Studies Show the Value of Not Overthinking

WSJdpatton writes "Fishing in the stream of consciousness, researchers now can detect our intentions and predict our choices before we are aware of them ourselves. The brain, they have found, appears to make up its mind 10 seconds before we become conscious of a decision — an eternity at the speed of thought. Their findings challenge conventional notions of choice, writes WSJ's Robert Lee Hotz."

Comments

10 seconds.

[YttriumOxide]

I'm not sure I can accept this... Primarily because I generally make a decision less than 10 seconds after receiving the final piece of information that I will use to make the decision - often, it's even less than 10 seconds after I knew I had a decision to make. So, how can I have made it before I knew I had to make it? I think the article needs to clarify their definition of "decision".

Re:10 seconds.

[oodaloop]

Well, give yourself a little more time and think it over, then maybe you'll accept it.

Re:10 seconds.

[John_Sauter]

The major experiment uses a flawed definition of "decision". If I were the subject it might take me several seconds of unconscious cogitation to formulate a plan: when the next letter flashes I will press the left button, for example. The real decision is made below the level of consciousness, so the letter recorded is the one shown when the action is started, not the one shown when the decision-making process is started.

This is similar to driving a car. When you are driving to a well-known destination, when do you "decide" to turn the steering wheel to enter the parking lot? At the conscious level you decide when you see the driveway, and that there is no traffic in your way. The real decision, however, is made as part of the plan to drive to your destination, which may have been decided minutes or hours earlier.

The experiment is really about the unconscious part of the decision-making process. That is interesting, but it has nothing to do with free will, since our unconscious is as much a part of us as our conscious.

Re:10 seconds.

[linzeal]

This is a study using the mechanical action of pressing buttons. If this was based on people and their wonderful wacky analytic thought processes I would be more impressed, yawn.

Re:10 seconds.

[phantomfive]

It is clarified. Apparently you didn't read the article? :)

It is not an experiment that backs up the claims of the summary at all. Challenging conventional notions of choice? Not at all.....how often do you make a choice based on logic anyway? What flavor of ice cream to eat? It's what you feel like eating. What to do next after you get home from work? Whatever you feel like doing. Some decisions don't require any work from the logic point of the brain.

For example, the 'choice' made by the subjects of this experiment was whether they should push a right button or a left button. When confronted with such a choice, I would first sit there for a second wondering, "how the heck am I going to decide which one is best?" and then after finding nothing, give up and push whichever button I randomly felt like pushing. There IS no rational choice that can be made in such a situation. It's not a rational question.

On the other hand, I'm not sure the actual study is useless (even if the WSJ's analysis is). Seems they are using brain scanners to figure out more how the brain works, which is a good thing.

Re:10 seconds.

[kripkenstein]

I'm not sure I can accept this...

You don't need to, because it isn't true. The research is (shock!) misrepresented.

In a particular type of task, they could predict with 70% accuracy which hand would be used 10 seconds ahead of time. That's the evidence for the summary.

What this shows is that, in this sort of task, some 'unconscious impulse' precedes the action. In this particular task the impulse predicted correctly 70% of the time (note that even that isn't amazingly high, since 50% you get by random choice). Now, this might be very different with other decisions. For example, the impulse might be right only 55% of the time in other areas, perhaps because the conscious brain overrides it ("I shouldn't eat that; I'll order a salad instead.").

That said, it's very nice research (when not misrepresented), and important. We're only starting to figure out how the brain works, we'll probably change our theories about it several times before we hit it right.

A final note: The article is a little populist in treating it as 'surprising' that the unconscious is so important. But this was well-known in academia for a long time. The basic finding is that we are conscious of the products of thought, not the processes. That is, when you play Doom, you don't directly see what makes you decide to use a particular weapon at a particular time. What you do directly sense is that this is a good thing to do, and you do it. Now, sometimes you can make explicit the underlying process - e.g., "I should go over there because it's safer, and a weapon should spawn nearby also" - but this elaboration was not fully present before. There are few cases in which thought processes are entirely explicit, logic and mathematics perhaps the best examples (and even they are not 'purely' conscious).

