Slashdot Mirror


How Your Brain Figures Out What It Doesn't Know

hex0D passes along an article at NPR about a study that examined the biology behind the self-assessment of knowledge. Quoting: "We isolated a region of the prefrontal cortex, which is right at the front of the brain and is thought to be involved in high-level thought, conscious planning, monitoring of our ongoing brain activity,' Fleming says. In people who were good at assessing their own level of certainty, that region had more gray matter and more connections to other parts of the brain, according to the study Fleming and his colleagues published in the journal Science."

27 of 96 comments (clear)

  1. relation to politics by cide · · Score: 4, Funny

    They should have correlated the study's participants with their preferred political party.

    1. Re:relation to politics by jd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let me know when you're done with those and I'll find some more.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:relation to politics by sco08y · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They've already done brain-scans on people with political affinities. Those who are right-wing show under-developed regions dealing with emotion, those on the left-wing show similar defects in other areas of the brain.

      I've seen some half-baked studies making similar claims that, curiously, always echo popular stereotypes. This stuff really isn't any better science than the hoary old studies measuring skull sizes of African-Americans. The biggest problem with any of them is determining what someone's orientation really is. Most people, nominally left or right, have poorly constructed views on a mess of issues, a tribal identity, and a fair amount of political paranoia. They are generally all over the map, and often don't realize their beliefs are contradictory. Honest to god partisans, who have independently developed their views and ideology, are a pretty small percentage of the population, mostly because there's so little economic benefit to doing so.

      I'd like to say politicians have no brain, but politicians fit into the same category as CEOs and CEOs are well-established as schizophrenic sociopaths and politicians will likely therefore exhibit brain damage accordingly.

      I'm calling bullshit on this. People need to believe in the devil, and in a secular society they substitute powerful figures for it. Politicians and CEOs and such ride the wave, for the most part, and have little actual control over anything outside a narrow domain. In other words, bad things happen because people, generally, are bad, not because there is some unaccountable elite scheming behind the scenes.

      I find few powerful figures whose controversial actions aren't (eventually) explainable by a. them having superior knowledge of their domain than I have or b. them being poor leaders and surrounded by yes-men. B is a big one, never underestimate the Peter Principle.

      All political persuasions, by definition, operate on the theory that ideology comes before consequences, so all political persuasions can be considered neurological diseases.

      Nope, American conservatism operates on precisely the opposite theory. As Buckley put it, "don't immanentize the eschaton", meaning, don't try to bring about the end times or a utopia. The whole notion is that you can't have a perfect world, you don't even consider a perfect world in what you're trying to achieve. You have to work with what you've got, and you have to realize that their lives and dreams are valuable in and of themselves, and temper any changes you might try to achieve with the realization that your ends are not necessarily any greater than what they have now. The more thoroughly conservative a person is, the more consequences are everything, the ideology is nothing.

      Libertarians, Tea Party loonies and other fanatics are worsening the situation by devolution.

      Progressivism has always, in all of its incarnations, had reasons for why the right-thinking adherents to the movement were smarter, wiser, better human beings, and why people who disagreed were mentally defective, overwhelmed by hate, or even subhuman. The most depressing development lately is that as more women are taking leadership positions in the conservative movement, we now have liberals deriding them as insane or sexually damaged. Modern American progressivism started with women's suffrage, and has now come full circle to attack them in the most vicious, misogynistic ways.

    3. Re:relation to politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, most of those studies are jokes and border on college classroom exercises. However,

      most partisans responded using the emotional, and not the reasoning, parts of their brains

      is almost just common sense. Just sit back and think about the people you know and their political affiliations, and observe their tendencies in critical thinking discussions (in general). It doesn't take a study to figure this one out.

    4. Re:relation to politics by rhakka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the idea that any high minded or even marginally abstract ideal drives conservatism dies seconds after entering any room with more than 2 people who identify as conservative in it. beyond "taxes are bad" and "regulation is bad" there is no unifying principle. Jim DeMint just said at a rally that you can't be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative... an amazingly ridiculous statement. And he's one of the most powerful "conservatives" in this country today. Tell me what Sarah Palin's ideology is other than "make sarah palin rich and powerful"? "Bring more God"?

      some idea that conservatives are against 'change' is also badly outdated. They want change. They want the whole country to change to be like them, to the point of making it illegal to be anything else. That's a huge change, they just don't understand it, because they think everyone in america except a 'minority' are like them. Or, should be.

