While an apt distinction, I think it's important to acknowledge that one's body and subconscious often cannot distinguish between "anxiety" and "fear" even though our higher level faculties may.
I agree, but it often takes a lot of training and experience to truly know the difference when both both fear and anxiety feel the same physiologically.
Because it is relevant and you seem to not have made the connection? More importantly, it's not a comment just to you, but for anyone who may struggle managing their anxiety. I thought it would be helpful to explain further. I’ll try one more time.
If a person has the same physiological reaction, they often can’t tell one from the other. You can’t “just ignore it” if it provides the same subjective experience without having the skill set to acknowledge the distinction. A person public speaking and a person standing on the ledge of a cliff may have the same physiological response, despite one being anxiety and the other being fear. The problem is our decisions may be rooted in our lower brain faculties which can't tell the difference. It doesn’t justify reacting to anxiety (which seems to be what you're hung up on), but helps explain why it happens and why it’s so hard to change.
Not GP, but I think the point being made is that regardless of your ability to distinguish between the two, you still need to act according to one of the two, with less weight given to which it ends up being. Showing up late means you avoided making a decision, to the detriment of both others as well as yourself. So pick one now, and maybe next time figure out if that was what you were feeling or not.
I wasn't trying to justify the decision. I was just trying to add context. The poster kept using the word "reason". I.e., it isn't a rational choice to be late. I agree with that.
All I was trying to do is add nuance that reason is a higher-order faculty of the mind. Many of these decisions take root at lower levels, where rationality isn't present. Because your body and subconscious struggle to differentiate between the two, it may take a lot introspection and training to arrive at the right conclusion. None of that is in disagreement with the comment I was replying to, it just adds context as to why it's easier said than done and how it may take some specific skills to implement.
> Because your body and subconscious struggle to differentiate between the two, it may take a lot introspection and training to arrive at the right conclusion.
You still don't seem to understand my point. When you say things like "You can’t “just ignore it” if it provides the same subjective experience without having the skill set to acknowledge the distinction." that has nothing to do with my argument.
What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter which one it is. You don't need to reason about fear vs. anxiety at all. If you reach the right conclusion, you don't show up late. If you reach the wrong conclusion, you also don't show up late!
I never said it was easy to distinguish between the two. The key is that making an assumption works just fine too. If you assume it's one or the other, then you won't show up late.
Fear doesn't shut your brain off. If you can't tell whether a snake is venomous or not, you decide whether you're going to give it a wide berth based on a combination of emotion and/or logic. What you don't do is decide "it'll probably stop being venomous after a few minutes".
> The problem is our decisions may be rooted in our lower brain faculties which can't tell the difference. It doesn’t justify reacting to anxiety (which seems to be what you're hung up on), but helps explain why it happens and why it’s so hard to change.
That's not what I'm hung up on at all. What I'm hung up on is the idea that it would make you late. If the anxiety feels like real danger, and you're treating it as real danger, then don't show up at all. It's not a "dinner party" if you're scared for your safety.
I understand what you're saying but get the feeling you're painting in a light that just doesn't align with the way people make decisions.
Have you ever known someone who procrastinates on an important task even though they know it's important? They rationally know it's in their best interest and needs to get done. They know it's not fear, because there's no real threat of bodily harm. Yet they can't get the initiative to begin the task. Maybe they eventually get around to doing it because they can rationalize themselves into action, but why was there a delay at all?
I'm saying it's because the parts of our brain that help initiate decisions are affected by fight-or-flight stress. In the case above, the stress may be caused by the anxiety of an overwhelming task. Delayed action is a form of coping. It's not "fear", but there is still a delayed decision because anxiety initiates a similar response. Is it rational? Not at all. It still governed by the same mechanisms, but can be overridden even when it takes some time. Just like in a real fear scenario when people can't think straight enough to act. If you can understand that "being late" is, at times, a coping mechanism for that stress, then you can understand the relevance of my point.