Re:10 seconds.

[dreamchaser]

I'm very sure I can't accept it. Having studied various martial arts for the past 30 years, I can tell you with certainty that I can engage in action the instant I decide what I am going to do when responding to a threat situation. It's not just a matter of reflex and ingrained response. Time slows down immediately and I can often sift through a large number of options and decision points. Is this really a threat? If so, what's the best response? Run? Strike? Duck?

The same goes for more routine and mundane decisions, the way you put it exactly. Unless I am some how looking into the future and getting data that isn't there ten seconds before it's available, it takes me a LOT less time than 10 seconds to make a decision after I have all the information needed for said decision.

Re:10 seconds.

[eugene ts wong]

Fascinating. I have the exact opposite experience. I generally make a decision 10 days after receiving the final piece of information that I will use to make the decision. For example, the boss says, "Hey, Eugene. Here's a project for you. Get it done by the end of today.", and then 10 days later, I think to myself, "Hmm, maybe I should get started on that project...".

Re:10 seconds.

[Jay L]

I'm very sure I can't accept it. Having studied various martial arts for the past 30 years, I can tell you with certainty that I can engage in action the instant I decide

I, too, am manly and decisive, with lightning-fast reflexes.

Re:10 seconds.

[mysticgoat]

I don't agree with several aspects of parent post, but I do agree that TFA's introduction of "free will" into the discussion is a red herring.

The experiments show some very interesting things about the mind's mechanisms, in particular about the relationship of the self-aware, language-using part— call it "ego"— to the parts that do not have direct access to language and might not directly interact with the world. But author of TFA seems to be working with an outdated, simple model that places the ego at the top of the decision hierarchy. Which raises the question of free-will since with this model it appears that the top of the pyramid is being dictated to by mechanistic events happening in lower parts of the mind.

Bob Newhart had a show in the 1980s (Newhart) which introduced the comedic trio of Larry, and his brother Darryl, and his other brother Darryl. Larry was the only one who spoke or directly interacted with the other characters: Darryl and Darryl were always hanging back, witnessing the action but never participating (although the audience was able to see their reactions to events). But when a decision was called for, the three would go into a quick huddle and then Larry would state what the decision was. IIRC, at least once in the series he said something like "I like the idea, but my brother Daryl didn't like it so we won't do it."

There are good reasons to believe that our minds are organized the same way: that the part of the self we are conscious of is the spokesman for very close siblings who happen to share a single body, and our decisions are all group decisions. There is no restriction on the possibility of free will in this: whether the group is constrained in its choices cannot be determined (at least at this time). The spokesman is of course constrained by the group's decision, and that part may or may not understand all the factors that led to a given decision. But that doesn't negate the free will of the group.

This model supports the research findings, where instrumentation was able to deduce something about the non-verbal deciders seconds before the spokesman had finished polling his sibs. It also can explain the way someone astute in reading non-verbal cues can make very good guesses about what an individual will decide to do, sometimes before that person is himself aware of his decision.

Re:10 seconds.

[wytcld]

"This doesn't rule out free will, but it does make it implausible."

Big implausible supposition there: that decisions made without immediate reflective consciousness cannot possibly be free. The assumption is made that arguments and observations supporting the premise that we do have free will depend for their validity on all the aspects of agency being within the halo of consciousness - where consciousness is further defined as the capacity to report such self-awareness to an experimenter.

We can assume that our researcher here once took an intro to philosophy class where he was rewarded if he embraced the notion that Newtonian determinism leaves no place in the physical universe for freedom. His professor, being uneducated in physics, was untroubled by the immense degrees of freedom - perhaps even an essential role for consciousness - required by quantum physics.

