cultural human thinking pattern is that presenting data in negative terms activates a mix of brain structures in which the amygdalae get greater weight, and when data are presented using positive terms the activated cerebral pattern is different, and greater weight is put on the frontal lobes.
Another type of thinking bias derived from the framing effect is reflected in the fact that, in our day-to-day life, our brain tends to ignore the rule “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” Subjects in an experiment were given samples of identical wine, which was poured from bottles that had two different price tags. It was found that the tasters consistently preferred the wine samples poured from the bottles that had the higher price tag, as in the old saying “Life is too short to be drinking cheap wine.” A similar experiment was conducted with medications. The subjects were patients who had recently undergone a medical procedure accompanied by pain. The patients were offered painkillers. One package of painkillers had a price tag of two and a half dollars; another package, containing the exact same medication, had a price tag of ten dollars. Sixty percent of the patients who were offered the “cheap” medication reported relief, while 85 percent of the patients who were offered the “expensive” medication reported relief. Our expectations have a direct impact on our experience.
Eyes Right!
Inherent spatial preferences exist in us. People with right-hand dominance tend to turn right at unfamiliar buildings, parking lots, or junctions. Thus, if you wish to choose the shorter queue at the bank or the supermarket, you better go for the one to the left, since fewer people tend to choose it.
Aspects of Processing Perception Impressions
The question how single sensory impressions are merged into a mosaic of unified experience is a riddle that has not yet solved sufficiently.
We project our expectations onto the world all the time. These expectations represent the patterns created in our brain as a result of past experiences. The perception of the present is at least partially determined according to past experience and our forecast for the future.
The input skips from one sense to another and from one area of information integration to another. When our dog barks in steadily growing volume, our brain predicts a “visual prediction” regarding its figure approaching our doorstep, and we are in readiness for its image to fall on our retinas. The prediction of a future input relies on patterns of past memories etched in our brain. These patterns were created due to the consistency of the sequences of signals conceptualizing them. The repetitive correlation patterns that compose the sequence of features of the pheno
mena are at the basis of the interphenomenal compatibility and, in this case, at the basis of the correlation between the barking sound and the sight of the dog.
Watching a film, like listening to music, is not conducted through a passive pattern, since our brain is constantly busy, consciously and unconsciously, projecting its expectations on the screen of consciousness. We rely on external clues with which we confront the creatures of our brain—memories and experiences from similar past events. We predict future scenes from this synthesis.
“Necessary and Sufficient” Sequence of Signals
Mostly, at a certain point in time, the momentary, specific input does not contain enough information to identify the overall pattern. In order to enable the brain to identify a “pattern,” which means identifying a selected piece of information as an object or an entity, we need information that was perceived at a critical period of time. For example, the first syllable of a word does not identify a word, and additional information is required, which takes more time for mental processing, which will then enable the identification of the word. In order to perceive the meaning of the information, we must document a sequence of input signals for a unique and sufficient period of time. For example, we cannot identify a melody according to a single sound. A number of sounds may constitute a sufficient and essential unit of information. Information processing relies on pillars, similar to a proof in geometry. We need “necessary and sufficient information.”
The Relevance Coefficient
Our brain is programmed to act according to a key of “relevance coefficient.” It constantly prioritizes information pertaining to the immediate present and the interest map perceived as best promoting survival. What is less relevant, in this sense, gets fewer processing resources and less “brain time.” In this sense, the brain is like a tough banker of mental energy.
For instance, when we experience physical distress, our freedom to concentrate on mental contemplation is taken away. The resources are expropriated from abstract thinking to the “here and now” in an attempt to improve our immediate situation. The brain is a trade-off expert that tends to constantly prioritize the maximal rewards in terms of survival.
Determinism and Randomality Under One Roof
Reality Has a Multifaced Narrative
The Chaos Theory and the Fractal Geometry Theory demonstrate the complexity of “both this and that,” which is typical of the world of phenomena. In certain aspects of its being, this world relies on determinism, and, in other aspects, it relies on randomality. Both aspects live under the same roof. It seems that reality resides in between determinism and randomality.
As part of reality rewriting, intended to find the cause and the effect, our brain often acts as “a representative on behalf of” that is characterized by built-in bias related to impressions it perceives from reality and is not acting as an impartial detective for whom the truth is a guiding principle and who is determined to shed light on a mystery.
It seems that the system that organizes our perception guides us to perceive the world as less random than it actually is. We tend to view world events through a deterministic mirror in order to apply cause-and-effect rules.
Our Brain Faces Challenges of Probability
Our brain sometimes tends toward a bichromatic simplistic life view (“black and white”) and finds it hard to deal with shades of probability. The language of statistics is not its mother tongue; when it speaks this language, it often makes grammatical mistakes and its foreign accent is noticeable. Studies show that our thinking tends to overestimate scenarios of low probability and, on the other hand, underestimate scenarios of high probability. This tendency is intensified in emotional circumstances.