>If you know it's anxiety then you know it's a bad reason
To underscore the point ad nauseum, "they" do not know, other than "they" feel the pangs of anxiety that lead to to the inability to act. There is a disconnect between their rationality and their mechanisms to make a decision. It's possible "their" rational faculties understand while "their" lower systems do not. There's no mental gymnastics necessary to see how the two can coexist. As I said, it takes a whole lot of introspection for some people to override that. The mind is not a single all-seeing rational "decider", unfortunately, and that's why things like cognitive dissonance are difficult to overcome.
All I can conclude from this discourse is we have very different ideas about the way the mind works. Yours does not seem consistent with the cognitive psychology of the last 30 or so years, particularly since fMRI studies became popular.
My conclusion is that you keep mixing up scenarios.
There is a scenario where they know it's anxiety, and a scenario where they don't.
I have completely different arguments for each scenario. But you keep mixing up which of my arguments goes to which scenario, and then refuting it in a way that doesn't make sense.
I mean, look at this part specifically:
you: They know it's not fear
me: If they know it's just anxiety
you: To underscore the point ad nauseum, "they" do not know
What the hell, how am I supposed to reply to this?
And when I say "know" I mean at a rational level. I'm not demanding emotions be rational, and I'm not demanding they not be paralyzed by emotions. I'm saying that IF they make a choice, that choice should not be "show up late". And IF they don't make a choice, because emotions are overriding decision-making entirely, then that's understandable but it's not a good reason. But those are two different scenarios. If If If.
>What the hell, how am I supposed to reply to this?
Ok, I'll try one last time to explain.
Neuroscientists generally divide the brain into 3 crude regions based on function and evolutionary development.
Region 1: the primitive "reptilian". This handles things like breathing and fight-or-flight response.
Region 2: the limbic system, "old mammalian", or "unconscious" system. This concerns things like social emotions and how you can intuit someone's intentions based on things like body language, tone of voice, etc.
Region 3: the neocortex or "new mammalian" system. This handles the rational processing of things like mathematics and logic.
Usually when people are talking about the "brain" they mean region 3, but they all work in concert with each other. My point of "they" is that there isn't a single monolith; there are times when the systems are incongruent.
So the rational brain may say "it's just a dinner party". To the rational brain there's no good reason to not go. But there's all kinds of reasons why Regions 1/2 may be screaming "don't go! It's dangerous!" It may not be rational, but those systems don't operate rationally. For example, one theory about the very common fear of public speaking is that it causes our limbic system to freak out because, from an evolutionary point of view, if you were speaking alone, in front of your tribe, it may be because you were at risk of being cast out. To a paleolithic human, that is a life-or-death risk. Unfortunately, that same functionality carries over to our current Region 2, and it doesn't know that it's just a powerpoint presentation without the same consequence.
So what does all that have to do with your point? When the different systems don't align, it causes wonky, irrational behavior, like indecisiveness. Like showing up late. You seem to be saying "Region 3, the rational brain, has made a conscious decision to be late. That's a bad choice." I agree, except it may not be the result of a conscious choice. It's possible their neocortex knows it's not fear while their limbic system does not. Research shows many of the choices we think are rational are actually rooted in our limbic system, which makes the reasonable choice more difficult for many people than you seem to assume.
We aren't in disagreement and it's interesting to me how you keep framing it as if we are. I agree being late isn't a good reason, as I've said previously. All I'm saying is that your advice to "just ignore it" requires a decent amount of introspection because of the way we're wired. Maybe you keep thinking we're in disagreement because it's on a forum and not face-to-face where your limbic system would be able to take in all the extra non-verbal/non-text information :-)
> We aren't in disagreement and it's interesting to me how you keep framing it as if we are.
Because you keep saying things like: [You seem to be saying "Region 3, the rational brain, has made a conscious decision to be late. That's a bad choice." I agree, except it may not be the result of a conscious choice.] and [your advice to "just ignore it"]
Because no, I'm not saying either of those things.