If quantum physics points in the right direction, it might be freedom all the way down. There are even suggestions by serious and respect theorists that in some sense it is consciousness all the way down (although consciousness need not imply immediate reportability in all instances). So freedom need not be framed as some exception to the overwhelming Newtonian determinism of the material universe, provided only by rare miracles of consciousness (or spirit or whatever). Once it's framed in that way, of course we modern scientists don't believe in miracles. But if we believe quantum physics to be a much better theory than Newtonian, that's simply not the frame.

If that's not the frame, experiments showing practical limits on reportability of the experience of free agency indicate nothing at all about free will's plausibility.

Re:10 seconds.

[magisterx]

This is a brilliant point. Most of our thought is done well ahead of time, and much of learning (especially in physical activities, but it applies to other things as well) is training ourselves to push things that initially required conscious thought into automatic activities. When I was first learning to drive, I had to think about every time I turned on the turn signal, how often I looked in the rearview mirror, even how much to turn the wheel and I often over corrected. I also didn't think of much of anything else while driving that was directly relevant to driving.

Later, learning to drive a stick shift was the same way. I initially had to pay careful conscious attention to the motor's RPM's, my current speed, my desired speed and such things. After a few weeks, it became automatic and I never gave it any thought at all.

I am in no way an expert on how the mind works, but the way it subjectively seems to be for me is that I no longer have to think about those types of decisions (when to shift gears, when to look in the rearview) because I have trained myself through practice to do them automatically. In a sense, it subjectively feels like I no longer even make those decision at all. But the reason I do not make them is not that I do not have free will and am not capable of making them, rather it is that I have already made them. I decided long ago and trained myself to go along with the decision, that when I am present with a certain set of stimuli I react a certain way. In those cases I no longer have to make the decision.

Re:10 seconds.

[Xyrus]

Yeah, you're girlfriend told me. The manly and decisive part is ok, but the lightning fast part, not so much.

~X~

Re:10 seconds.

[Prune]

Fist, metaphysics is not a science. Second, since around the times after Newton, the sciences have become simply too large to be well understood in general by a single person. There's no such a thing as a psychologist, for example: there is a cognitive psychologist, a pathological psychologist, an experimental psychologist, etc. Fields like biology are even more extremely specialized, to the point where even sub-fields are fragmented: someone trained in one area of microbiology would have essentially zero comprehension when reading a paper from another area of microbiology. To imply that a physicist is somehow qualified to understand and have significant insight in another science in which s/he has no formal training, is either flippant or arrogant. Equally so to imply that non-physicists do use their brains. Mathematics very much plays a part in many sub-fields of psychology. (I'm neither a physicist nor a psychologist, if it matters.)

I believe it.

[zippthorne]

A common trick I like to do to figure out what I'm thinking:

If I'm having trouble deciding something, I flip a coin. Then, I go with the side I was hoping would come up.

Re:I believe it.

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

And if your decision requires more than a yes/no answer? Do you use a 64-sided die and assign a choice to each side, and then memorize those assignments?

Re:I believe it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. Don't you? :)

Re:I believe it.

[trolltalk.com]

I used to do the same thing.

This study doesn't bring anything new to the table - we've known for a LOOOONG time that what we perceive as "consciousness" is really more akin to a "ghost in the machine."

What is important, however, is that, despite all this, we can actually, with enough thought, make decisions based on logic, as opposed to "feelings" or "what we think is reasonable."

Most of what we do, we do on "autopilot", and our consciousness re-orders the stream of events so that we believe we "decided" to do what we did. Classic example - think of any time when you jammed on the brakes because of someone who rushed in front of the car ... and think back, and you'll realize that you already had braked before you even were aware of the person, because even the half-second lag between perception and stepping on the brake pedal would have been too long.

Re:I believe it.

[rnswebx]

What is important, however, is that, despite all this, we can actually, with enough thought, make decisions based on logic, as opposed to "feelings" or "what we think is reasonable."