      Progressives are not right about everything, never have been. But on civil rights they have always been on the right side. And that makes them morally superior to anything conservatism has to offer. Allowing people you think are wrong to have the freedom to live their ideals while you live yours is basic morality 101. But that doesn't mean that thinking that it's legal to be a conservative, and should be, equals thinking that conservatism is smart, or equal in its "right ness". I can respect your rights while having no respect whatsoever for your point of view.

      Calling woman conservative leaders "insane" is thus totally fair game; palin and O'Donnel are definitely a few cards short of a deck. attacking them on the basis of gender roles, appearance or sexuality is not. Sadly, that does happen. Just like it's been happening to liberal female politicians for decades. See, it's not new, it just took this long for conservatives to let their women run for office to see what happens when the "masses" get to have their say.

    5. Re:relation to politics by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We are indeed pack animals, and packs do not exhibit total individual freedom. Rather, they balance individual freedom with societal freedom and governmental freedom (the sum total of which is the same for all societies, no matter what the form). I do not pretend to know where in this three-way division the ideal balance should be, but I am absolutely certain that political evolution must involve changing those values. Holding them fixed, regardless of what they are fixed to, is a Bad Idea. Holding any of the three above a certain threshold has never, historically, been so great either. Somalia has total individual freedom, France has total societal freedom and Iran has total governmental freedom - all three are complete disasters.

      Now, you're all completely safe as I'm totally unelectable anywhere on the planet, but if I were to be able to wave my hands and impose some bounds, I'd probably start by splitting freedom in a 4:4:2 ratio, giving equal rights to society and to the individual, with government mostly ensuring that neither abused the system to deprive the other of those rights. My underlying principle is that a balanced system is free to evolve, an unbalanced one will forever fight itself and have no time left over to evolve.

      So why do I sneer at individual freedom if I make it such a big part of this concept? It isn't individual freedom I have a problem with, it's absolute freedom I have a problem with. Once any of the three divisions has all the degrees of freedom for itself, the other two automatically have nothing left for themselves. I don't care which division that is. I'd have said the same thing replacing individual freedom with any other type of freedom in any other discussion that covered the freedom of something else. One-sided freedom isn't free. Indeed, this isn't even one-sided - you need two points to make a side and absolute freedom only has one.

      Ideally, you'd have far more points than the three I've listed, but three is an easy number to work with on a posting. You can extend the concept as much as you like in your mind, where the only restrictions my idea places on the concept are that no parameter is set to 0, interdependencies should start balanced and regulating dependencies should be capable of regulating but never supplanting.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  2. Oh dear.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    So my brain didn't know that my brain didn't know...that my brain didn't know... break;

    1. Re:Oh dear.. by catmistake · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm going with Plato on this one... easier to swallow: we already knew everything, we just forgot, and we 'learn' by being reminded of what we already know (knew).

  3. Let me see if I understand this correctly by Chocolate+Teapot · · Score: 4, Funny

    The ability to introspect about self-performance is key to human subjective experience, but the neuroanatomical basis of this ability is unknown. Such accurate introspection requires discriminating correct decisions from incorrect ones, a capacity that varies substantially across individuals. We dissociated variation in introspective ability from objective performance in a simple perceptual-decision task, allowing us to determine whether this interindividual variability was associated with a distinct neural basis. We show that introspective ability is correlated with gray matter volume in the anterior prefrontal cortex, a region that shows marked evolutionary development in humans. Moreover, interindividual variation in introspective ability is also correlated with white-matter microstructure connected with this area of the prefrontal cortex. Our findings point to a focal neuroanatomical substrate for introspective ability, a substrate distinct from that supporting primary perception

    Nope.

    --
    Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
    1. Re:Let me see if I understand this correctly by Mikkeles · · Score: 4, Funny

      We found a distinct part of the brain that, if more developed in a particular way, lets one know that he sucks at making correct decisions. For everyone else, they don't realise that they suck.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
  4. Mostly, it doesn't by flaming+error · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In The Science of Fear (a book I heartily recommend), Daniel Gardner claims the strength of our "feeling of knowing" generally has no statistically significant correlation with factual reality. Humans are not very good at "knowing." and our most cherished concepts of "truth" may be unverifiable or demonstrably false.

    Which is why, paradox intended, a person who knows he knows nothing is wise.

    1. Re:Mostly, it doesn't by hedwards · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Precisely, I've found that I know far more than I think I know, and it isn't until later on that the knowledge is proved or disproved that I have any idea as to what I really know.

      It's odd sometimes how gut feeling and instinct end up being correct.

    2. Re:Mostly, it doesn't by Spatial · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm quite certain that you're wrong!

    3. Re:Mostly, it doesn't by Spatial · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's odd sometimes how gut feeling and instinct end up being correct.

      Nope. Confirmation bias is perfectly normal.