It might not be strictly "disagreement" but you're not understanding my argument at all.
Let me try one last time too.
There are two scenarios:
A) If region 1/2 is making the decision then it's understandable but irrational to show up late. We seem to agree on this.
B) Region 3 is making the decision. This is where we're having difficulty communicating.
Early on you said "it often takes a lot of training and experience to truly know the difference when both both fear and anxiety feel the same physiologically."
That's region 3 decision-making, right? Region 3 is trying to interpret region 1/2 and decide if there is real danger. Then region 3 plots a course of action.
So my direct reply, saying you "should" either "not go at all" or "ignore it" was specifically talking about scenario B, where region 3 is making decisions. Because region 3 is the part that's trying to interpret a gut feeling.
But then you saw the words "ignore it" and thought I was criticizing scenario A. I wasn't.
If region 1/2 causes someone to be late, I'm not calling them a bad decision maker.
If region 3 causes someone to be late, then I am calling them a bad decision maker. And I think I'm justified in this.
Since then it's been a huge mess of talking past each other. I can only hope that by wording it this way we can finally reach understanding.
At no point am I telling the theoretical chooser that they're expected to just suck it up and ignore regions 1/2. I'm very sympathetic if they fall victim to regions 1/2. I do say it's a bad reason to be late, but I don't blame them.
But if region 3 is in charge, I expect a semi-rational decision. And while I totally agree that it can be hard to distinguish between fear and anxiety, that quandry is not an excuse for showing up late. Because that quandry only has two answers, and neither answer is "show up late". Even if you don't know which answer is correct, you should know the answer is not "show up late". Again, this paragraph is only if region 3 is in charge.
Thanks for explaining. It seems our talking past each other stems from statements like:
>where region 3 is making decisions
>If region 3 causes someone to be late
>if region 3 is in charge
As you state, "this paragraph is only if region 3 is in charge." Central to my point is that Region 3 is not in charge like we generally think. Your perspective that the rational brain is in charge is common, but it's an error in understanding the way we make decisions. There's interesting research on this, but unfortunately not a lot of it because (for ethical reasons) it was previously required to find someone for damage to a specific portion of their brain. (Now they have other techniques). There are instances of people who have damage to their limbic system and literally take hours to make a decision with something as simple as where to get lunch. That should be a fairly easy decision if the rational Region 3 was in charge, right? But it's not; most of our decisions get initiated in Region 2 and then our Region 3 rationalizes an explanation. So someone will be late because Region 1/2 is scared and Region 3 comes up with a reason to justify their behavior like "I was afraid to meet you on my own."
Is it a good reason? No, but I was just laying context as to why it happens. To your point, we can learn to override it but often that is what results in a delayed decision because it takes time to reduce the cognitive dissonance. Hence being late.
Let me phrase it a different way then. Some decisions are made with region 3 as a critical part of the loop, and some aren't.
You're not navigating a map or writing a comment with regions 1 and 2 doing everything.
If it goes scared -> hide, then I don't blame region 3 for screwing up.
If it goes scared -> make plans -> pick a plan, then I will blame region 3 if it makes bad plans. Is it wrong for me to say region 3 is "in charge" here? Okay, maybe that's too simple of a way of looking at it. But region 3 has a lot of power and responsibility when it comes to planning. So if it's the logical planning step that fails, not because it was disrupted by fear but because it went "oh I can't tell if the fear is real, better get stuck on that and not explore the two whole possibilities", then that's a non-emotional screwup and I expect better.
>If it goes scared -> make plans -> pick a plan, then I will blame region 3 if it makes bad plans.
The error in your mental model here is that you equate Region 3 with being the "plan maker". As I said previously, an awful lot of the time Region 2 is actually the decider and Region 3 just rationalizes it. You can see this with the priming research. The way it often goes is
Region 1/2 gets a response -> Region 2 makes a decision on a course of action -> Region 3 rationalizes that course of action.