That's a lot of commas.

Re:I believe it.

[$0.02]

Why would anyone use 64-sided die when 6 coins can do the trick?

Re:I believe it.

[Maxime]

I see the funny side of your comment, but 6 coins aren't equivalent to a 64 dice: they are indistinguishable so HHHTTT == TTTHHH.

Re:I believe it.

[Da Cheez]

One of my old English teachers used to call that a "Comma-kazi."

Re:I believe it.

[Gewalt]

000000-111111 in binary is 64 possible choices.

Re:I believe it.

[DirePickle]

Penny, dime, nickel, quarter, half dollar, dollar.

Re:I believe it.

[Stradivarius]

why can't you order the coins like you ordered the bits?

Re:I believe it.

[hvm2hvm]

I actually made a program that chose randomly from a list of options. I ran it until I was happy with the result :D

Re:I believe it.

[dodobh]

Just toss the coin 'n' times, where 'n' is a positive integer such that 2^n >= k > 2^(n-1) where k is the number of possible choices.

Re:I believe it.

[Dun Malg]

Most of what we do, we do on "autopilot", and our consciousness re-orders the stream of events so that we believe we "decided" to do what we did.

Well, we did decide. We just didn't decide right then. We decided to brake for obstacles back when we learned to drive, then consciously reinforced that reaction. The conscious mind is the "after action analyst". The fact that the conscious mind feels like it and its programmed, autonomous slave sub-minds are one and the same is where the "illusion" comes from. Really, the problem is that people keep trying to separate the "conscious" from the "unconscious". It's all wired together.

Re:I believe it.

[trolltalk.com]

Your foot is on the brake well before you're aware that the person is there. Otherwise, they'd be road pizza.

It's possible to completely bypass any "consciousness".

One of the earliest reports was about a guy whose skull was cleaved open with an ice axe. They shoved his brains back in, and he "recovered." He would get up, wash, get dressed, go to work, etc. --- but there was "nobody home". All identity had disappeared. He was just an automaton.

Conscious decision-making, or even awareness, isn't necessary for most activities once they're learned.

Re:I believe it.

[konohitowa]

Apparently because that would be admitting they really didn't understand the solution given.

Re:I believe it.

[riceboy50]

Yeah, I feel that way some days too.

Re:I believe it.

[FiloEleven]

There are some who call me...Tim.

Not a threat to sentience...

[Fustican]

The test the article discusses seems rather arbitrary -- letters streaming across a screen, and you decide when to press a button. Perhaps what they detected was the buildup of boredom? Analyzing complex inputs and reasoning to a decision is a far more complex thing. In any case, I'm not convinced that all my decisions are predetermined by fate or particle physics.

Re:Not a threat to sentience...

[Robert1]

From personal experience this is a very likely to be the case. In college when I participated in random psych experiments, as required by the class, I would notice gaping errors in testing that completely tainted the results.

Example: I signed up for 1/2 hour experiment, I get there and the tell me it's an hour long and I will be analyzing erotic art with a female student. They emphasized that, which I thought was pretty unnecessary and odd, and there was no girl in the waiting room with me before the experiment. Anyway I put all this together and figured it was just a fake-out and that I wasn't going to be doing any actual analysis. Sure enough the researcher comes in and says "ok she will be coming in soon, rearrange the tables and chairs how you like." Uhuh, yeah this isn't contrived. Anyway I intentionally put the chairs right next to each other just to be contrary, because at this point it was beyond ridiculous to keep playing along. Anyway then they came in, took pictures of the chairs, and told me it was all a trick to see how I would position them - WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED?!

Anyway, almost all the experiments I did had some kind of fatal flaw in it. I had another one - similar to what you're talking about - in which I was told to look at various numerical matrices which were then taken away and I was asked to answer 5 timed-questions about it. If I finished the question block a new matrix showed up, but the questions were complicated enough that I often could not even finish them before the timer ran out. This went on for ONE HOUR. After 10 minutes I was mentally exhausted and just putting in whatever for answers to get through all my blocks as fast as possible - I had totally stopped caring. At this point I also assumed that this must be the actual experiment - to gauge exhaustion. But no, when the researcher came in he thanked me and that's it - if it had been another experiment he would have had to tell me.

