Three More Reasons Why Your Brain is Not Your Friend
Last week, I explained some of the ways that our brain tricks us. There’s more ways than just the three I listed that the brain works in odd and mysterious ways, causing us no end of mischief. Here’s three more:
I am not a racist!
In 1964, a woman named Kitty Genovese was beaten and killed in an attack witnessed by dozens of people, none of whom intervened. In studies to understand this phenomenon, psychologists discovered the “bystander effect” (sometimes called the “Genovese effect” after the victim), which says that the more bystanders witness an attack, the less likely it is that any individual will intervene. Each individual witness believes that someone else will intervene, and that their action is therefore not needed.
In a follow-up study to explore the effect of race in this equation, psychologists found that if a lone individual witnessed an attack by a white person on a black person, they were more likely to intervene than when they witnessed a white-on-white attack. When confronted with a racialized situation, most people feel compelled to intervene because not to intervene would make them feel like racists. In cases where other witnesses were present, the subjects were actually less likely to intervene in a white-on-black attack than similar subjects witnessing a white-on-white attack. In these instances, the presence of other potential interveners allows the subject to avoid the self-accusation of racism — they can tell themselves that they’re staying out of it because someone else will intervene, not because they’re racist.
These results are repeated in a similar study in which subjects were asked to play the part of jury member in a trial against a black defendant. Each subject was supplied with the details of the case and then watched recordings of 11 jurors explaining why they felt the defendant was guilty. In cases where the recorded jury members were all white, the subjects were very likely to find the defendant “not guilty”, feeling that the other jurors were racists and they were standing up against the other jurors’ racism. When one of the recordings was replaced by a black juror with the same argument, however, the subjects were much more likely to find the defendant “guilty”. If a black person thought the defendant was guilty, then it couldn’t be racist to agree, right?
Pay no attention to the man in the gorilla suit
In The Art of the Start, Guy Kawasaki describes a study performed with college-aged subjects in which they were asked to watch a video of several people passing a ball around and count the total number of passes and catches. At one point, a man with a gorilla suit enters the scene, thumps his chest a bit, and hangs out for 9 seconds.
After watching the video, subjects were interviewed about what they had seen. A full 50% of the students did not see the gorilla. This phenomenon is called “perceptual blindness” or “inattentional blindness”, and occurs when we become so focused on what we’re doing that we fail to see anything that does not directly play into the task at hand. We basically fail entirely to pay attention to things we don’t expect to see.
You’re such a girl!
Pity the poor college student — here’s another study involving college student subjects. In this one, male subjects were given a personality survey, after which the testers would tell them their character was especially feminine or especially masculine. The results were bogus, chosen at random, to set the subjects up for the second part of the study in which they were asked their opinions on such things as same-sex marriage, the war in Iraq, and President Bush’s performance.
Men who were told that they had “feminine” personalities were much more supportive of President Bush and of the War, and much more opposed to same-sex marriage, than the men who were told they were very masculine. In essence, one group of men were called “sissies” and felt put upon to assert and thus prove their masculinity, while the other group felt unthreatened and thus more able to respond freely.
We’re all doomed(?)
What should we do with all this? Are we simply doomed? Are we just dumb animals dominated by a couple pounds of irrational meat?
I don’t think so. We are, of course, capable of deep reasoning — consider the work of the great philosophers, brilliant scientists, and far-sighted social critics. These quirks of thought don’t undermine our rationality, they coexist with it.
Some of these gremlins in our thinking machine are the product of social conditions that we can change — but knowing they’re there and how they work is a prerequisite for that. Others are features, not bugs — anyone who has ever been deep in the “flow” of their work can attest to the value of perceptual blindness which allows us to “tune out” the inessential and distracting.
Ultimately, knowing is better than not knowing. Those of us who are committed to the idea of personal improvement think a lot about the habits that hold us back and prevent us from achieving our goals, whatever they are. Knowing that we have a tendency to see others through the prism of race and gender, that we often act in ways that only become conscious after the fact, or that might blind us to important events as well as to trivial distractions can, I think, help us to better realize our goals.
At least that’s what my brain tells me to think.
Tags: 
Get your own Avatars at 
Loading ...
Comments
Santiago says on October 19th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
I saw the gorilla video on TV, I haven’t found it on the net but I want to test my family with it, do you have a link to it?
Great article!
Dustin Wax says on October 19th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
The video is available at http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/grafs/demos/15.html; I’m not sure if that’s the entire piece or just a clip of the part where the gorilla walks in. Unfortunately, the video will only play in IE (or at least, won’t play in Firefox — dunno about Safari or Opera).