A researcher may bring in a subject and ask them to describe their idea of a good vacation. Maybe around the room there are influences like pictures of a beach and oranges and the subject talks about planning a vacation to Florida. Meanwhile, with other subjects they use pictures of mountains and there is a higher likelihood the person describes a vacation in Colorado. It's not that their Region 3 was influenced by Region 2; it's literally that Region 2 made the decision without Region 3 even being cognizant of it. You can even see this on an fMRI where the limbic system makes decisions even before the person is consciously aware a decision was made. And then Region 3 comes up with all kinds of elaborate reasons why like "I've always wanted to go to Disney World" or "I grew up skiing and want to try it again."
There's other classic examples of people thinking they are being rational but really just being subject to Region 2's decisions. The 1960 presidential election is a famous example. Different groups were selected (years after the election so the weren't politically biased); one watched the televised debate and the other listened to the radio broadcast. Time and again, each came up with different winners of the debate. The TV group thought Kennedy won, while the radio group thought Nixon did. Why? Because each group's Region 2 got different information. The TV group saw a young, vibrant, tan Kennedy with great hair and saw a pale, sick, Nixon without any makeup. The radio group heard a Nixon with an authoritative deep gravely voice and a Kennedy with a harsh, nasally Boston accent. Yet when pressed, each group was great at rationalizing their choice that had nothing to do with any of that; both based it on the same debate words. If a rational Region 3 made the plans to vote, it would only be based on the content of their words. The fact that it's not, just like the fact that the man with the damaged limbic system couldn't make simple plans like what to have for lunch, points to the fact that many of our decisions are actually rooted in Region 2.
The common perception is that Region 3 gets influenced by the other parts of the brain but ultimately makes it's own decisions as if it's some ultimate judge who weighs all the evidence. We like to think we're rational and consciously in charge. That's understandable but not congruent with much of the research.
What you're essentially doing is blaming Region 3 for Region 2's irrationality.
Why do you keep removing the word if and telling me I'm assuming things?
Sometimes people rationalize things, and they're wrong about why they did something.
But there are logical planning things that only region 3 is capable of.
> The error in your mental model here is that you equate Region 3 with being the "plan maker". As I said previously, an awful lot of the time Region 2 is actually the decider and Region 3 just rationalizes it.
I don't understand this criticism, unless you're treating plan maker and plan decider as the same thing? I was already leaving it open for region 2 to be the decider.
If region 2 is completely on its own then it's not making much of a plan, is it?
>Why do you keep removing the word if and telling me I'm assuming things?
Not only was acknowledging your "if" statement, I was quoting you directly in previous replies. The issue is that you're whole argument hinges on a conditional that, if anything, is the exception rather than the rule.
If you heard a politician propose a policy that said "We can abolish the [insert arbitrary govt oversight organization here] because it isn't needed if people are rational, ethical actors", what would your reaction be? While that statement may still be true, the underlying assumption is flawed: people cannot be counted on to be rational or ethical in many circumstances. Likewise, your underlying assumption that decisions are made with our rational brain is not the general rule. Despite what we'd like to think, Region 2 governs our decisions and plans. Again, if your assumption was true, there would be no problem with a person making lunch plans if they had a damaged limbic system. Research shows otherwise, so either the research is flawed or your underlying assumption is flawed.
>unless you're treating plan maker and plan decider as the same thing? I was already leaving it open for region 2 to be the decider
Yes, I meant them to be the same, sorry if my terminology caused confusion. My point is the the plan decision/making is not initiated by our rational mind as a general rule. It's not that Region 2 "decides" and then Region 3 weighs that decision to figure out how to execute it. It's that Region 2 "decides" and Region 3 makes up a story so that the decision is congruent with our mental models. My Region 2 decides it wants a doughnut and my Region 3 says "Yeah, you've worked out hard this morning so the doughnut isn't necessarily unhealthy." Region 3 has ensured my decision is congruent with my mental model that I'm a hard worker who deserves a reward. That's easier than confronting a mental model where I'm a fatty who lacks willpower. Region 3 is our logic center so it will jump through hoops to make sure our mental models and decisions are logically consistent.