So unless we see the entire experimental procedure written down, it's impossible to determine if their findings were legitimately obtained. Unlike other disciplines, psych/neuro results are particular susceptible to improper experimental procedure. Like you say, they could have just detected boredom.

Choice?

[dfn5]

Their findings challenge conventional notions of choice

There is no choice/free will. Everything is deterministic. At least that's what I told the judge.

Re:Choice?

[MyLongNickName]

I was the judge: I told him that I don't have free will either, and was predetermined to sentence him to 5-10. Underage donkey porn is just sick.

Re:Choice?

[lilomar]

Thank you for thinking of the underage donkeys.

A book along the same lines

[khing]

There is book by Malcolm Gladwell called "Blink" that explores something along the same lines, what the author called "the power of thinking without thinking". A quick skim of its wikipedia page should give a good summary. It is a good read.

All women do this

[BenEnglishAtHome]

I've never met a sane woman who took more than 10 seconds to decide she'd NEVER sleep with me.

This is news?

Re:All women do this

[dgatwood]

Yeah, but according to the study, this probably means that she decided it long before she told you.... This is why dating sucks. The guy is always the last one to know that the girl he likes is just screwing with his head, has no interest in him whatsoever, and is just using him to piss off her parents, get free home repairs, make her ex jealous, etc.

I'm assuming, of course, that you're a guy. If you're a girl, she probably decided whether she would or would not sleep with you way back in college.... :-D

Re:All women do this

[ElectricRook]

...this probably means that she decided it long before she told you.... This is why dating sucks. The guy is always the last one to know that the girl he likes is just...

Perhaps the guy needs to learn to play the dating/socialization game. Mario does not get to work on the plumbing without sufficient chick points. Those points are easily won/lost by various action/inaction that are not clearly understood by a logically thinking Wandering Software Salesman.
To play the game well, one must watch the Pros. The body condition and face score you rolled are not really the great advantage a player would think they are Young Grasshopper. A pro does not lurk like a stalker, nor does he charge like a predator. To play well takes time and _much_ patience... You must always play this game, or never at all. Subscription services are newbie invitations to the playing fields, treat them as such. Activity clubs, or volunteer organizations can be much better. Electronics/Technology are usually point detriments in this game. That means throwing away the TV/computer games and play full time (except that watching/discussing a few Chick shows can be serious points). College is a great place to play, the work place is really poor on many levels. Always play as an observer, a predator never fits in with a herd. If you focus on your objective (sex), you will fail to achieve it. Move in and around the playing field and the players picking up points here and there. One the players will find you, and give you points. Any player who gives you too many points too soon can be dangerous (fatal attraction). Observe other players, and see if they sense the danger. Always collect points even from players outside your classification (age bracket or other classification), as low point tallies with multiple players can form a progressive points multiplier in addition to added experience.
Good luck, play safe, enjoy.

Re:All women do this

[dgatwood]

The problem is that the guys who are good and honest and don't mask their intentions at all are weeded out in the first round by that sort of behavior. People who are trustworthy assume that they can trust others as a general rule, so when a girl sends confusing signals, they assume the girl is honestly confused. Then, they either A. try to help the girl figure out her feelings by opening up more, thus causing the girl to totally freak out because a guy actually expresses his emotions, B. interpret her ambivalence as indicative of probable future rejection and give up immediately, or C. interpret her ambivalence as a sign of dishonesty and reject the girl outright. As a result, the girl's deception ends up driving off the most loyal and honest possible mates---precisely the guys she should be trying to attract.