Guillaume Riesen says on October 19th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
This is a ridiculous article, frankly.
Asserting that humans are ‘dominated’ by our brains is like saying that a computer is ‘dominated’ by its hardware – the computer IS the hardware, just like we ARE our brains. The whole scope of human thought and perception is tinted by the quirks in our brains, and there’s nothing we can do about it. Even our concept of logic and truth isn’t necessarily an objective truth.
Instead of pretending to be looking at a flawed machine from a ‘perfect’ viewpoint, you should acknowledge that your ability to understand this flawed machine is quite limited, because you yourself ARE a flawed machine.
Dustin Wax says on October 19th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Guillaume, I’ll think you’ll find on re-reading that that’s what I *did* say. As in “are… we dominated by [our brains]?” “I don’t think so.”
Have a look and see.
Danielle Blogging for Balance says on October 20th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Thanks for validating the lectures that I give in my Intro Psychology class ;) At least I know that I am bringing up some points of importance and providing some stimulating discussions…I have used something similar with the ‘feminine personality’ study to discuss ethics in research ;)
Nice article.
silentflute says on October 20th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Interesting articles Dustin. When reading this subject matter it always surprises my how much it runs in parallel with Buddhist thought. Humans have a hundred thousand plus years of development and our bodies are actually smarter than we are – just be thankful we don’t have to run our own systems. But with that comes organic thoughts and reactions we are only now becoming aware of and realizing we have choices to make. Breaking down the schism between science and our personal spiritual growth is the next big leap for us as a culture. Thanks for your efforts.
Eric says on October 20th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
This topic perfectly shows why we shouldn’t consider psychology a science.
Rich says on October 20th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Interesting article, but don’t you feel a little vulnerable taking complex studies and putting your analysis after words? Did the studies authors feel so bold? I’m a tad bit scared of defining the social difference between bugs and features. We probably need more research. Possibly a bit more self reflection first.
anon says on October 21st, 2007 at 1:51 am
If we failed to pay attention to things we don’t expect to see, we’d never be surprised.
Martin Wildam says on October 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 am
50 % didn’t see the gorilla? … mmmhh … what if a nice girl in bikini would have passed by? ;-)
A lot of such experiments do tell something very detail under very special circumstances. I do not think that they are so easily adoptable to daily life.
Taylor @ ImprovLifestyle says on October 22nd, 2007 at 10:02 am
Here’s another one: Fear is an outdated emotion. Fear used to just protect us from pain or death, but now it is used for feeling discomfort.
By realizing this, you can defeat fear by embracing discomfort. When you defeat discomfort, you can experience the successes beyond discomfort.
Steve C Wilson says on October 22nd, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Very thought-provoking article, Dustin. Perceptual blindness is more common than many people realize. We studied this phenomenon in one of my graduate classes, and found many examples in corporate life. Businesses can get so focused on achieving their strategic objectives that they ignore new information that would suggest that the objectives need to change. Railroads are a classic example — they had a chance to dominate the transportation industry, but were so focused on railroads that they ignored trucks when they entered the picture.
Cody says on October 23rd, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Definitely makes you think. The gorilla bit surprised me, though. I would think anyone would notice a man in a gorilla suit, even if it was unexpected.
heartmann says on November 6th, 2007 at 1:59 am
The gorilla suit cracked me up! I totally wouldn’t see that one had I been in that same test myself. Just running an image of the test and the gorilla through my brain, and I felt kinda weird. Haha totally unexpected!
Michael says on December 3rd, 2007 at 4:55 am
Im a little skeptical about how far you’ve taken your point on the third example invloving the war, bush, and the sissies.
If you would, i would like to have the info so I can pull that article and read it and the discussion section (written by the authors) for myself. I doubt they were so brash with their analysis.
Dustin Wax says on December 3rd, 2007 at 11:04 am
Michael: The report (not the study itself), by Mary Beckman, was entitled “How to Sell Humvees to Men” but is not available online except to paying members of the AAAS. I suppose you could contact Beckman and ask for more information, or track down a physical copy and check the references.
Rob says on September 18th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
I enjoyed your article. However, the “You’re such a girl!” piece states, “… one group… felt put upon… to prove their masculinity, while the other group felt unthreatened and thus more able to respond freely.” That’s a fairly broad assumption regarding “the other group” and their ability to “respond freely.” While this could, in fact, be true… It could also be that people labeled as “masculine” might have a subconscious tendency to respond in a “feminine” way as a rebellion against being categorized (Thus, not feeling “unthreatened”).
question says on September 25th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
“Your brain cells make you think?”
You are your brain cells. They can’t make YOU think. You’re thinking already.