Your "if" statement can be true, while also being largely inconsequential because the underlying conditional is not the general rule. This creates some irony in you underscoring that my point is irrelevant if your statement is about real world application.
> While that statement may still be true, the underlying assumption is flawed: people cannot be counted on to be rational or ethical in many circumstances.
Except I'm trying to cover rational and irrational cases in separate halves of the "if".
I know in many circumstances people aren't going to be rational. Those are covered by a separate argument entirely.
> Likewise, your underlying assumption that decisions are made with our rational brain is not the general rule. Despite what we'd like to think, Region 2 governs our decisions and plans. Again, if your assumption was true, there would be no problem with a person making lunch plans if they had a damaged limbic system.
How do you think I'm saying this!? I'm not saying this!
All I'm saying is that region 3 is sometimes involved, and sometimes necessary to comprehend the options. If region 2 always makes the actual decision, that's fine. It doesn't undermine my argument.
> My point is the the plan decision/making is not initiated by our rational mind as a general rule. It's not that Region 2 "decides" and then Region 3 weighs that decision to figure out how to execute it. It's that Region 2 "decides" and Region 3 makes up a story so that the decision is congruent with our mental models.
Sometimes. Sometimes!!!
> Your "if" statement can be true, while also being largely inconsequential because the underlying conditional is not the general rule. This creates some irony in you underscoring that my point is irrelevant if your statement is about real world application.
It's irrelevant because you're talking about the ratio of people in the different if-statements, but all the if-statements have the same conclusion about showing up late.
>Except I'm trying to cover rational and irrational cases in separate halves of the "if". I know in many circumstances people aren't going to be rational. Those are covered by a separate argument entirely.
Your worldview is still to rigid to understand what I'm saying and maybe it's because I'm being too diplomatic. I'm not willing to say in absolute terms that Region 2 makes all decisions because science is never absolute; I'm trying to be generous in my wording and you're reading too much into it to fit your own aims. That's a perfect example of Region 3 rationalizing your mental model.
You're essentially saying "It's perfectly safe to stare at the sun." and when presented with different evidence, you retort "Aha! What about during an eclipse! See!? I told you I was right!" It's superficially true, sure, but such a minority circumstance that it's not only of little value, but it fails to understand the actual principles that guide the counterargument.
>All I'm saying is that region 3 is sometimes involved
Nobody is denying region 3 is involved, the key part is if it's making a the decision or just rationalizing it to make us feel good. Do you actually know what the "ratio of people" is to make your statement true, or is that just a useful mechanism for avoiding backpedaling on the claim? If we were talking about performing long division rather than a social function, we'd probably have a different discussion, but Region 2 is what governs our social interactions.
Look. Even the people at the forefront of cognitive psychology admit they can't overcome their Region 2 biases. These are Nobel laureates who've studied this stuff for decades and even they admit they are unable to make unbiased, rational decisions in real time. If they can't overcome it, the ratio of people who can is probably vanishingly small.
If you were to say from the onset that you acknowledge that people don't make such decisions with their rational mind, but if they were to, it would be a bad decision, that's perfectly sensible. You'd have acknowledged you understand both the mechanisms underpinning human cognition and the fact that you're hypothetical scenario is limited to a theoretical thought experiment. But that's not what you did, you made a claim and kept rules-lawyering around it when presented with counterclaims.
A thoughtful and curious person would say, "Huh. I guess I didn't realize that's the way the mind works." and then update their mental model accordingly. Those that aren't will dig their heels in to avoid the cognitive dissonance that occurs when their mental model is incorrect.
