Kitap: On Being Certain

On Being Certain bildiğimiz şeyleri gerçekten bildiğimize nasıl karar veririz sorusunu araştırıyor. Bilme hissi bilgimize güvenme, kalbimize ışık doğması, malum olma gibi tanımlanabilir. Kitap bilme hissi ile mantığın aynı bilişsel süreçlerin sonucu olmadığını iddia ediyor ve son derece ilginç kanıtlar sunuyor. Bilme hissinin mantıkla çatıştığı durumlarda insanların genellikle bilme hissinden yana tavır aldıklarını, bunun da önemli (ve çoğu zaman olumsuz) sonuçları olduğunu gösteriyor. Kitabın 154. sayfasında belirttiği gibi, bir düşüncenin/kararın doğru olduğunu hissetmekle o kararın doğru olduğuna dair ispat sunmak aynı şey değildir.

Benzer bir konu: Cognitive dissonance

Because it is often easier to make excuses than it is to change behavior, dissonance theory leads to the conclusion that humans are rationalizing and not always rational beings.

Birine son derece mantıklı argümanlar sunduğunuz halde onu ikna edemediyseniz nedeni karşınızdakinin bilme hissini kıramamanız olabilir. Kendimiz de doğru düzgün irdelemeden kabul ettiğimiz şeyleri bilme hissiyle sarmalayıp beynimizin kuytularına kaldırmış olabiliriz. Mütemadiyen beyin kıvrımlarımız arasında dolaşıp tozlu raflardaki inançlarımızın tozunu almalı, bilme hissi ile mi yoksa mantık ile mi arşivlenmiş olduklarını kontrol etmeliyiz. Kendini kandırmak istemeyenlere ve daha sağlıklı düşünmek arzusunda olanlara öneririm.

Altını çizdiğim bölümler:

[p.xiii] Despite how certainty feels, it is neither a conscious choice nor even a thought process. Certainty and similar states of "knowing what we know" arise out of involuntary brain mechanisms that, like love or anger, function independently of reason.

[p.7] Logic and reason rarely are "convincing." (In this context, "convincing" is synonymous with reviving this missing "feeling of knowing what life is about.")

[p.17] ...the most striking shared characteristic of these delusional misidentification syndromes is that the conflict between logic and a contrary feeling of knowing tends to be resolved in favor of feeling. Rather than rejecting ideas and beliefs that defy common sense and overwhelming contrary evidence, such patients end up using tortured logic to justify the more powerful sense of knowing what they know.

[p.21] It is no great accomplishment to hear voices in your head. The accomplishment is to make sure that it is telling you the truth.

[p.39] It is as though objective evidence cannot trigger a proper feeling of knowing, leaving OCD [obsessive-compulsive disorder] victims in a state of heightened doubt and anxiety.

[p.41] In the human brain, a typical neuron receives incoming information from approximately ten thousand other neurons.

[p.89] Feelings of strangeness and unfamiliarity can warn us that we are making a wrong turn in our thinking. ("That doesn't feel right.", "Something's rotten in Denmark")

[p.95] The problem is that we need a reward strong enough to tide us over until our thoughts can be verified. And, to be convincing, it must feel similar to the feeling we get when we know a thought is correct and can prove it.

[p.98] Might the know-it-all personality trait be seen as an addiction to the pleasures of the feeling of knowing? [Benden bahsediyor(!)]

[p.99] If the fundamental thrust of education is "being correct" rather than acquiring a thoughtful awareness of ambiguities, inconsistencies, and underlying paradoxes, it is easy to see how the brain reward systems might be molded to prefer certainty over open-mindedness.

[p.109] One of the problems in thinking about genetics and behavior is the difference between innate tendencies and actual predictability of behavior.

[p.130] In order to focus your full attention on immediate concerns, it makes sense to have non directed, less pressing, or longer-range thoughts occurring in silence [in the subconscious].

[p.137] Unconscious thoughts with a sufficiently high calculated likelihood of correctness will be consciously experienced as feeling right.

[p.139] We know the nature and quality of our thoughts via feelings, not reason.

[p.141] There is no isolated circuitry within the brain that can engage itself in thought free from involuntary and undetectable influences. Without this ability, certainty is not a biologically justifiable state of mind.

[p.141] How do we know that this sense of knowledge can be trusted? [We don't]

[p.146] The bad news is that it is difficult to know ourselves because there is no direct access to the adaptive unconscious, no matter how hard we try... introspection without looking outward at how others see us can actually be counterproductive.

[p.148] Just because we develop split-second decision making to enhance survival doesn't guarantee that these decisions are always correct.

[p.149] Decisions are made for us by our unconscious; the conscious is in charge of making up reasons for those decisions which sound rational. We can, on the other hand, think rationally about the choices that other people make. We can do this because we do not know and are not trying to satisfy unconscious needs and childhood fantasies. [Another reason why having intelligent people around to help you out is so important]

[p.154] A feeling that a decision is right is not the same as providing evidence that it is right.

[p.167] Good science is more than the mechanics of research and experimentation. Good science requires that scientists look inward - to contemplate the origin of their thoughts. The failures of science do not begin with flawed evidence or fumbled statistics; they begin with personal self-deception and an unjustified sense of knowing.

[p.176] All arguments about reason and rationality eventually get down to what we can know versus what we take on faith.

[p.179] ...one of the hallmarks of severe clinical depression is a diminished or absent sense of meaning and purpose... We don't browbeat depressed patients to "get over it" because we are willing to accept that brain chemistry aberrations somehow result in the loss of a sense of meaning.

[p.180] If we abandon the belief that the feelings of purpose and meaning are within our conscious control, and see them as involuntary mental sensations closely related to the feeling of knowing, we have a potentially powerful tool for reconsidering the science-religion conflict.

[p.181] Why we exist is a matter of personal opinion and speculation, not a question for scientific inquiry.

[p.182] How do you articulate a personal sense of purpose when you intellectually have concluded that the world is pointless?

[p.183] To expect well-reasoned arguments to easily alter personal expressions of purpose is to misunderstand the biology of belief.

[p.214] Mental sensations will prompt us to feel or not feel that we are choosing and that we can know when such "thoughts" are correct. Combine a feeling of knowing with the feeling of choice and you can begin to see the immense complexity of "knowing when you have made a willful choice."

[p.223] Certainty is not biologically possible... Science has given us the language and tools of probabilities. We have methods for analyzing and ranking opinion according to their likelihood of correctness.

mp3: Santigold (formerly Santogold) - Say Aha