The most crucial thing a woman can learn is that it is better to trust and risk getting hurt than to deceive and evade, thus guaranteeing it. As for me, I reject the "game". I don't play games with other people, and I don't expect other people to play games with me. What you see is what you get, and if a girl doesn't like that and can't simply accept me without playing mind games, she isn't worth my time. Life's too short to waste time chasing after somebody who isn't honest, open, and caring.

Lag!!

[NovaHorizon]

Hah! I knew the gamers that complain about 500Ms lag were full of it!

They haven't even become aware of their decision to shoot within that space of time!

I would have thought a better test would be:

[mykepredko]

Giving the subject a series of comparisions to make and determine the difference of when they make the decision and when they act on it.

Use the same apparatus, but ask the subjects to select which they would prefer at that moment in time:

Steak vs Salad
Blonde vs Brunette
Pepsi vs Coke
Car vs Bicycle
Mac vs PC
and so on...

You could go on and try to week out personal preferences with things that the subject has to evaluate:
Which would you like in your front hall: A Van Gough or a Gougain?
Which is funnier: A joke from Steve Martin or a joke from Robin Williams?
What smells better: Roses or Cinnamon?
With a given math problem, what is the better of two choices to solve it?

I would think this approach would be a better way to see how decisions are made within the human mind.

myke

headline does not describe the conclusions

[petes_PoV]

The article states that the testers (only!) tested 14 people. The subjects pressed a button whenever they felt like it. The testers could see some tell-tales up to 10 seconds before the button was pressed.

All this really tells us that when we think we're making a random action, we really commit to it some time beforehand. It only tells when people make a random decision - not what the choice is

bad reporting.

Re:headline does not describe the conclusions

[eugene ts wong]

In fact, it doesn't even tell us that. They were only able to predict the outcome 70%-80% of the time. There's a lot of misinterpretation here. Maybe a majority of us resort to some kind of random generator. Obviously, some people didn't go with their "first decision". That needs more study.

10 seconds is a long time. I wonder what happens during that time.

Snip FTA...

[Anonymous Coward]

They monitored the swift neural currents coursing through the brains of student volunteers as they decided, at their own pace and at random, whether to push a button with their left or right hands.

But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of the researcher: are you the sort of man who would press the button on the left or on the right? Now, a clever man would press the button on the left, because he would know that only a great fool would press the button on the right. I am a great fool, so I can clearly not press the button on the right. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not press the button on the right.

Researcher: You've made your decision then?

Not remotely! Because these buttons come from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not press the button on the left.

Researcher: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

WAIT TILL I GET GOING! Where was I?

Researcher: Australia.

Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the buttons' origin, so I can clearly not press the button on the right.

Researcher: You're just stalling now.

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?

Sure..

[rickb928]

This explains hitting a 90mph fastball.

I know, the instantaneous response (Wait 10 seconds here please) is that you decided to play, go to the park, get suited up, report to the manager, select your bat, go to the batter's box, choose your stance, raise your bat to position, and then chose to swing it the pitch were where you expected or would accept it, etc etc etc.

Apparently this 10 second thing is for some decisions, those that require thought. Like whether to believe any of this 10 seond hooey.

Systems analysis. If you look far enough up the chain, it becomes one thing. Look too far down, and it gets all complicated and difficult, and can't be so easily understood. Makes you sleepy.

Scientific arrogance and lack of real data

[oztiks]

"But these data show that consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg. This doesn't rule out free will, but it does make it implausible."

Why do some scientists simply insist that because they can prove one particular aspect that everything else surrounding the issue must domino into the same conclusion?

Saying "free will" doesn't exist based upon their studies is a kin to saying the earth is flat simply because we stand on it upright, lets not take into account any other factors which could remain simply because its presently out of our current ability to grasp and therefore couldn't possibly exist.

The word "implausible" is badly construed here maybe "cannot be determined" is more appropriate?

IMHO This has and always will be sciences one and only real undoing at answering life's real questions. Whats wrong with leaving the door open sometimes?