    4. Re:Mostly, it doesn't by farnsworth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Do you know you have more nerve endings in your stomach than in your head? Look it up. Now somebody's gonna say, "I did look that up and it's wrong." Well mister, that's cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, try looking it up in your gut. I did. And my gut tells me that's how our nervous system works."

      --

      There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.

    5. Re:Mostly, it doesn't by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or they find the infinitesimal unconvincing and so when they look at their own finite knowledge divided by the infinite knowledge they don't have, they get 0.

  5. So they're saying ... by PPH · · Score: 2, Funny

    .... there's an anatomical explanation for who is ignorant. If it takes an autopsy to arrive at the proper conclusion, I'm fine with that. Shoot them all and let the coroner sort them out.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  6. I seem to have a lesion by Duncan+J+Murray · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, at 3 weeks prior to the most important professional exam of my career, I appear to be posting on Slashdot.

    I hereby donate my brain to medical science so that the lesion present in my prefrontal cortex can help pinpoint this area more precisely.

  7. thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...for not linking the NPR article -- and for linking the same paywalled article twice. Good job. Is this what you were going for?

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/09/16/129910351/how-your-brain-figures-out-what-it-doesn-t-know

  8. Bill and Ted therefore must have been geniuses... by nebaz · · Score: 3, Funny

    Bill: "So-crates . . . the only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing."
    Ted: "That's US, dude!"
    Bill: "Oh, yeah!"

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
  9. Retraining self-assessment skills by manaway · · Score: 3, Informative

    The study mentioned at the end of the NPR article with this quote: "In fact, there was one study where people who are narcissistic would say they are really spectacularly good at this and they were actually worse than everyone else" is referring to Unskilled and Unaware of It (scanned pdf). The Unskilled study covers regular people too, not just us narcissists.

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Re:What you don't know by robot256 · · Score: 4, Informative

    "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know." --Donald Rumsfeld

  12. Let's give this a shot by istartedi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The ability to introspect about self-performance is key to human subjective experience, but the neuroanatomical basis of this ability is unknown

    Error correction is important; but we're not sure where the EC functionality is on this board.

    Such accurate introspection requires discriminating correct decisions from incorrect ones,

    Let's parrot the definition of EC in pretentious sounding verbiage so we'll look more important.

    a capacity that varies substantially across individuals

    Some of the EC chips are better than others.

    We dissociated variation in introspective ability from objective performance in a simple perceptual-decision task, allowing us to determine whether this interindividual variability was associated with a distinct neural basis.

    We ran the bogomips benchmark while some logic probes were placed in strategic locations.

    We show that introspective ability is correlated with gray matter volume in the anterior prefrontal cortex, a region that shows marked evolutionary development in humans

    We found some interesting signals on pin 3A of the 3rd chip from the CPU. By the way, did I mention that the Homo Sapiens model rocks? That's us. We RULE!

    Moreover, interindividual variation in introspective ability is also correlated with white-matter microstructure connected with this area of the prefrontal cortex. Our findings point to a focal neuroanatomical substrate for introspective ability, a substrate distinct from that supporting primary perception

    We're pretty sure that the ATMEL 5344-C with the glob of thermal goo performs some of this functionality on the system too. It looks like EC functionality is done on a couple of separate chips.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  13. Re:What you don't know by Philotic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "In March 2003, Donald Rumsfeld engaged in a little bit of amateur philosophising: "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." What he forgot to add was the crucial fourth term: the "unknown knowns", things we don't know that we know - which is precisely the Freudian unconscious. If Rumsfeld thought that the main dangers in the confrontation with Iraq were the "unknown unknowns", the threats from Saddam we did not even suspect, the Abu Ghraib scandal shows where the main dangers actually are in the "unknown knowns", the disavowed beliefs, suppositions and obscene practices we pretend not to know about, even though they form the background of our public values. To unearth these "unknown knowns" is the task of an intellectual."

    -Slavoj Zizek
    http://www.lacan.com/zizekempty.htm

  14. Re:What you don't know by ZorroXXX · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Also expressed as Orders of Ignorance by Phillip G. Armour in "The Laws of Software Process":
    • 0OI - Lack of Ignorance. You know something.
    • 1OI - Lack of Knowledge. You know that you do not know something.
    • 2OI - Lack of Awareness. You do not know that you do not know something.
    --
    When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
  15. Re:I guess it all boils down to distance by macraig · · Score: 2, Interesting

    EMOTIONAL detachment is part of the key. Emotions are a dangerous input to allow in the decision-making process. Sadly as a species we are wired to allow exactly that, excepting those blessed with specific neural damage or mutations.