In many cases, we do not act as successful intuitive statisticians. On a day-to-day basis, we often tend to ascribe probabilities to anticipated events mostly according to the emotional effect they have on us.
Our risk management philosophy is largely determined by the emotional system in the brain. The voice of reason (a product of brain areas that are in charge of rational analysis of reality) is often a second voice, although the desirable ratio is often opposite. The vibration of the emotional cords often surpasses the sounds of reason, which are played according to statistical inference and risks analysis.
In various gambling games we tend toward an extremely optimistic estimation, which is unjustified and unproven. In most common games of chance, our desire to win is usually statistically groundless, but our brain prefers wishful thinking to statistically proven thinking.
When we wear glasses with a probabilistic prism, we are less prone to be caught in the trap of a perceptional illusion. Watching the world through the probability prism enables prediction and recognition of the limitation of our ability to know.
Since the entire circumstances of our life, except for the start and ending points, involve various levels of uncertainties, existence “in the shadow of uncertainty” is to be expected throughout our life.
The Brain Versus Uncertainty, Randomality, and Determinism
Randomality at the Core of Reality
Are coincidences the hidden footprints of the wisdom of nature—which, as we know, likes to hide? Are they the tricks of God, who wishes to remain anonymous? Or are they the representatives of randomality, whose threads are woven daily within the fabric of our lives?
Divine dice: Determinism, derived from Newton’s physics, greatly chilled the warm belief in free choice, but quantum mechanics, according to which determinism does not control the world of particles somewhat restored the blush to the cheeks of this belief due to the possibility of free choice, although it is challenged by uncertainty and randomality inherent in the world of phenomena.
Einstein, who disagreed with the spirit of randomality built into the world of phenomena that blow from the bellows of quantum mechanics, said then, “God does not play dice.” However, it seems at least once in a while God does play dice. The conceptual revolution derived from quantum mechanics made it clear that the lack of ability to predict the future accurately does not depend on the person who makes the prediction and his knowledge gaps, but it is an inherent part of the system that is being predicted. Philosophers might put it this way: uncertainty is ontological—inherent in the situation itself—rather than epistemological—dependent on human perception.
Quantum mechanics is known for making crystal balls turbid. An applied definition of quantum mechanics is a scientific branch whose results are completely opposite to the ones we predict. In the world, where it exists, randomality has a place of honor. The capricious nature of circumstances seems like “natural law” in light of it.
Our brain is only partially prepared for the inherent uncertainty in our life, as reflected in the known saying: “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.”
The Randomality Within
Randomality is also built into our “randomality scattering machine”—the brain. Our brain is intended to scatter the vagueness and randomality in the world of phenomena around us, but randomality also resides within our brain. While facing the randomality outside, there is the randomality inside—within our thoughts and reactions. Which component of our personality will take control at a certain moment? How predictable are we? We all know the expression “I surprised myself.”
Sometimes, we are impervious to ourselves. The “inner mirror” does not reflect us, and we do not understand the motives behind our own behavior.
The saying—which sounds like an oxymoron—“All is foreseen but freedom of choice is given” means there is certain flexibility within determinism. In other words, although our life has defined boundaries, there is a certain amount of freedom within these boundaries. The complexity of our brain makes the prediction of our behavior difficult, even for the conscious self. Often, there is no one captain holding the wheel on the ship of our brain, but there are many captains who hold the wheel alternately in unpredictable patterns and for unpredictable peri
ods of times.
The potion of neurotransmitters that will intoxicate our brain in unusual circumstances, and the responses it will create, might come as a surprise, even to us.
A possible, somewhat gloomy, inference is that we were not born with pure free will, but, rather, in the best-case scenario, we are blessed with a touch of free will merged in gallons of dictations based on genes and environment.
However, in order to protect our mental health, even at the unconscious level, it seems that we obey the ironic claim of the writer Isaac Bashevis Singer, who said, “We must believe in free will—we have no other choice.”
In his old age, Einstein tilted at windmills by trying to refute the inferences of quantum mechanics. This theory of particles promotes the idea that randomality is built into nature and objectivity is nothing but a mirage when dealing with material reality. Randomality is also the core process of evolution, which enables, by the formation of mutations (random changes in the genome and the proteins that derive from it), the change in various species. But, despite the fact we cannot reach complete objectivity, and despite the omnipresence of randomality, we manage to land spaceships on Mars with a high level of accuracy, according to Newton’s deterministic rules. Thus, we might say that the distortion in our prediction ability, which derives from the omnipresent randomality, does not necessarily mean failure as the final outcome. Often a deterministic, approximate estimation can serve as satisfactory bed for successful prediction about the future.