Not this again

[Dun Malg]

Their findings challenge conventional notions of choice

I am seriously sick and tired of this notion coming up every time some study or other points out that your "conscious brain" fires up some amount of time after some other part of the brain has already started taking the action. THis shows a complete and utter failure to understand how our brains work. The conscious mind is in control, it's just not consciously "working the levers" every freakin' second. How would you find time to think about anything of consequence if you had to constantly coordinate everything your body does? "OK, now I'm breathing, now I'm moving my eyes to follow the sentence I'm reading, now I'm moving my hand to adjust the lighting on the book...."--- you'd never have the clock cycles to comprehend the material. No, the brain uses a sort of distributed computing. Your conscious mind instructs the autonomous slave sub-parts how to react to certain stimuli, and expects them to do the dirty work while it thinks of more important things (usually sex). That one study that externally manipulated people's brains to make them choose a certain card, then asked them why they chose it, and people always came up with some justification? It's not a lack of free will there, it's just that the conscious mind is accustomed to its "slaves" only doing things it has previously trained them to do. Of course your conscious analytical mind is going to justify the action somehow.
An example: If you decide that the next time you see Joe, you're going to punch him, a scientist monitoring your brain the next time you see Joe will find that your "punching brain" acted before your "conscious brain" did. Does that indicate a lack of free will? You'd have to be an idiot to think so. All it indicates is that your "conscious brain" has a number of programmable sub-units at its disposal.

Must... post....

[Maxo-Texas]

I must post this, my mind was made up before I read the article 7 seconds ago.

We can make snap decisions that are not purely in muscle memory.

Our brain builds subroutines that handle those situations (I'm in doom and i notice the weapon I was running to is gone and instantly turn to head to the next weapon).

Dale Carnegie says that most people make their decisions 90% based on emotions. If you successfully appeal to their emotions, they will FIT the logic and facts to their decision. This drives me crazy since I see it at work when I'm trying to get a logical decision- but at least now I know so I can use it to work with people instead of pissing them off giving them facts they don't like and reject.

What does free will have to do with consciousness?

[argent]

"But these data show that consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg. This doesn't rule out free will, but it does make it implausible."

Consciousness is not thought, or reasoning, it's the narrative that you tell yourself about yourself. It's not even the tip of the iceberg, it's a flashlight that turns itself on to reassure itself that the iceberg is still there, it's a model of the iceberg made of fog and seaspray and drifting snow. All this is doing is confirming what's been increasingly obvious for decades: you are not your conscious self, any more than a computer is its display, or a corporation its lobby, or a nation its flag and national bird.

So this says nothing about free will, because your will is not what you're thinking about, it's why you're thinking about it.

The fellow who wrote those words needs to meet Mister Volition.

Martial arts are less to do with lighting reflexes

[Colin Smith]

Than putting standard reflexes to work putting you in an advantageous position.

e.g. The standard reflex might be to simply duck and cover your head. Someone trained in a realistic martial art (rather than playing tag) will certainly also duck and cover their head in exactly the same way in an identical situation, but may then follow that by trapping an opponent's arm and smacking them in the face with an elbow. For example the first movements of heian nidan/pinan shodan.

It may look like lightning reflexes, but the reflexive part of it is identical to that of anyone else. What follows is trained to automatic. The point the grandparent post makes, well, yeah, time does slow down when the adrenalin hits, but if you have to think, you are seriously going to get your arse handed to you, don't rely on thinking faster than the other guy.

 

Re:Not really

[Jay L]

Decisive? Yes I am. I have to be in my job and in daily life.

I guess we're just different. I mean, I'm not indecisive, but... well, sorta. Maybe not indecisive, exactly, more like.. well, yes, indecisive. Usually. Not always.

Mostly, though.

Well, there you have it!

[Nullav]

The next time I get injured, I'm blaming lag. (Seriously, how does that challenge free-will in any way?)